the common law, that the witness confesses himself guilty, but takes indemnity for the purpose of enabling him to convict another. A material objection he had to the bill was, that it called on the house to admit that money had been ap plied by the parties implicated, contrary to law; and thus might prejudge the very cause their lordships had to try. A word also of most extraordinary extent and operation was used in the bill. The witnesses were to give evidence as to their belief, as well as knowledge and remembrance. This was contrary to all law, to call on a man to give his belief as evidence in a criminal procedure. The last clause of the bill was, however, in his mind, most exceptionable. The witnesses are by that exempt from all civil proceedings, as well as criminal; and from all civil suits of private persons that may have been injured by their transactions, and may have a legal remedy against them. This was an extent of indemnity not warranted by the motives and reasons of giving indemnity. They are indemnified, by the express words of the bill, for illegal application of any money; and though he was persuaded the commons intended any public money, yet if the witnesses owe him money which they have misap→ plied, he may seek for it, but without the assistance of the law, if this bill passes. He thought it his duty to point out these objections to the bill. If it stood as it is at present, the indemnity offered to the witnesses, in the case of exemption from all civil suits, is a premium and wages offered for their convicting Lord Melville. It is a price given for their evidence, and a temptation that should not be held out. Whether he should oppose the bill or not, would depend on what should be done in the committee.

Lord Holland agreed that many of the objections of the noble and learned lord deserved consideration; but they might all be removed in the committee. He contended there were sufficient grounds and evidence regularly before the house, to vindicate the principle of the bill. These were in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, in the subsequent report of the select committee, and in the articles of impeachment. To reject this bill would be equally injustice to Lord Melville and the country. It might happen that the witnesses had used the public money without the privity of Lord Melville, as to the extent or application. In that case, what would the house of commons, the people, and the whole world say, if they deprived his lordship of the proofs of innocence offered by this bill? The anxiety of the public

also

also demanded, that the bill should not be deferred to the next session. He therefore hoped the house would go into a committee, where the objections to the bill would be easily

removed.

Lord Hawkesbury was ready to commend the candour of the noble lord who fpoke laft, and his readiness to acquiefce in fuch amendments as fhould not prove fatal to the bill. There was certainly much latitude in the wording of the bill, and in many provifions it appeared to be violent in the extreme. He withed, nevertheless, that his noble and learned friend would fo concur with the noble ioid, as that no unneceffary delay might intervene, and to that effect he should with the house would perr it the bill to be now committed, and that the amendments be prepared for the third reading.

Lord Sidmouth concurred in the wifh of his noble friend, (Hawkesbury,) that there might be no delay in the progrefs of the bill, and that the amendments, which might be easily drawn up, would be admitted on the third reading. He was rather aftonished at the very harth epithets bestowed upon the bill: fuch bill, fo worded, futely fhould not be fuppofed to come from the hands of those who were known to have framed the bill, which befides, it fhould be recollected, had received the fanction of the other house of parliament. Had his noble and learned friend more minutely examined the title of the bill, he would have perceived, that if the grammatical latitude of application which many of the claufes feemed fufceptible of, were limited and restrained by the title, it would be lamentable indeed, if mere technical formalities were allowed to ftand in the way of public juftice and the vindication of truth, in a cafe where the houfe, no doubt, were naturally much more anxious to fubftantiate innocence than to detect and establish guilt.

After fome converfation, the fuggeflion of Lord Hawkefbury was acquiefced in, and the bill went through the committee pro forma.

On the motion of Lord Hawkefbury, the bill was then ordered to be read the third time the next day.

The glafs duty bill went through a committee.

PADDINGTON CANAL COAL BILL.

The Marquis of Buckingham prefented a petition from a number of inhabitants of the county of Middlesex, against the bill for reftricting the quantity of coals to be

brought

brought to London by the Paddington canal, and for impofing a duty on them.

The houfe having gone into a committee on the bill, Lord Walfingham in the chair, the noble marquis ftated his objections to it, as tending feverely to affect the lower orders. The coals in question were chiefly used by the bakers, fo that any duty on them would neceffarily increase the price of bread. Several manufactories, worked by steam, had been erected within the limits of the operation of the bill, (twenty-five miles from London,) which muft inevitably top working. He fhould be more fcrupulous in oppofing the measure, if it were one intended as a means of fupply to the revenue; but as it was merely a local regulation, he moved that the chairman do leave the chair, with the inten tion of afterwards propofing that the bill fhould be read a third time that day three months.

Lord Harrowby defended the bill, contending that it protected the Newcastle trade, which it was well known was of ineftimable value to Great Britain, as a nursery for her feamen; and that fo far from leffening the quantity of coals to be brought to the London market, it permitted the introduction of what was totally prohibited.

The Marquis of Buckingham perfifting in his motion, the houfe divided.

Contents 8. Not Contents 13. Majority 5.

The different claufes of the bill then underwent confiderable difcuffion, in which the Marquis of Buckingham, Lord Harrowby, the Duke of Montrofe, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Holland, and Lord Hawkesbury, participated. It chiefly related to the mode of conveying to the pit and barge owners, the information, when the limited quantity (50,000 tons) had paffed the boundary, to the duty which the bill appeared to impofe on the cinders of fea coal, fent by the canal into the country, as manure, &c. and to the object for which the duties were to be levied.

Several amendments propofed by the Marquis of Buckingham, were at length agreed to be deferred till the third reading, for the purpofe of facilitating the progrefs of the bill.

SMUGGLING BILL.

The house then went into a committee on the fmuggling prevention bill. Lord Holland ftated, that his objection to the measure

was

was principally directed against that part of the bill which amounts to an adoption of the principle of our right to legiflate internally for the islands. At a time when their lordships were about to grant a compenfation to an individual for his lofs in rights of a fimilar nature in one island, we fhould be extremely cautious as to the exercife of our power, if legal power we had, over the conftituted authorities of another island, without making fome inquiry as to how far their rights may be affected. In the prefent advanced state of the feffion it was impoflible that fuch an inquiry could be made; he therefore hoped that the bill would not be fuffered now to pafs; and for that purpofe moved that the chairman do now leave the chair, with the view of entering more minutely into the difcuffion of the fubje&t in the enfuing feffion of parliament.

Lord Hawkesbury maintained that, if their lordships did not give authority to enforce the non-ufage of casks of a certain defcription, and if they did not grant the right to fearch within the ports of Guernsey and Jerfey, they could never fairly hope to prevent fmuggling between thofe iflands and Great Britain. And, as to the right to legiflate internally for the islands now mentioned, he infifted on it that it was a fair and equitable principle acknowledged by the conftitution, that whatever belonged to the crown of Great Britain fhould be confequently fubject to the right of the parliament of Great Britain to legiflate for it; and this right had been acted on from the time of William the third to the reign of his prefent majefty, by the paffing of various acts of parliament.

The Duke of Clarence declared that in his opinion it was impoffible that the fair and honourable trade of the islands could be carried on unlefs fome alteration were made in many claufes of the bill.

Lord Holland thought that this country had had sufficient experience to judge of the propriety of exercifing our right to legiflate internally for our dependencies. The laws which had been mentioned by the noble fecretary of ftate as bear-" ing upon the prefent cafe, did not appear to him to have the leaft analogy to the prefent bill.

Contents 6.

The house afterwards divided on the firft clause, which extends the operation of the bill to Guernsey and Jerfey, Not Contents 19. The bill was then paffed through the committee and, reported.

DUKE

DUKE OF ATHOL.

On the queftion for going into a committee on the Duke of Athol's bill,

The Marquis of Buckingham oppofed any further proceedings in it for the prefent.

It was defended by the Earl of Weftmorland and Lord Hawkefbury.

After which an adjournment was moved by the Marquis of Buckingham.

On this the boufe divided. For the adjournment

The Earl of Carysfort and the Marquis of Buckingham then alluded to the want of a deed in the year 1746, and on that account it was moved that the bill be committed that day three months. This motion was, however, negatived without a divifion.

The houfe then went into a committee, when the counfel for the house of keys were ordered to be called in, for the purpose of ftating the interefts which it was alleged they had in oppofing the prefent bill.

Mr. Romilly was heard in explanation on that point.

The Lord Chancellor did not think that any fufficient interefts had been affigned by the petitioners, to induce their lordships to allow them to be heard in detail, in fupport of their objections.

The Marquis of Buckingham thought fufficient grounds had been affigned by the learned counfel in fupport of the petitioners interefts to be heard.

It was determined, however, that the bill be proceeded in.

The Marquis of Buckingham again moved that the house do adjourn, (it being nearly one o'clock,) but the motion was negatived.

On the motion for poftponing the preamble as ufual,

The Lord Chancellor objected to it, as containing objectionable terms, and as proceeding on the narrative that the fovereignty of the Ifle of Man had been conveyed by King VOL. III. 1805.

4 E

Henry