Page images

The Masier of tkt RolL was of opinion, (hat if any other Master of gaatean had amendments to propose, it would be proper to th«RolU. raw and adopt them on the present occasion, as far as that codi be done without debate, that the House, on the rerjsniitment, might have as much of the whole before them 2! poffible.

Mr. Fcx said, that he had an alteration to propose in the Mr. Fox.

ea:h, and that he wished to know whether it would be betfc-to ;?trcduce it immediately, or to wait for the re-comniitoait of the bill.

Mr. Iif:tfcrd answered, that the oath had been agreed to as Mr. it now stood, by the persons whom the bill was intended to Mitford, relieve, and that he had no authority to make any alteration.

Mr. Fox rejoined, that the alteration was suggested to him Mr. Fox. ly feme of the persons interested in the bill, and related to t'n:r part os the oath which disavows the authority of ordinances or decrees of Councils, to absolve from any allegiance to the King and Government, and from the obligations of snath. He next read the proposed amendment, the spirit t! which was universally approved; and after some obserUions on the mode of wording it, by Mr. Pitt, the Master of the Rolls, Mr. Mitford, and Mr. J. H. Browne, Mr. ioxobserved, the words were not of his chusing, neither £■•1 he think them the most proper, but they were the words tf those who were to take the oath; and as the obligation of ft«mwas admitted to be complete, he Ihould prefer them, on &t account, to any other.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. Chancellor Pitt, adverting to that part of the oath Mr. Viu. 'Inch declares, " That no person can be absolved from a;ry B fn, nor any sin whatever be forgiven, without sorrow for 0 past offences, and resolution to avoid future guilt," here ^rarked, that the House, as a legislative Assembly, might wry properly exact a declaration, that no man can be abfjived from moral obligation and obedience to the law; but c *ai totally beyond their province to require a declaration nncerning points of doctrine which included the forgiveness a'Gns.

The propriety of this amendment was also admitted.

Mr. Mitford's clauses were severally brought up, and 'feedto, pro forma.

Mr. Fox next remarked, that there were several alterations Mr. Fox* '"tar made, or intended to be made, in the bill, to which j*now gave notice that he could not ^gree, and which he «wld certainly oppose, although not perhaps to the extent

taking the fense of the House upon them. It was meant, * "(wkrstood, to change the name, by which persons taking


the benefit of the bill, were to be distinguiflied. Why an objection should be made against persons calling themselvi Catholic Dislenters, who thought that the name was appl cable to their situation, he could not comprehend. The had long been called by the name of Papists in this country but we had also be?n in the habit of calling them traitors an murderers, with perhaps as much justice. Papist was an ir vidious name; and he need hardly fay, in an assembly < well-informed men, by no means applicable, in "rs stiii fense, to the English Roman Catholics: as such, it ougr not to be continued. It was also intended to prevent persor taking the benefit of the act, from exercising any patronag< which, in right of their property, they rnght pofless, c present to any livings in the church. This ne thought nc only invidious and unjust, but absurd, inasmuch as th: which was thought a sufficient security to the Governmeiv ought to be deemed a sufficient security to the Church. Th clause in the bill, which denied the benefit of it to any pei son who shall speak or write against the doctrine of the Tr nity, was such as ought never to have been admitted int any bill; and the admission of it into this was peculiarl improper, since it was never imagined, but that Roman Ca tholics were sufficiently Trinitarian to satisfy the most orthc dox Divine of the Church of England. Mr. (. Mr. Martin remarked, that it would give him concern i Martin, the clause were retained in the bill. He should feel himsei humbled in his opinion of the House of which he .was a Mem ber, and of the times in which he lived, unless it were re jected.

Mr. Mr. Mitford answered, that he could assure the honourabl Micford. gentleman, that the change of name was introduced by th desire of the persons for whose relief the bill was intendei The article respecting the doctrine of the Trinity was pr< served, because it was found in the Act of Toleration, an Jie intended to have left it out, for the fake of avoiding dit cuflion.

Mr. For. Mr. Fox said, that as far as that argument went, he rt joiced that the clause had been introduced, because he though it a subject which ought to be discussed.

Mr. Pitt. Mr. Chancellor Pitt acknowledged, that to allow persot taking the benefit of the bill to exercise Church patronag was a point to which he was not prepared to give his a sent.

Master of The Master ofthe Rolls observed, not for the sake of in the Rolls, mediate debate, but of future consideration, that to deeb that persons taking the oath, contained in the bill, sliou not be considered as Papists, would go a much greater Iengi than it was meant by the bill to go.

The Chairman left the chair, the report was brought up, csferd to be printed, and farther considered on the ensuing Frir.

The House adjourned.

Monday, 4th Apr'iL

The Speaker acquainted the House, that pursuant to their to him on the 25th day of March, he had, on Thursday tbe3ist of March last, signified by writing to the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Ineies,the resolution of the House of the said 25th of March.

Mr. Henry Hpbart reported from the Committee who were appointed to examine the lists of nine persons' names to be the Select Committee, to whom it is referred to examine and Sate the several accounts, and other papers presented to the Hoofe in this session of Parliament, relating to the public scome and expenditure, and to report to the House what hsi been the whole amount of the public income and expentmte during the last five years, and what may be expected to be the annual amount thereof in future, and also what alteration has taken place in the amount of the public debt i"xe the 5th day of January, 1786, and to report to the Hoofe upon which nine persons the majority fell; that the Committee had examined the lists accordingly, and found, !Mt the majority had fallen upon the following persons, viz. William Hussey, Esq., William Pulteney, Esq., Sir Thomas Charles Bunbury, Bart., Samuel Thornton, Esq., the right fosourable Dudley Ryder, Daniel Parker Coke, Esq., Antaw Stuart, Esq., John Sargent, Esq., and Matthew MonSgE, Esq.; and*he read the report in his place, and asteroids delivered it in^at the table, where the fame was read.

Mr. Henry Hobart, from the Select Committee, who were ^pointed to try and determine the merits of the petition of ta>rge Tierney, Esq., complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Colchester, in the county of Essex, Rfcrmtd the House, that the said Select Committee have feermined,

That George Jackson, Esq. is duly elected a Burgess to frrein this present Parliament for the said borough of Colchester.

That Robert Thornton, Esq. is duly elected a Burgess to !;"e in this present Parliament for the said borough of CoL


And that the petition of the said George Tierney, Esq., fcfaras respects the said George Jackson, Esq., did appear ""hesaid Select Committee to be frivolous and vexatious;

And also, that the petition of the said George Tierney, %» so far as respects the said Robert Thornton, Esq., did

appear appear to the said Select Committee to be frivolous an* vexatious.

The following accounts were, upon motion, ordered t be laid before the House:

1. "An account of the number of vessels, with their ton "nage, which have arrived from Russia in the several port "of Great Britain; and also of the vessels, with their ton ** nage, which have cleared out from Great Britain to Ruf "sia dating the last ten years, distinguishing the British fron "the foreign."

2. " An account of the several articles imported fron "Russia into Great Britain, from the 5th of January, 1789 "to the 5th of January, 1790."

3. " An account of the export to Russia from Great Bri •* tain, from the 5th of January, 1709, to the 5th of Ja

, "nuary, 171,0, disthiguistiing Britifli from foreign goods."'

4. " An account of the value of the impoi ts into Gren *' Britain from Russia, during the last five years, and th "exports from Great Britain to Russia during the fame pe « riod."

Mr.Burke Mr. Burle observed that, probably, the House would b surprised not to discover, when he informed them that h must beg Icavt: to present a paper to them concerning ai East-India subject, that, strange to tell, it was not an im peachmeut, but, what was still more strange, a petition frou a person who had been long in the service of the East-IhJi Company, and yet was miserably poor, It was the petitioi of Joseph Fowke, who held, during 56 years, an employmen under the Company in India, which, added to the length o his father's services, made up no less than one hundred aiid si: years, and, at the age of 72 years, he found himself in grea indigence. According to a resolution solemnly entered inti some years ago .by the Co.irt of Directors, it had been for mally signified to the_Co;npany's scrvmts ini India, that i any of them, aher a certain period of services in India should desire to return home, they might be permitted to <!■ so, and in case, upon oath made of the fortunes they returne with, it should appear that they were not worth ten thousam pounds, the Company agreed to make their income up accord ing to the rate of 400I. as an annuity. Mr. Fowke, by th permission ot Lord Cornwallis, had returned home from hi station of Senior Private Merchant, about fourteen month since; he had made the requisite oath as to his fortune, am sworn, that so sir from being in possession of ten thousam pounds, bis circumstances were so straitened, that he ha< not much more than forty pounds a year to live upon. Hi , cafe had been regularly laid before the Court of Director; who had, nevertheless, refused to grant him any relief; i'n

les Vs& it could be called relief that they had intimated to him, tkt be had their permission to return by the first of the Company's {hips, and resume his station in India. It was MT natural for a man, at the age of seventy-two, to wish romnain in his native country, and await that personal inrrroity which had since actually befallen him. Palsied, therefore, as Mr Fowkewas, and not having any reasonable fipeatation of a long remainder of life, it was not to be wondered at, that in his 74th year, he should not be willing to uiidmake another voyage to India, in order to begin the world again: and upon these grounds, the petitioner, Mr. Borke said, came to the House for some relief under such arcumstances of distress and misfortune in the first instance, and ultimately of oppression and injustice. Mr. Burke added, that he knew not how the House could regularly interfere and take cognizance of the grievance alledged in the petition, but if they had the power, sure he was, that it was their bounden duty to protect every person employed under the Government of the country, whether by direct commission, or through the medium of the appointment of theEastiadia Company. Mr. Burke, in conclusion, declared, that !ie had no authority to pledge himself for the facts which he had mentioned as the grounds of the petition; the Company Tught possibly have good reasons to alledge in justification of tieir conduct; and therefore, in order that the truth of the cafe might be ascertained, and substantial justice be done to ill parties, after the petition had been brought up and read, hefhould move that it be referred to a Committee, to enquire aid report to the House.

The petition was presented and read. The allegations of t supported the facts stated by Mr. Burke, and in particular jsi great stress on the hardship the petitioner was obliged to -adergo, by means of having been compelled to disclose his straitened circumstances upon oath, if the Company did not iatend to grant him the relief of the usual annuity in cafes of fnailar distress in other servants of the Company, who had ^turned home upon the faith of the Company's solemn resolution and declaration to the effect stated.

Mr. Pitt (Member for Gloucester) proposed deferring any Mr. Pitt, nrestigation of the petition, until the Chairman of theEastiadiaCompany should be present in his place.

Mr. Burke answered, that the appointment of a Commit- Mr.Burk* tac to enquire into the merits, did not tend at all to prejudice lie Directors, and that he had already signified the nature of :be petition to several of the Directors who were Members 5/ that House.

Mr. Alderman Le Mesurltr (the only Director of the Vr L Eatl-lndia Company present) observed, that not having had Mesur Vol. XXIX. I the

« PreviousContinue »