Earl Stanhope opposed the Bill upon the ground that it would take away, in a great number of cases, the trial by jury, and throw the questions that ought to be decided upon by a jury, into the Court of Chancery. that the estates of persons dying indebted should be rendered liable for the payment of their debts; and he thought, therefore, the preamble of the Bill, declaring the expediency of this, self-evident. His lordship put the case of a person borrowing 50,000l. on simple contract, and purchasing an estate with it. By means of a little money, he might get over the long vacation, to prevent his creditors getting judgment till the ensuing term; in the mean time, he might die, and his heir would succeed to the estate, whilst his creditor would be unable to recover a farthing. To meet such cases as this, he thought the present Bill necessary; and he could not conceive why, as a judgment bound the heir, the estates should not be liable, in the first instance, to the simple contract debts of their late possessor. His lordship argued, at some length, upon this ground, and with reference to cases that had occurred, contending for the expediency of extending (as this Bill proposed to do) the principle of the act of the 47th of the King, rendering the estates of persons dying, being at that time subject to the bankrupt laws, liable for their simple contract debts to the whole country. Persons might still do what they pleased with their own estates; the only object of the Bill was to give creditors a chance of recovering their simple contract debts, where the debtor died possessed of free hold estates, without sufficient personal assets. The Duke of Norfolk objected to the Bill, on the ground that it would unsettle the law regarding landed property, and render it extremely difficult to effect a sale of a freehold estate, as the purchaser could scarcely ever feel himself secure against the claims of the creditors of the former possessor. The Lord Chancellor also objected to the Bill, as unnecessary, it being always in the power of the creditor to bargain with his debtor for that security which would render the freehold estate of the latter liable for the debt. The present Bill, went to do away all that caution, with which it had been the policy of our institutions to fence round landed property, whilst it, in fact, afforded little or no real security to the creditor. If the principle of this Bill was to be adopted, why should it not equally be extended to estates tail, to copyhold estates, and to stock in the public funds? The fact was, that the creditor had it in his power to bargain for Lord Holland could see no harm in generalizing the principle which had been already put in action. The trial bad already been made, on a small scale, in the Bankers' act; and now we came, after finding its good effects, to try it on a larger. Lord Redesdale objected to the Bill, on the ground that it could only be brought into operation after the death of the debtor, and after it had been seen whether his personal estates would be equal to the payment of his debts. The present Bill, too, he thought, would lead to an extension of credit, which was already too great in this country. Lord Ellenborough said, he would always guide himself by the analogy of the ancient law of the land, which, down to this period, had cautiously abstained from the sale of real property for the payment of debts. He concurred in the objection made respecting the Bill, as suggested by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack. The question was then put, that the Bill be now read the third time, which was negatived without a division. On the mo. tion of the Lord Chancellor, it was then ordered to be read a third time that day three months. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, July 18. MESSAGE FROM THE PRINCE REGENT, RESPECTING A VOTE OF CREDIT.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from the Prince Regent : "The Prince Regent, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, considering that it may be of very great importance to provide for such emergencies as may arise; and relying on the experienced zeal and affection of the House of Commons, trusts that this House will enable him to take such measures as the exigency of affairs The Message was referred to a Committee of the whole House. COPY-RIGHT BILL.] The order for taking into further consideration the report of the Copy-Right Bill, being read, Mr. Wynn said, that he felt some difficulty upon the subject of this Bill. At all events, he could not help expressing his regret, that no provision was made to prevent any of the Universities from selling the books with which they might be furnished in consequence of the measure. This regret he was induced to express, from a hint which had been thrown out, that some of the Scotch Universities were likely to sell new works, with a view to apply the produce to the purchase of old and foreign books, for the supply of their libraries. Mr. W. Dundas bore testimony to the character of the Scotch Universities, asserting the improbability of the intention stated by the learned gentleman. Mr. Croker spoke in favour of the University of Dublin. Mr. J. P. Grant observed, that it appeared a great hardship upon booksellers, that they should be obliged to furnish gratis, to the public Libraries and Universities, the eleven copies mentioned in the Bill. Mr. Croker proposed a clause, which he deemed necessary to rescue, from great inconvenience, the publishers of Ireland and Scotland, namely, to provide that the delivery of a copy of any work to any public Library or University in Ireland or Scotland, entitled to receive it, should be deemed equivalent to a delivery of the same to Stationers'-hall in London. Agreed to. known, he thought that quite a fallacy. Indeed, if it were just, he should suppose that every publisher would be forward to make a present of his work to every cir culating library. Certainly, through such libraries a new work would be more likely to become known, and to obtain purchasers, than through the University libraries. But he presumed to think, that the booksellers would be hardly inclined to adopt such a project for advertising and dispos ing of their works. Recurring to the supply of the Universities, he was of opinion, that a sum should be rather granted from the public purse to enable them to purchase new works, than to impose upon publishers the tax proposed in this Bill. The sum for that purpose need not, in his judgment, exceed 2,500l. a year, to all the Universities; and surely such a sum ought rather to be allowed, than enact the provision of this Bill, which was calculated to discourage the exertion, by reducing the reward of talent and science. The hon. gentleman observed, that the funds of several of the Universities were amply sufficient to purchase books, without any public grant, or any tax upon literary industry. For instance, he knew that the University with which he was connected (Oxford) felt no solicitude whatever upon the subject. He also observed, that one copy of every new work might suffice for the two public libraries of Edinburgh, and one also for the two public libraries of Dublin, to each of which this Bill provided that a copy should be sent. Thus publishers were unnecessarily taxed, and, when the very high price of some works was considered, the amount of this taxation might be easily appreciated. The hon. member concluded with expressing a hope, that the discussion of this measure would lead to the adoption of some plan next session, which should be more conducive to the advantage of the Univesities, and to the general interests of science and literature, than any Bill of this nature was ever likely to do. Sir E. Brydges gave notice of a motion for to-morrow, for an amendment in the Bill to extend further the period of Copyright. A verbal alteration was made in the Bill, upon the motion of sir J. M'In- Mr. Giddy expressed his entire contosh, with regard to the Scotch Univer-currence in the general observations of sities. The Amendments being gone through, Mr. Wynn spoke against the delivery of books gratis to the several Universities, as the Bill directed, for this he conceived an unjust tax upon authors and booksellers. As to the argument, that the delivery of these books was advantageous to the booksellers, by rendering the work better the hon. gentleman, particularly in the wish and hope that, in the next session some pecuniary provision would be made from the public purse, to supply the public libraries with new books, and thus to relieve the booksellers from the hardships of which they complained. Mr. W. Smith thought the Universities ought to relinquish the petty advantage which the clause under discussion, pro- | posed to secure to them; for it was comparatively of little value to them, while by levying a tax upon publishers, it was too likely to form a serious impediment to the promulgation of knowledge. He happened to belong to a society, which subscribed to procure the publication of the very valuable productions of Mr. Smeaton, the celebrated engineer, and it was found that the bookseller could not sell a copy at less than seven guineas and a half. Now he submitted to the candid consideration of the House whether eleven copies of such a work did not form rather too serious a deduction from the profits of those for whose immediate benefit the work was published; and also whether such a deduction was not peculiarly calculated to impede the progress of knowledge? Such a tax upon literary industry would not, he hoped, be allowed to survive the next session, for its existence was evidently onerous upon publishers; while it was really degrading to the parties benefited by it, and materially injurious to the interests of the public. Mr. Horner thought that a very limited view had been taken of the advantage resulting from the grants to Universities, which formed the subject of discussion. For through these grants, with the supply of books which the several public libraries possessed, authors of every class were enabled to find, at such libraries, all the materials of knowledge. Thus the interests of literature were promoted, and authors derived from the public libraries a degree of advantage which much more than counter-balanced any diminution of profit they might sustain by supplying each with a copy of their productions. As to what had been said respecting the very high price of books, he really believed, that in most cases, that high price was the result much more of ornament than utility -of extrinsic decoration and mere binding than of intrinsic merit; and that too many booksellers were now become rather furniture brokers than the ministers of literature. He had himself witnessed a striking example of this taste. It was notorious that the works of Grey might be bought for one shilling; but he had lately seen at a bookseller's a work entitled the "Remains of Grey," comprehending nothing else than that author's common-place book, which neither he himself, nor his executor, Mr. Mason, ever thought worth publishing. This book, however, was now (VOL. XXVIII. ) printed on superior paper, splendidly bound and decorated, and published at no less than seven guineas each copy. Could it then be deemed a great grievance, or a public injustice, if a bookseller were obliged to dispose of eleven copies of such a work gratis? Mr. Marsh said, if he had been present in the Committee on this Bill, he should certainly have felt it his duty to move the omission of that clause which went to give to the Universities eleven copies of all books published in the United Kingdom. He did not enter the House in time, or he should have presented a petition from a gentleman connected with the East India House, named Fisher; who, it appeared, had travelled all over Great Britain, for the purpose of collecting specimens of painting, architecture, and the arts, for the purpose of hereafter publishing them with plates and illustrations; but who, having finished his work with respect to one county only, that of Bedford, was deterred by the great expense of the work, and the necessity of presenting the Universities with eleven copies of it, from proceeding further. This was a proof of the disadvantage which arose from the existence of such a law; and he had no doubt that many other instances, of a similar nature, might be cited. He contended, that such a privilege was a relic of barbarous times, inconsistent with the liberal spirit of the present age, and ought to be done away with. Mr. Croker conceived, that all authors must be proud of contributing to the sup ply of those great reservoirs of literature, which enabled so many of them to write for the public advantage, and their own credit. Therefore he could not subscribe to the objection urged against the proposed grants to the several public libraries; and as to the booksellers, they could not suffer by those grants, for they would always take care to make the consumer or purchaser of their books pay every tax to which they might be subjected. There was no reason, indeed, to apprehend that these gentlemen would ever fail to take care of their own interest. Mr. Marsh explained, that when he called the privilege in question a relic of barbarous times, he meant that it originated in times not very favourable to property or liberty, namely, in the reign of Charles 2, and was, he believed, an act of regulation and police to restrain the liberty of the press. (3 C) Sir Egerton Brydges was against the Bill. | in consequence of the application of the An hon. and learned gentleman had men- standing order. tioned, as an instance of the modern abuses of the art of book-making, that though all the works of the immortal poet Grey were to be had for a shilling, the booksellers had lately got up two quarto volumes of his remains, the price of which was seven guineas. Now, if all that was good was to be had for a shilling, there was no great evil in refusing the Universities those two quarto volumes which cost so much, and were worth nothing. Mr. Smith spoke in favour of the grant to the Universities, and considered that provision in the Bill, as essential to the interests of those institutions. The Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. Mr. Marsh then presented the Petition, to which he alluded, in the course of his speech, from Mr. Thomas Fisher, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, July 19. THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE OF WALES.] The Duke of Susser rose and said: Mỹ lords, I confess, I rise with a considerable degree of embarrassment, not unmixed with a certain degree of anxiety, on the very important and interesting occasion on which I am about to address you. I shall not, therefore, detain your lordships, further than the expression of my hope, that the noble earl opposite, will satisfactorily answer those questions, which I think it my duty, under the circumstances of the case, to put to the noble earl. I confess, my lords, that in putting these questions, my wish is to be considered as doing it perfectly distinct and separate from any party question whatever; that I do it purely from my own feelings of duty, and unauthorised by any individual whatever. The questions, in one sense, am aware, are put under very awkward circumstances, though relative to an event known to most of the noble lords who hear me, and respecting which I may not concur in opinion with other persons who have been consulted, but for whose conduct, I entertain every possible respect. I hope, my lords, I may be allowed to put the following questions; but if any noble lord feels any difficulty in my putting them now, I am ready to reserve them for any opportunity that may arise, After a short pause, the illustrious duke proceeded. I wish to know, from the noble earl, in the first instance, whether, since the removal of her royal highness, the Princess Charlotte of Wales, to Carlton-house, her Royal Highness has had that degree of communication with her friends and connections, which her Royal Highness had, previous to her leaving Warwick-house? After a short pause-If the noble lord does not choose to answer this question, I shall, of course, know how to take it. But I again ask the noble lord, if her royal highness the Princess Charlotte has had the same degree of communication with her friends and connections, since her removal to Carlton-house, that she had while she remained at Warwick-house? I next wish to ask the noble earl, If her royal highness, the Princess Charlotte of Wales, since her removal to Carltonhouse, has had the liberty of that communication in writing, and by letter-of receiving and sending letters-and the use of pens, ink, and paper-that she had while at Warwick-house? I have next to ask, Whether her royal highness, the Princess Charlotte of Wales, is, since her residence at Carlton-house, in that state of liberty, which persons considered not as in confinement, ought to be in? The fourth question I have to ask is, Whether, in the course of last year, her royal highness, the Princess Charlotte of Wales, was not recommended, as proper for the state of her health, the use of the sea-bath; and, whether it is not understood, that the same has been recommend. ed to her Royal Highness this year? The fifth question, my lords, is, Whether her royal highness, the Princess Charlotte of Wales, having arrived at the age of eighteen years and a half-past the period when parliament has frequently recognised the capacity of persons of the royal family, to assume the government of the country without assistance-whether there is any intention of providing an establishment suitable for her Royal Highness, and proper for her to live and appear according to her due rank in that society, over which, I hope, it will be her lot one day to reign The Earl of Liverpool. My lords, it is perhaps my duty to apologise to your lordships, for even making any observa tions upon the questions put by the illustrous duke. There can exist no doubt, my lords, in many cases, that advantages may result, in putting questions upon subjects of great public importance of great political and national moment-to the ministers of the crown. But I leave it to your lordships, to feel, and to consider, whether, upon a subject of the peculiar nature of the present, the questions put, are questions, which ought to be answered. Upon your judgments, and upon your feelings, I will most willingly and freely rest the decision. My lords, the Prince Regent, as acting in the name, and on the behalf, of his Majesty, is the father of the royal family, and he has the exclusive right, to regulate the education, not only of his own children, but of the other children of the royal family, if there were any. I ask, my lords, what instance is there of parliament having interfered in a proceeding of this nature? Without entering into possible or extreme cases, I wish to know, my lords, what ground the illustrious duke has laid, for any parliamentary interference, or proceeding, upon this case, or that should induce us to concur in any. I am sure, my lords, that in the exercise of his legitimate right, the Prince Regent has adopted no regulation, with respect to the Princess Charlotte, that has not for its object, and for its view, her Royal Highness's own benefit, interest, and advantage; and that his feelings towards her, are purely those of a sovereign and a father; feelings and duties which are not only impressed upon him by nature, but imposed upon him by the laws of the country. And, I trust your lordships will believe, when you come to consider, that, under circumstances like the present, the great person whom I may allude to, would be very far from concurring himself in any act, with re ́spect to the illustrious personage in question, but upon the fullest sense of its contributing to her happiness, her comfort, and her honour. And, I think, my lord, I should not discharge my own duty, or consult my own feelings, or the sense and feelings of the House, if I added another word more. The Duke of Sussex disclaimed, in what he had said, the least idea of expressing any thing disrespectful towards the illustrious person alluded to. But, as he was not satisfied with what had fallen from the noble lord, he felt it his duty to give notice, that on Friday next, he should . make a motion on the subject. His Royal Highness then moved, that the Lords be summoned for Friday next. But The Lord Chancellor said, he could not give a silent vote upon this occasion. The illustrious duke had said, he meant not to say any thing disrespectful towards the great person alluded to. He was persuaded his Royal Highness did not. he must take the liberty of saying, that if his noble friend had answered the questions put to him, under the circumstances of the case, he could not do so, without being guilty of a breach of his duty, in the opinion of any man upon earth. He would have betrayed his duty to his sovereign; and, he would tell his noble friend, that, if he had answered the first part of these questions, he (lord Eldon) would never have conversed again with him. What was meant by the question, Whether the illustrious person referred to, was allowed the same sort of intercourse with her friends and connections, (it might as well have been said, with her enemies), while living under the roof of her royal father? Could that be said not to be an imputation? But he must look upon it as an animadversion upon the ministers of the crown, with reference to supposed advice. He would then only say, that the great person alluded to, had the exclusive right to direct the education of his child, and that no man had a right to interpose; and a very strong ground, indeed, must be previously established, to warrant the interposition of parliament, with respect. to advise so given and followed. And, with reference to the whole of the conduct of the great person alluded to, towards the illustrious personage in question, he had the satisfaction of being able to state, in the face of the country, that he, at least, was deserving of the applause, and not the censure of mankind. The Duke of Sussex shortly explained, that, whatever remarks he had made, might be construed into an animadversion upon the conduct of ministers upon the occasion; but, that he did not conceive it possible, to construe what he had said, in the way of disrespect towards the great person alluded to. Their lordships were then ordered to be summoned for Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. POST-OFFICE PACKETS.] Lord Nugent |