any obfervation. The cafe now brought before the House certainly was not without blame; but the House must feel, that it was not one which required the interference of Parliament. On that account, he would move the previous quef

tion.

Sir Francis Burdett, in reply, faid, the queftion was, whether fome perfon was not refponfible for tome great neglect which had produced a great public evil, by nearly thaking the credit of Government, and fuffering a great criminal to escape juftice. With refpect to what he had faid, as to the people having no other opportunity of expreffing their fentiments, except at elections, he meant that great body of the people from whom the right of elective franchife was withheld.

The previous queftion was then put and carried; by which means the original motion was loft.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up certain papers relative to the grants of lands to Lord Amherst. Ordered to lie on the table.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

The Houfe having refolved itfelf into a Committee on the magiftrates' protection bill,

Mr. Giles ftrongly objected to it, on the ground of its taking away the power and privileges of juries in cafes which hitherto were decided by the judge and jury together: he then moved a claufe, for the purpote of giving to juries the full exercite of their power.

Mr. Hurt oppofed the bill, because he thought magiftrates were already fufficiently protected, and did not require the pro tection intended to be given by this measure.

Sir Robert Buxton faid, that a most valuable magiftrate of his acquaintance had refigned his office, becaufe a penalty was awarded against him for a conviction he had made, on account of that conviction not having been drawn up in all legal form of fpecial pleading. If country gentlemen, who, without any emolument, dedicated fo much of their time to the public fervice in the character of magiftrates, were not protected against informations and penalties, none would be found to act in that' capacity.

Mr. Kinnaird faid, he confidcred this bill as a direct attack on the rights and privileges of juries.

The Attorney General faid, the object of the bill was nothing more than this: that when a conviction made by a magiftrate was drawn up informally or incorrectly, the judges, in cafes of

appeal,

appeal, fhould have a difcretionary power, if they thought there had been no improper conduct on the part of the magiftrate, to prevent any damages from being awarded against them. They were to have the power of deciding the question without fending it to a jury.

Mr. Serjeant Beft opposed the bill.

Mr. Ellifon fupported it.

The Houfe divided on the amendment,

The bill then went through the Committee.

28.

Mr. Corry moved for leave to bring in a bill for rendering juftices of the peace, and governors, and deputy-governors, in Ireland, more fafe in the execution of juftice in that country, and for indemnifying conftables and others acting by the orders of juftices of the peace, intended as a counterpart to the act of 24 Geo. II. Leave given.

The bill for improving the Highlands of Scotland was read a third time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

The House went into a Committee on the Bell Rock lighthoufe bill; the report was received, and ordered to be taken into further confideration on Friday next.

Mr. Alexander prefented the report of the Committee on the Irish malting and diftillery regulation bill. The bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day, and then engroffed.

The House refolved into a Committee on the friendly focieties' bill. The report was received, and the bill ordered to be engroffed.

The Grenada loan bill was read a fecond time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

Mr. Alexander prefented a report of the port wine exportation bill. The amendments were agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time the next day.

Mr. Alexander brought up a bill for the prevention of frauds committed by bum-boatmen and others, plying on the river Thames, and for otherwife amending the police of that river; which bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a fecond time the next day.

Adjourned.

HOUSE

HOUSE OF LORDS.

WEDNDSDAY, JULY 13.

The exchequer bills bill for five millions, the Irish cuftom duties bill, the militia pay bill, the militia adjutants bill, the London port bill, the Blackburne paving bill, and two private bills, received the royal affent by commiffion.

All the bills on the table paffed a stage each.

The order of the day for the fecond reading of the woollen manufacture bill being read, counfel was called to the bar to be heard on the petitions against the principle of the bill.

The Lord Chancellor afked which of the gentlemen appeared on behalf of the petitions from the cloth hall at

Leeds?

Mr. Piggott faid he did.

The Lord Chancellor defired Mr. Piggott to look at the petition, and he would fee that the names were all figned on a separate sheet of parchment, which had been tacked to the petition, and confequently that the petition had not been figned by any one of the perfons whofe fignature appeared to the tack.

Mr. R. Jackson explained that it was done in the country; that the petition had originally been a petition to object to the clauses, but that it was thought more convenient to the parties to be heard in that ftage of the bill, and therefore they had endeavoured to avail themselves of the expedient of altering the petition.

The Lord Chancellor faid that very explanation proved, that the perfons whofe names appeared in the tack-fheet had never figned the petition, and therefore they could not be heard by counfel.

Mr. Piggott withdrew.

Mr. Serjeant Lens was then heard on behalf of the petitioners from Yorkshire, Wilts, and Somerfet, and was followed by Mr. Randle Jackfon, who, in a very able speech, urged a variety of strong objections, as well againft the form of the bill as against its principle.

Mr. Plomer was heard in fupport of the bill, and having ftrenuously contended for the neceffity of repealing many of the acts to which it referred, very readily admitted, that thofe, whofe object it was to have the bill entertained, would confent to any modification or amendment of its

clauses.

claufes. He faid, that out of the thirteen acts alluded to in the bill, it was conceded on all hands, that ten of them ought to be repealed, because their provifions and regula tions were, from the change of circumftances, cuftoms, and manners, utterly obfolete and impracticable.

The Lord Chancellor interrupted Mr. Piomer, and defired the counfel to withdraw. His Lordship then left the woolfack and faid, though he felt many objections to the bill, as it at prefent flood, yet he had taken the liberty to interrupt the learned counfel, because he had heard enough from all the gentlemen at the bar, to convince him that, with all the imperfections of the bill, there did arife in it fufficient principle to entitle it to be read a fecond time, and he hoped. their Lordships would concur with him in that opinion. Having faid this, his Lordship proceeded to point out a va riety of objections to the form of the bill, which he pro-. mifed the Houfe he would do very fhortly; firft, he fhewed that there was an omiffion in the title of the bill of one of the many objects of its provifions, which must be amended, as the title ought to refer to all its feparate objects. This would put the fuitors of the bill to the expence of delay, but it must be amended. His Lordship next objected to the reference of the bill to ftatutes of particular years of various reigns; whereas, inftead of that general reference, it ought to have fpecified the acts themfelves, with their exact title and date, and have pointed out the particular claufes of each, that had rendered the regulations therein provided “impracticable and ufelefs," and "others which, if enforced, would create delay, and inconvenience in the carrying on the faid manufacture, to the great detriment thereof." Thefe were matters which would require their Lordships most ferious attention and confideration in the Committee, as it would otherwife be impoffible for magiftrates, and thofe whofe duty it would be to enforce the bill, should it pafs into a law, to act upon it. He mentioned the way in which it referred to the gig-mills, and faid the proper mode of legiflating would have been, to have repealed fo much of the act of Edward VI. as referred to the improper use of gig-mills, and to have eftablished their ufe as to what actually was conducive to the expediting the manufacture, without injury to the material. Englishmen, he thanked God, poffeffed that moft valuable quality, good fenfe, and he would truft to that good fenfe (which, however they might be puzzled at firft, would generally fet them right at

laft)

laft) to prevent them from perfifting in any practice that experience convinced them was prejudicial to their own interefts. He had no hefitation, therefore, in believing, that they did not use the gig-mills in "burling and working" the cloth they manufactured, fince that practice had been found to be injurious to the manufacture. In the recital of the bill a moft extraordinary mode of reafoning was adopted. The recital ftated, that" doubts were entertained whether many of the acts (previously stated) were not repealed by fubfequent acts;" and, afterwards, it takes upon itfelf to refolve thofe doubts, declaring the acts in queftion to be repealed. His Lordship ftated feveral more objections, and after again ftating the great importance of the bill, and recommending its feveral parts, provifions and principles to the ferious attention of their Lordfhips in the Committee, in order to fatisfy the petitioners that the Houfe had acted honeftly, honourably, fairly, and faithfully by them, and paid due and ferious attention to their objections, moved

that it be read a fecond time..

The Earl of Rosslyn vofe and faid, the bill was the moft ill drawn and unparliamentary of any he had ever read in point of form. It was full of objectionable parts, feveral of which he ftated; in particular the want of the mention of the profecutions and fuits which might have been com menced and were now pending; in the title, the non-enume ration fpecifically of the feveral acts of Parliament to which the bill referred, by mentioning the chapter of the refpective acts that were deemed impracticable, as well as the particular claufes of the acts which it was complained by the fuitors, tended, if enforced, to create delay and inconvenience, to the great detriment of the manufacturer; and the contradictory operation of the end of the firft clause and the laft claufe of the bill, refpecting cofts on actions commenced the first of January laft. His Lordship alfo objected to feveral of the claufes, referring only to the counties of Gloucester, Wilts, and Somerfet, as if they were not legiflating for the counties of York and Lancaster, and indeed for the whole kingdom. He mentioned a former act that took place in Chester, and its whole county, for obvious reasons, viz. it bore upon the adjoining manufacturing counties of York and Lancafter. With regard to the objections that were, taken at the bar to the act of Richard the Second, prohibiting the fale of plain cloths in certain countries tucked and folded, his Lordship faid, he understood solely to relate VOL, IV. 1802-3.

3Q

to