20,000l. It was the more remarkable also that the second sum had been lent, although the interest of the first sum had not been paid. The security on which this sum was lent was a warehouse, or rather shed, rented by Government for the purpose of warehousing tobacco, of which the value could not be above 10,0001. It was true the rent which Government paid for this place was 5,000l.; but this rent was fixed between the two parties, and was, he thought, an extravagant charge. The rent of the warehouse before rented by Government for the same purpose, was only 7001. a year, and at the same rate this warehouse would not be worth more than 2,000. It was for the House to say whether this was sufficient security. The principle, however, of the loan, which was open to the imputation of being made subservient to the purpose of electioneering influence, was the most objectionable. The authority of Parliament had not been given, and the transaction could only be compared to the loan to Boyd and Benfield, for which the minister of the day was obliged to ask an Act of Indemnity from Parliament. Loans to individuals, even when the authority of Parliament was not required, were not justifiable, except in such cases as the loans to the manufacturers some years ago, and that to the planters of Grenada. He should therefore move, "That there be laid before this House an account of any loan of money which may have been advanced by the public for the docks at Liverpool." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he did not intend to oppose the motion; but he should enter into a short explanation of the transaction. The loan to the house of Boyd and Benfield was very different from the present case; that was a loan of money which was in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy, for navy purposes, to the contractors for the loan for the year; so that it was a loan justified no doubt by the circumstances of the case, of money, by the Government to those who again lent it to the Government. But in the present instance, the Government having contracted for a warehouse at Liverpool, for which they were to pay an annual rent, which was thought more convenient than to pay a large sum for purchase-money, the Corporation of Liverpool, who were the contractors, represented that their funds would not enable them to proceed without a loan. They also stated, that on account of the circumstances of the times, they could not procure money at 5 per cent. from private individuals. The Government considering the security unexceptionable, a second application was afterwards made, which, though there was not the same claim on the Government, yet, as the money was to be applied to build a dock, which would materially assist in preventing smuggling, the Government thought fit to comply with it. Besides the rent paid by Government for the warehouse, which was double the interest of both the sums, they had the security of the Corporation estates, which produced a rent of 51,000l. a year, and were worth much more than a million of money. The Government had always made use of its discretion in the purchase or building of warehouses for the purpose of collecting the revenue, and the present case came within the ordinary exercise of that discretion, as it was, in principle, no way different from a purchase of the warehouse in question. He ridiculed the idea of the loan having been made with a view to any influence on any election. Mr. Wynn thought this advance of money most unconstitutional, and observed that it would, if acquiesced in, open a door to abuses of which no man could see the end. The same might be done for Bristol, or any other town which happened to be in favour with the Treasury. The town would first get the money from the Treasury, and then it would only remain to be justified to the House, which was easier than to make out a case for obtaining it from Parliament. Under a Government less pure, the loan might be open to the charge of being granted for the sake of parliamentary influence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the loan was merely an anticipation of the rent. General Gascoyne contended, that the warehouse in question afforded most ample security to the Government, as more than 50,000l. had been laid out on it be fore the money was borrowed from Government. The part which was not used by Government was let out by them, and had produced sometimes 10,000l. a year -so much for the overcharge of rent. He could not speak as to the law of the case; but as to the usage, the loan to Liverpool was by no means singular. Money had been granted to the London and other Dock Companies. The money which should have been applied to build a 1 1 walled dock, had been diverted to the Mr. Bankes said a few words on the purpose of building a warehouse for the advantage of the process to society at Government, and of course the Corpora-large, and on the impossibility of preventtion was justified in applying to the Parlia-ing it from failing in a few cases. ment, or rather the Treasury. Sir J. Newport said, that though the hon. general did not profess to be acquainted with the constitution, he seemed well acquainted with the best way of procuring money for his constituents. The hon. member for Liverpool had asserted, that large sums had formerly been granted to the London Dock and other companies. But then they had been granted by the authority of Parliament. If the precedent of Liverpool were admitted, why might it not be extended to Bristol, to Glasgow, to Dublin, or to Cork? Mr. Bankes expressed his conviction that his right hon. friend had acted from the purest motives, but argued that the principle on which he had so acted was utterly inadmissible. It was high time that such a practice, if it had prevailed to any extent, should be stopped; and he expressed his satisfaction to find that the motion was to be acceded to; as it would put Parliament in possession of the fact on that point. Mr. Benson warmly defended the conduct of the Corporation of Liverpool. An ample security had been given by them for the money advanced, the interest had been paid, and the whole transaction was one not of secresy, but of perfect publicity. Mr. W. Smith reprobated placing the disposal of any part of the public revenue at the discretion of the Treasury, instead of the discretion of Parliament. At the same time, he did not attribute any blame to Government but that inadvertence. Mr. Birch in reply stated, that the Corporation of Liverpool had applied, or had intended to apply, for a remission of the interest, amounting to 4,000l. He denied that the transaction had been so public as it had been described. The motion was then agreed to. VACCINATION BILL.] Mr. Wynn, after alluding to the national benefit of the propagation of this antidote to the smallpox, and observing upon the necessity of doing away the prejudice that prevailed against it amongst the lower orders, through some instances of its failure, moved for leave to bring in a Bill," For procuring the benefit of Vaccination to such poor persons as are desirous of receiving it." Mr. Whitbread thought it highly important that it should not be supposed that because vaccination had in a few instances failed, that inoculation with variolous matter had not failed also. He had known. instances of persons who had been inoculated with the natural small-pox, having taken the infection after a lapse of twenty years. Mr. Bankes thought there had been as many instances of failure in cases of vaccination, as in those of variolous inoculation. He was, however, highly in favour of the former process. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. HOUSE OF LORDS. FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.] Earl Grey gave notice that he would on Thursday move the second reading of the Freehold Estates Bill. He was very desirous that the noble and learned lord who usually sat on the woolsack should be present at the second reading of this Bill, and he was not without hopes that the noble and learned lord would be able to attend on the day which he had named: but considering that this Bill had twice passed the other House-the first time by a great majority, the second time without any opposition to it-and considering also the advanced period of the session, he could not venture to defer the motion for the second reading beyond Thursday. If the noble and learned lord could not then attend, there would be others to state the objections to the Bill, if any objections could be stated to a measure which appeared to be founded on such clear and undoubted principles of equity and justice. Lord Ellenborough expressed his hopet that in case the noble and learned lord who usually sat on the woolsack could not attend on Thursday, the noble earl would be induced still farther to postpone the motion, for no man was better acquainted with the law of real property than that noble and learned lord; no man more capable of explaining to their lordships the fundamental change which the passing of this Bill would introduce into the system: but if the noble earl refused to delay it farther, and the noble and learned lord could not attend, then others would doubtless state the reasons why it ap peared to them that the Bill ought not to pass into a law. It would be recollected that the noble and learned lord to whom he alluded, had in former sessions stated his objections to the Bill, and their lordships had refused to pass it. EAST INDIA SHIPS REGISTRY BILL.] Viscount Torrington said, that as counsel could not be heard that evening on the second reading of this Bill, as was intended, owing to the indisposition of one of them, he would not object to the Bill's being now read a second time, but would afterwards move, That counsel be heard on the commitment of the Bill on Tuesday next. The Earl of Buckinghamshire observed, that as the noble lord seemed to have no objection to the Bill being now read, and was desirous that counsel, under the circumstance to which he referred, should be heard in the committee on Tuesday next, he would not object to the proposed arrangement, and would move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Earl of Donoughmore observed, that the proposition of a measure of such vast importance to the trade, the shipping, and navigation of the country, should be accompanied by some statement of the grounds on which it was brought forward. A statement of the kind had been given in another place; and he deemed it proper that that House should be informed of the grounds upon which so questionable a measure was brought forward. The Earl of Liverpool said, that such was the intention; but as it had been proposed that counsel should be heard that day before the second reading, it was deemed the most regular time to make the necessary statement of the grounds, after the counsel were heard. It now appeared that, from the indisposition of one of the learned gentlemen, counsel could not be heard that day; and it seemed the intention, for general convenience, that the discussion should not take place till the next stage, when his noble friend, or some other of his Majesty's ministers in that House, would be prepared to state the grounds of the proposed measure. The question was then put, and the Bill was read a second time. On the question for its commitment, Lord Sheffield said, he could not reconcile it to himself to suffer a Bill of such a nature to be read a second time in silence; $ as one more mischievous in its tendency, or more calculated to produce injurious consequences to the vital interests of the country, he never knew. The Bill was committed for Tuesday. Viscount Sidmouth communicated to the House a Message from his royal highness the Prince Regent, announcing his Royal Highness's intention of calling out the British and Irish militia, or such part thereof as might be judged necessary. His lordship thereafter moved an Address of Thanks in return to the Message, in the usual form, which was agreed to nem. con. FOREIGN SLAVE TRADE BILL.] The Marquis of Lansdowne moved, that the Report of the Foreign Slave-trade Bill be now received. The Earl of Westmoreland rose to state his objections to the Bill, which had not been at all removed by any amendments which had been introduced since the subject was last under discussion. His lordship then re-stated the objections which he had before urged against the Bill, He was a friend to the principle of the Bill for two reasons; first, because it was but justice to our own West India proprietors and planters, that every exertion should be used to put a stop in other quarters to the Slave-trade, when we had abolished it as far as concerned our own colonies; second, because it was proper that having passed a law we should do that which was necessary to give effect to that law. The general object of the Bill he therefore approved; but he strongly objected to some of the means by which it was proposed to carry that object into effect, because, in his opinion, they were calculated to entrap the innocent. The Bill had two objects; first, to prevent the lending of British capital to be employed in the Slave-trade; second, the lending British money on the security of the estates in the foreign colonies; as money so lent on mortgage would be, in all probability, employed in this traffic. Now, if a person had already taken such a security, he would, on the passing of this Bill, be liable to the punishment, if he rested upon that security, and yet it might be impossible for him immediately to change it. Then, if a person in this country had an agent or partner in the West Indies who lent money in this way, he might be rendered liable at least to trial and prosecu tion for the act of another. Matters of account, the most innocent transactions in the world might be made the ground | years. He had likewise introduced the for a prosecution for felony. A man words knowingly and wilfully' in several might entrap another to lend him money, places, so as to guard the innocent, the and then employ that money in the Slave- knowledge and intention being necessary trade for years. But if he could, by false to constitute the offence. As to the testimony, or otherwise, procure the con- green bag, he had no green bag to bring viction of the lender of the money, he down for such a purpose. He admitted, was, under this Bill, to be completely that on the occasion alluded to, he was purged of his crimes, and quit of the debt. anxious that every investigation should be It was impossible for him not to look with made in order to show the clearest necesalarm at such a provision. The principle sity before enacting several penal laws. of legislation, as he understood it, ought to He did not recollect that he had the noble beut pœna in paucos, metus in omnes earl's assistance on that occasion. It had perveniat.' It could not be said of this been said of an eminent historian, that his Bill, that the pana would fall only on few, humanity never slept except when Chrisbut certainly the metus would fall upon all tians were persecuted. He trusted it those who had property or transactions in could not be said with justice of any nothe West Indies. And then the mode of ble lord in that House, that his humanity trial was objectionable. A person residing never slept when slave-traders were to be here might be sent to the West Indies for punished. But he admitted that the netrial, or if tried here, he must procure his cessity must be clear, and in the present witnesses from thence. Persons might be instance it was notoriously so. In the tried, too, by a commission, or before the last four years, 4,000 slaves had been capjurisdictions in the West Indies, and on tured, which proved the great extent to the coast of Africa; and his lordship which the trade was carried on. stated, that three men had lately been tried before a surgeon at Sierra Leone, and sent to this country, a three-months voyage, in irons. It had been found that these men had not committed the offence within the jurisdiction, and they were discharged. Now, his objection was not to the punishment: let the punishment be what it would, they ought only to punish the guilty; and his objection to this Bill was, that it was a snare for the innocent. The noble marquis, and the other lords on the opposite side, were all alive when, in consequence of certain riots, it was proposed to extend the penal laws. The most rigorous investigation was called for. A noble friend of his (viscount Sidmouth) brought down the green bag in form, and the matter underwent the most anxious inquiry: but here was a severe penal law about to pass in the most crude and imperfect state. He understood that some further amendments were to be proposed, however; and not wishing to object to the principle of the Bill, he should only move, That the Report be taken into further consideration that day se'nnight. The Marquis of Lansdowne could not agree to that proposition. All the amendments might be made now; and he him. self intended to propose some amendments: one was, that the felony, with its consequences, should be left out, and that the offence should be punished as a misdemeanor, by transportion for seven (VOL. XXXI.) The Earl of Westmoreland said, his objection to the Bill was not affected by the alteration. He was still apprehensive that innocent persons might suffer. Earl Stanhope said, he had never seen a bill more inaccurately penned, and he thought the best way would be for his noble friend to prepare it according to his own wishes, and then move that it should be printed. Lord Ellenborough said, that when this Bill first met his eye, it was much more defective in mercy and in sense than any bill which he had ever known. Parlia ment ought not to be disgraced by such a bill. Because he might wish to protect the black man, he would not therefore subject the white man to indefinite prosecution and punishment. He doubted whether it would not be fitter to reject at once such a crude bill as the present, as the labour of reducing it to any thing like a proper shape would be incalculable. The Bill not only advanced at once to transportation for fourteen years, but several things were made punishable in this way which were not crimes at all. For instance, during the last war, several islands had surrendered to his Majesty's arms, and from this it might happen that the same person held estates in the islands of Jamaica and St. Thomas. Now, supposing him to convey slaves from his estate in St. Thomas to strengthen the hands on his estate in Jamaica, by the present (3 I) Bill this would subject him to the penalty of transportation for fourteen years. There was no excuse for bringing such miserable and clumsy performances before Parliament. While the Bill subjected men to the punishment of transportation for transactions which were perfectly innocent, a man might be exempted from its operations who was covered with the sin of the Slave-trade from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot. When men set themselves up for legislators, they ought not to act under the influence of blind passion. The Earl of Liverpool approved of the principle of the Bill. It was an act of justice to the person who framed the Bill, to state that he was himself a West India proprietor, and could not be supposed to be actuated by any of the wild ideas which were entertained by some men on this subject. Lord Redesdale objected to some of the clauses. Lord Ellenborough thought, if they allowed this Bill to struggle into life, it would afford an encouragement to send up bills without the ordinary members and limbs without either sense or composition. He was afraid they would never be able to put down the Slave-trade, so long as the condition of slavery was allowed to subsist the chasms of the black population would always continue to be supplied in some way or other which the law could not reach. But still that ought not to induce them to forego the discharge of their duties. The offence was contrary to the law of God; and it was their duty to endeavour, in every proper way, to prevent its commission. After some farther observations from the marquis of Lansdowne, the earl of Rosslyn, lord Liverpool, and lord Stanhope, the Bill was ordered to be recommitted on Wednesday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 16. CHAPEL EXEMPTION BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Chapel Exemption Bill. Sir W. Scott rose to give his decided opposition to this Bill. It was unnecessary for him to preface his observations by referring to the enormous increase of sectarians of late years in this kingdom;-there was not a town, a village, or hardly a street in which they had not erected a chapel; and the consideration of their exemption from parochial assessment became a matter of no small importance. The ground on which the present Bill was now introduced, was not built upon any alleged grievance on the part of those dissenters; it was not accompanied by any claims for a relief from hardship: he was therefore entitled to assume that no case of complaint existed, and that the plain object in view was an exemption from tax. Now, he knew no places of worship which were exempt from parochial rate, except chapels of ease, places of worship. from which no pecuniary stipend was drawn, and the chapels of foreign ambassadors; all others were rateable, because they belonged to proprietorships, who derived emolument from them, and thereby laid them open to ordinary burthens. Unless this subject was taken up gratuitously by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must suppose he had been instigated by the influence of those religious people for whom the exemption was sought. Now, they came forward with no cause of oppression or injustice; and on what grounds of expedience were the arguments built, which were to create this innovation in the law of the land? Why, that the Bill would produce conciliation through various classes of the community belonging to the churches of England and Scotland. But, it appeared there was no want of harmony and cordiality between these bodies, therefore no bonus of conciliation was required; and his right hon. friend had sallied forth on a diplomatic expedition, to effect a pacification between two bodies, who were already in profound peace. But the plain fact, in his opinion, was, that the parties did not so much seek to take the burthen of rates from themselves, as to throw it upon the backs of others. The increase of population rendered it necessary that those rates should be equally borne by all, and the consequence of any partial exemption would be, that a few would not only escape free, but that their share would be an addi. tional load upon others, who perhaps were already sufficiently encumbered. He denied that any argument of toleration could be drawn from this subject. No man valued this principle higher than he did, but he understood its acknowledged interpretation was this-that every man might exercise whatever form of religious belief |