object was, to do justice between both; to compel a debtor to give up all he either actually did poffefs, or had any prospect of poffeffing; but to prevent, that, under fuch circumstances, any unfortunate man, thus giving up all he had, or poffibly could have, should, from the whim or caprice of the individual who might be his creditor, remain in jail for life. That no man, to gratify a perverfe temper, on the one hand, fhould have it in his power to keep his fellow-creature in prison merely on chufing to pay him fourpence a day; or, on the other, that no man fhould go to prifon for a debt, and, to the injury of his creditor, revel in luxury upon that property which ought to be given up to his creditors. The principle of the bill in question was, to give the Judges a power to compel the parties to do justice to each other.

The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted the juftice of the fentiments of the noble Lord, complimented him on his humanity, and admitted the deficiency of the laws of imprisonment for debt. Even the bankrupt laws, which were to fupply the deficiency of all others with respect to the creditor's right to a diftributive fhare of his debtor's effects, were themselves very defective. He had fat in a Court for fourteen years, where all the affairs of the bankrupts in this kingdom were decided, and he found that in almost all of thofe that were contested, and where there were dishonest transactions, the fraud lay between the bankrupt and fome or more creditors of his, to the deftruction of the fair claims of the other creditors. This was an evil which experience taught us, that the bankrupt laws are not perfect. This bill appeared to him to have all the defects of the bankrupt laws, without the advantage which they gave for inquiry into the affairs of an infolvent debtor. This bill did not allow time for that inquiry, and in the nature of it altogether, that inquiry, to any effect, would be impoffible. It occurred, indeed, to him that the whole queftion ought to be decided, and fomething definite should be agreed on, on this fubject; and he could not help obferving that the reason that operated in the mind of the honourable gentleman who had moved for a Committee in the other House to postpone the fubject for the present session, applied with at least equal force to the present bill. He allowed, indeed, that fomething should be done on this fubject. He confeffed, he thought that if

bonds for the payment of money, fecurities in the funds, and all that fort of property that a Sheriff could not levy upon, under a writ of Fieri Facias, and was generally called in substance property, would be made subject to the payment of a prisoner's debts, the law in that refpect would be improved, and he thought that where that could be made out fairly, fuch a prifoner would be entitled to his discharge. But the difficulty was to fix and define the manner in which a debtor's property was to be subjected to the payment of his debts; and even in this point of view, there ought, in his mind, to be a distinction made between one fort of debt and another. For instance, where a debt might arife out of a verdict for scandal, or a verdict for adultery, or for any one of thofe immoral deeds, for which a man forfeits the claim he otherwife would have on the compaffion of his fellow creatures, there fhould be no bill to relieve fuch a perfon. In fraudulent tranfactions too, when men get into debt, without the leaft chance, profpect, or perhaps intention, to pay, no man would say that fuch a defendant could be entitled to favour, in the view of a fair, honourable, impartial bystander, judging, without prejudice, between plaintiff and defendant. However, a great deal of difcuffion would belong to these things at a future day, and it was impossible to enter into them at prefent; he therefore trufted that, under all' the circumstances of this bill, the noble Lord would not perfift in preffing it forward, particularly as there was not the least probability of fuccefs in the prefent feffion, as it would have another Houfe to go through, if their Lordships were to agree to it.

Lord RADNOR moved, that the bill for explaining certain acts relative to the paffing of feamen and foldiers, be read à third time.

Lord SANDYS objected to the bill, as repealing an act of the prefent feffion.

The LORD CHANCELLOR faid, if the bill were agreed to, it would form a precedent for fubjecting the House to the greatest inconvenience, inasmuch as it would tend to prevent any business being clofed, and leave those perfons at liberty, who objected to an act, to endeavour by a new bill, to repeal it in the fame feffion, which, in its turn might also have another bill prefented for its repeal.

"

1ed the neceffity of the bill,

The Duke of RICHMOND in order to correct the grofs injuftice of a claufe paffed inadvertently in the prefent feffion; a claufe which abfolutely went to punish, as vagrants, every failor or foldier who might unfortunately be fhipwrecked on the coaft. An act of such injustice and cruelty, if paffed but a single hour, he should not think a good reafon against a bill for its correction.

Lord RAWDON said, that in point of form, he admitted the full force of the arguments which had been advanced against the bill by the noble and learned Lord on the woolfack, but even though the inconvenience to which the Houfe might be fubjected, by the precedent created by the bill before them, should be ten times greater than ftated, he would rather give his vote in its favour, and fubject the Houfe to those inconveniences, than by withholding his vote render one foldier or failor who might be fhipwrecked on our coast, liable to the grofs injustice and cruelty of being punished as a vagrant. The queftion being put for the engroffing of the bill, their Lordships divided,

The numbers being equal, the Lord Chancellor gave his cafting vote against the bill.

On reading the order of the day for taking into farther confideration the New Foreft bill,

Lord PORCHESTER prefented a petition on behalf of fundry owners of land in the New Foreft, ftating that they had not had any notice of Parliament proceeding in this bill. That it will most materially affect their rights if passed into a law, and praying to be heard by Counsel against it, and to be allowed to adduce evidence at the bar of that House.

Lord GRENVILLE allowed, that when any parties, who were to be affected by any bill, complained of its operation, and offered to give evidence of the tendency of fuch a measure being injurious to their rights, fuch parties ought to be heard. Upon that principle he should affent to the prayer of the petition, whatever opinion he might entertain of the merits of the cafe, or of what he thought would appear in detail on the subject. The principle of the bill he ftill adhered to, and he belieyed that the petition in question made but a flender part of

the real fubject before Parliament; and he wished it to be observed, that something of the nature of this bill must be renewed in the next feffion.

Lord PORCHESTER made fome farcaftic obfervations on the fudden discovery of the noble Secretary of State-that men complaining of their rights being violated, had a right of being heard. That obfervation being made before, had not the power of convincing him, as it did at prefent. His Lordship then enumerated the petitioners. He allowed, that forests ought to be appropriated for the service of the Royal navy; because he was afraid we could not depend on any other mode of cultivating timber; but he was persuaded that the present mode would not answer the purpose.

The question was then put; and it was ordered, that the farther confideration of this bill fhould be poftponed to this day three months.

On reading the order of the day, which was for the third reading of the bill to remove doubts respecting the rights and functions of Juries in criminal cafes,

Earl BATHURST faid, that from what had paffed upon this bill, he could not expect their Lordships to be of his opinion; but he could not fuffer a bill which took away the rights of Judges fo completely as this did, to pass, without delivering his sentiments upon it. In order that those of our posterity, who might think it worth while to refer to the memory of his name, or to his character or opinion, might really understand his sentiments, he begged leave to say that he protested against this bill, and was decidedly against its form and principle.

The bill was read a third time and passed.

PROTEST against paffing of the Bill "To remove doubts respecting the Functions of Juries in Cafes of Libel."

Diffentient,

ift, Because the rule laid down by the bill, contrary to the determination of the Judges and the unvaried practice of ages, fubverts a fundamental and important principle of English jurifprudence, which, leaving to the jury the trial of the fact, referves to the Court the decision of the law. It was truly said VOL. XXXIII. 3 Y

by Lord Hardwicke, in the Court of King's Bench, that if ever these came to be confounded, it would prove the confufion and destruction of the law of England.

2dly, Because juries can in no cafe decide, whether a matter of record be fufficient upon which to found judgement. The bill admits the criminality of the writing fet forth in the indictment, or information, to be matter of law whereupon judgement may be arrested, notwithstanding the jury had found the defendant guilty. This fhews that the question is upon the record, and distinctly separated from the province of the jury, which is only to try facts.

3dly, Because, by confining the rule to an indictment, or information, for a libel, it is admitted that it does not apply to the trial of a general iffie, in an action for the fame libel, or any fort of action, or any other fort of indictment, or information but as the fame principle and the fame rule mult apply to all general iffues, or to none, the rule as declared by the bill is abfolutely erroneous.

THURLOW, C..
BATHURST.

KENYON.

ABINGDON.

WALSINGHAM.

JOHN BANGOR.

Tuesday, 12th June.

The Houfe, upon the motion of Lord Grenville, refolved into a Committee on the Westminster Police bill, Lord Cathcart in the chair.

Lord LOUGHBOROUGH objected to the bill, and thought that when the importance of its nature and tendency was confidered, it was impoffible that any body could wish to have it paffed through the House in a hurry, and at this late period of the feffion, when he understood they were within two days of the prorogation. If the immediate neceffity for fuch a bill could be pointed out, he would be the first to fupport it, but that he could not fee. He was perfectly aware of the prefent mode of conducting the Offices of Police in Weftminster, and the profits aring to thofe who were employed as Juftices in