of the person to whom it was given was | known; but it was otherwise with places in reversion, which might devolve upon persons totally disqualified from holding them, either by their characters or talents. Under a popular goverment, such as that under which we lived, it was more material than under any other to guard against the possibility of such abuses; and it was the duty of that house, not to leave any blots to which the finger of public scorn might be pointed, because they produced an effect upon the minds of the people beyond their real worth. In difficult times, too, like the present, every thing ought to be done to lighten the vessel of the state, that it might ride more securely in the midst of the storm. The present measure he contended to be one branch of a species of reform which it was completely in the power of parliament to accomplish. If there were no other reasons for acquiescing in the bill in its present modified shape, he was of opinion, that this consideration ought to have weight with the house, viz. the impolicy of holding out one branch of the legislature to public odium. It ought also to be recollected, that in a constitution such as that under which we had the happiness to live, and which was composed of different orders, it was the duty of the house of commons to meet the other house halfway and such a line of conduct, he insisted, would be much more creditable, than pursuing the barren and unproductive honour of merely preserving its own consistency. Mr. Tierney thought it an erroneous ground of argument to suppose, that the alterations now made would conciliate the lords. There was no good reason to think that would be the case. He gave full credit to the motives which had induced the hon. gent. to make the alterations now before the house; but he could not help thinking these alterations an abandonment of the principle the house had so frequently asserted, without any one thinking of limiting it in point of duration. If he could be sure the bill, as amended, would pass, he would not press his sentiments. But he looked in vain for any thing like such an assurance. He had a respect for the lords, but he was bound more to respect the feelings of the people; and the lords were as much bound to do so as he. Both houses had the same means of judging of the feelings and sentiments of the people. He had asked his majesty's mi nisters, who might be supposed capable of judging, whether the measure would have the support of all his majesty's ministers? But he could get no satisfactory answer, as the bill, though above a year under discussion, had never been a subject of cabinet consideration. A greater number of lords had, on a former occasion, strongly opposed the limitation in time, than opposed the principle of the bill. How, then, could it be expected, that what they so lately rejected with increased asperity, would now be acceptable to them. Some of their lordships had declared they would not sanction such a measure for a day. The house of commons had the rights of the people to maintain, and it was their duty to adhere to those rights. It was certainly an evil, if any branch of the legislature was brought into disrepute. But, what if this unworthy conduct was pursued with respect to the very highest branch, by a dark junto hid behind the throne. Such practices had been known in the worst times of our history; but the junto had never till now, come forth and arrayed itself against his majesty's minis ters. 66 He had been told this language had been used to his majesty's ministers: They know who made them ministers, and the same power might unmake them." Indeed, the conduct of his majesty's ministers towards their sovereign had been highly criminal. It was not his charge to defend the executive power. But, he was sorry to say, his majesty's name was now in circumstances in which no good man would wish to see it placed. The right hon. gentlemen opposite had, indeed, com menced their administration on the same principle. The constitutional principle was, that the king should have the credit of every thing good and gracious, and the ministers all the blame of what might be of a different character. But the right hon. gentlemen opposite acted very dif ferently, and introduced and allowed the use of the sovereign's name, coupled with conduct the most ungracious. He adverted to the address presented by the sheriffs of the city of London, which was complimented by his majesty as an example wor thy of general imitation. But, next day, the same sheriffs presented petitions to both houses in favour of this bill, which was thought so dangerous and disloyal as wholly to undermine the prerogative. How was this inconsistency to be accounted for? Probably a whisper had been given to one of the leading aldermen. This mode of proceeding was not honourable. But, upon what occasion had the right hon. gentlemen opposite expressed one fair or manly sentiment in the whole course of the proceedings on this question? He knew well, that the only principle that actuated the right hon. gentlemen was how they could retain their offices. The principle of the measure was, that no offices should be granted in reversion, and the economic representation contained in his majesty's Speech could allude to nothing but this measure. He preferred a resolution of the house to be carried to the foot of the throne to a deformed bill, which might ultimately be unsuccessful. No dark junto could impede such a resolution. His majesty would, no doubt, give his faithful commons the assurance that would satisfy them on that head. This would be a security for a year, and might be constantly renewed, and the bill might be continually pressed in the mean time, with the chance of those advantages that mature reflection and the operation of external circumstances might give. But when this temporary bill should expire, supposing it in the first instance to pass, what security was there that a more violent opposition than ever might not be made to the renewal? Unless the bill was made a government measure, there was no chance that it would pass, and it might be cast back at the close of the session, without any other effect from the concession made by the commons, than the loss of that public esteem and approbation acquired by the perseverance with which the whole measure had been so repeatedly pressed on the upper house. The people were attached to this measure, because it was the corner-stone of a system of reformation, founded upon plain and practicable principles, such as were acted upon by the late administration, in their abstaining to dispose of the reversion of a Tellership which had fallen in, a short time before their resignation. The proceedings now adopted would leave nothing on the journals to mark the stand which it was the duty of the house to make. Why was not a conference demanded, according to the ancient constitutional practice? If the lords were called upon to assign reasons, why might not an amicable arrangement be entered into by both parties? But, there was a third party which was unfortunately too powerful. If the bill did not pass, he hoped a resolution would be carried to the foot of the throne, and renewed as often as it expired, till the measure could be carried. He again adverted to the importance of the bill to the people, and the duty of the house to maintain it. He was most anxious for the rights of the people, but he was equally so for the honour of the sovereign, which was materially implicated and compromised by the conduct his majesty's ministers had pursued. After a short conversation between Mr. H. Martin, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Whitbread, an amendment was inserted in the preamble of the bill, stating that the measure was adopted with a view to promote, or encourage, an important inquiry which was now making by the house of commons; another amendment substituted the term suspending' instead of prohibiting' the granting of places in reversion. The proviso for granting to the judges, &c. reservations similar to those of the crown, Mr. Bankes proposed to extend to bishops and archbishops, which, after a short conversation, in which Mr. H. Martin and Mr. W. Smith participated, was agreed to.-Various verbal amendments were made in the bill, and the house having been resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. Mr. Whitbread gave notice, that as the hon. gentlemen opposite persisted in their silence on the subject, he should persevere in his original intention, and move tomorrow such alterations in the bill, as would restore it precisely to the state in which the last bill quitted the house for the house of lords. The Speaker apprised the hon. gent. that such a proposition would be contrary to the course of parliamentary proceeding. Mr. Whitbread then intimated, that he should propose to make the bill literally different from the last, though substantially the same. The Speaker still declaring, that it was irregular to make such a proposition, Mr. Whitbread stated, that he should probably move to extend the limitation to a term of 99 years. He expressed his desire, that the hon. gent. would postpone the bringing up of the report until Monday, to give time for a due consideration of the most effectual steps for the attainment of his object. Mr. Bankes replied, that as the subject was one of great public interest, and one which had excited considerable public attention, he was anxious that the bill should proceed with as little delay as possible. actuated on such a subject, by prejudices which he would denominate laudable pre The hon. gent. might submit any amend- | spectable; as the latter were liable to be ments that he thought proper on the third reading. Mr. Whitbread said, that he would pre-judices, but which would, nevertheless, pare himself with some suitable amendments for to-morrow, as he was determined not to allow the bill to pass through another stage without submitting to the house his opinion on the subject. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, April 8. [SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.] On the question for the second reading of this bill, touching the administration of justice in Scotland, stand in the way of that complete measure which was wanted. With respect to trial by jury, he thought there ought to be a stronger recommendation of it in the bill than there was at present, a stronger indication of the opinion of the legislature in its favour. Lord Melville referred to an opinion of lord Mansfield, respecting a proposition, to introduce gradually the trial by jury in civil cases into Scotland, and observed, that after the doubts expressed upon this subject by that eminent lawyer, he might well hesitate with respect to the policy of introducing that mode of trial into Scotland. He thought that the recommendation of that mode of trial in the bill was already rather too strong. The Earl of Lauderdale was unwilling to enter into any discussion of the general merits of the bill, after the understanding of their lordships as to the proper time. Still, he could not assent to the changes which had taken place in the present bill, from that submitted to the house on a former occasion. It was intended, that the two chambers of the court of session should not sit at the same time. This he considered unnecessary, or rather improper, because, it was to be remembered, that the great proportion of business in actions in that court, was chiefly done in writing; and, therefore, the time of the The Lord Chancellor explained at some length his views upon this subject, and the objects of the bill; which were to divide the court of session into two chambers of seven and eight judges, to give those courts certain powers of making regulations with respect to proceedings, and with respect to interim executions, whilst appeals were pending; and also to issue a commission to ascertain in what case it might be proper to establish a trial by jury. With respect to this mode of trial, his lordship observed, that he had been upbraided out of doors with using language upon this subject which he had never applied to it; he joined in all those eulogiums which had been passed upon the trial by jury, and to which, in this country, he felt that we owed our happiness and our liberty; but it did not follow that it was equally applicable to Scot-judges, whose presence daily was not wantland; nor was it a politic or proper mode of proceeding to force that mode of trial upon a country where, in civil cases, its benefits were not understood or appreciated. He thought it would require considerable deliberation and caution to ascertain to what cases the trial by jury might be properly applied. With respect to the bill, he wished it to be committed before the recess; but that the house should not stand committed by the amendments then made, and therefore that the bill should be recommitted after the recess. Lord Grenville still thought that it would be better to divide the court of session into three chambers, than two. Upon a subject of this nature, he thought it was the preferable mode to consult the interests of those to whom justice was to be administered, rather than the opinion of those by whom it was administered, however reVOL. X. ing, would be much better employed in reading the pleadings on the various causes upon which they would be subsequently called upon to pronounce judgment. The noble lord thought there was not that necessity for caution and circumspection so much recommended. This measure had obtained the fullest investigation of almost every description of people in Scotland, It was debated ably and fully in that house; and, therefore, as the evil of the present system was acknowledged, the reformation and remedy ought to be prompt and efficient. The bill was then read a second time. [COTTON BILL.] On the third reading of the bill prohibiting the exportation of Cotton, Earl Bathurst observed, that in consequence of the embargo in America, there had been some ground for apprehending that a sufficient supply of cotton would 4 R not be obtained for the consumption of If the cotton-manufactures of the enemy this country: there was, however, he was were destroyed, what would then be the happy to state, no ground for alarm upon consequence? All cotton goods in the this subject; there was a considerable | territories of the enemy must then imstock on hand, and there was now every mediately be known to be British, and reason to believe, that a sufficient supply instead of finding a sale, would meet with would be obtained, even supposing the a prohibition. The variableness of taste embargo to be continued. The continent was well known; and if the cotton-manuof Europe had been cut off, by recent factories of the enemy were destroyed, events, from its supply of cotton; and was there not reason to fear that taste orders had actually been sent from Ger- might again vary, and some other articles many to procure cotton from Turkey, by be substituted for cotton? It was a most land-carriage; a species of cotton of an mistaken policy to suppose, that by deinferior quality, which the manufacturers stroying competition we should destroy here would not use. Under these circum- our own manufactures. The contrary was stances, he thought there could be no the truth; manufactures thrived best by doubt as to the policy of securing to our- competition; this was proved in the case selves a sufficient supply of this article, of our exports to the United States, which, by prohibiting the export. If, however, in the article of cotton goods, had become there should be a surplus, licences would nearly double since America became a be granted to export it. With respect to manufacturing country, of what they were the objection to the principle of licences, before. He objected decidedly to the made by his noble friend (lord Grenville) power vested in the crown of granting on a former night, he thought it inappli- licences, as it went to make every mercable; inasmuch as the trading under li- chant in the kingdom dependant upon the cence was sanctioned by various prece- executive government: added to this was dents, and by several acts of parliament the inconvenience experienced by merin the last war as well as in the present. chants at the out-ports in procuring liThree successive administrations, since cences. The noble earl had spoken of the commencement of the present war, this power being properly exercised by had exercised this power; and he saw no three successive administrations, and had reason why the same credit should not be called for the same confidence. He did given to the present administration as to not distrust the noble earl, but he objected the former ones, for its due exercise. The to the principle; and if the argument of trading to the ports of the enemy was at the noble earl went to any thing, it went all times illegal, except under licence to this, that every honest man ought to be from the king in council. The whole entrusted with arbitrary power. So far continent was at present our enemies, with from seeing this bill in the point of view the exception of Sweden and Sicily; and in which it had been placed by the noble as in these countries there were no cotton-earl, he thought it tended deeply to injure manufactories, the export of cotton to a most valuable and important branch of them must be intended ultimately for the our manufacture. enemy. Under these circumstances, the extension of the prohibition to neutrals appeared to him perfectly justifiable, in order to prevent a great export to the continent of an article of which they stood so much in need, and thereby leave us without a sufficient supply. Lord St. John contended that the real ground upon which this bill had been sent to that house was, that it was the intention to injure the manufactures of the enemy, upon the supposition that our own would thereby be benefited by ensuring to them a monopoly. It was, in this point of view, one of those visionary measures, some of which had been already before the house, and which could only tend to the injury instead of the benefit of our manufactures. of Lord Auckland thought the ground urged by the noble earl in support of this bill fallacious, inasmuch as the market here would by the operation of the bill become glutted, the price of cotton would consequently fall, and thus the growers it, particularly in our own colonies, would be seriously injured; nor was it to be supposed that after that had taken place, any more cotton would be brought here, where the market was already over-stocked. Lord Redesdale supported the bill as a measure conducive to the interests of our manufactures, and as a check on the growing cotton-trade of the enemy. The Earl of Lauderdale remarked, that the noble earl, at the head of the board of trade, had given up the present bill as a measure of warfare, and had considered it solely in relation to its effects on our commerce. In this view of the case, he considered it as an extremely dangerous principle, to allow to the government for the time being, the privilege of saying, what individual should be indulged in carrying on a trade and manufacture, and who should not. To compel ships laden with cotton to come into our ports, while the export of that article was prohibited, and while our manufactures could not procure a market, was improperly to reduce the price of the raw material. Our manufacturers might wish to procure cotton at a cheaper rate; but they were at the same time aware of the impolicy of reducing the value of the raw commodity so much as to render it a matter of indifference to the grower of the article, whether he did or did not bring it to our market. Lord Hawkesbury, in alluding to the power conferred on the government of granting licences to certain persons, stated, that this had been the practice for the last 14 or 15 years. He had never heard that it had been abused, and he trusted the present government might receive equal credit with their predecessors, for not entertaining any intention to act with favour or partiality, in granting this privilege where it might seem to be required. His lordship did not intend at present to enter into the merits of the Orders in Council, though he must protest against the interpretation put by the noble lord who spoke last, on what had fallen from his noble friends, as if they had given up the present bill as a measure of warfare. They had not done It was well known, that there was a deficiency of cotton in France, and, at the same time, that one of the most increasing trades in that country was the cotton manufacture. An opportunity, however, of canvassing this subject would occur, when the noble lord opposite (Grenville) brought forward his promised motion; at which time he should be at no difficulty to shew, that there were more mercantile men in this country who approved than there were who disapproved of the Orders of Council. so. The Earl of Darnley concurred in the arguments against the bill. Lord Grenville begged to be understood, as objecting in the most pointed manner to the noble lord's (Hawkesbury) bringing forward any secret information of which he might suppose himself to be possessed, as indicative of the opinion of the mercantile interests of this country, on the subject of the Orders in Council. If he wished to meet the evidence which had been adduced at the bar of the house, and to refute the gentlemen there examined, who regarded the Orders in Council as destructive of our commerce and manufac tures, why did he not bring forward his witnesses to contradict them? Why did he not bring forward merchants of London and Liverpool, to say that their trade was equally or more flourishing than it was previous to the passing of these orders? or manufacturers of Manchester to say, that their orders were equally numerous and great as they had formerly been; and persons in the shipping interest to declare that their carrying trade was undiminished? So far from having done this, was it not a fact, that the evidence before the house went to shew a complete failure in all these branches of trade, in consequence of these Orders in Council? His lordship therefore hoped, that in arguing this subject, the noble lord on the other side would not allude to any private testimony in favour of these Orders in Council, which he himself might possess; but which, unlike gentlemen in the other house of parliament, he had declined laying before the house. As to the idea that the measure would have the effect of incommoding France by preventing the requisite supply of cotton, this his lordship considered as altogether absurd. There were various tracts of country in which cotton could be grown, and did actually grow at this moment, of which it was impossible for this country, by any act it might pass, to deprive Buonaparte. In the Levant, considerable quantities of cotton were grown, particularly in Italy and Sicily, over which the ruler of France now had, or in all probability would soon have, the complete dominion. In fact, it was quite in the power of France, from the territory it now commanded, to procure cotton in whatever quantity it chose. If this country wished to preserve its cotton manufacture, and to command a constant and sufficient supply of the raw material, the plan was, to give a free and unlimited power of import and export. The advantages our harbours held out to the American grower, would thus ensure us a constant supply, convinced as they would in that event be, that a ready market for their commodity would be found, if not with us, yet in some other quarter. The |