at the time of the assizes at Nottingham. | trates out of their dormancy, and that was It was said there was nothing like this to be effected by making them feel the bill to be found any where; whereas there severities of the law, for criminally neg. were many cases analogous to this. The lecting their duty. power of magistrates under charter had been increased where their power had been found deficient. This was the case of the borough of Leicester; the magistrates there had a power of concurrent jurisdiction over parts of the country. The same case applied to Clitheroe, where the magistrates of the borough interfere with those of the county, and this principle was recognised in a statute of Henry 7th, which he cited. There was also an Irish act, 38 Geo. 3rd, c. 73, by which the magistrates of the counties can go to all the boroughs to convict those who are guilty of selling spirituous liquors contrary to law. The Coventry case was likewise analogous. All these showed that parliament had interfered in the conduct of magistrates in boroughs, as well as in places without charters, when the public welfare could not be supported by these chartered customs. He must express an anxious wish, that independent gentlemen should act for Nottingham; and if that was not to be the consequence of the bill, it would be useless. But how could it be required, that a person who was to act as a magistrate under the authority of this bill, should take out a dedimus potestatem, for the purpose of merely running his head into a riot, without having any means of preventing it? Magistrates had much to do in a quiet way, as well as acting on occasions of actual riot. He believed, that if the House adopted this bill, they would adopt the best means that had yet been offered to remedy a considerable evil, and that the magistrates would become, what they ought to be, a protection to the good, and a terror to the wicked. Mr. Peter Moore, in a maiden speech, said, that he thought the magistrates had neglected their duty in this case. He had witnessed some riotous proceedings at Coventry. In the business of Nottingham there was much to lament, and much to correct; but he saw nothing in the report upon this subject which the magistrates of that town were not now competent to correct. He thought that every necessary provision should be made to prevent the recurrence of the evil without overturning the constitution of the borough. There was nothing wanting but to awaken the magis Mr. Grey complained that the resolutions of the committee were deficient in precision. They made heavy charges against the magistrates of Nottingham, without specifying those parts of the evidence on which the charges were supported. He could not but consider the bill as a bill of disfranchisement. He wished to know distinctly in what the fault of the magistrates of Nottingham consisted? Was it in their want of power, or their want of inclination, to preserve the peace of the town? It had not been proved that they were censurable in either of these respects. The learned gentleman had spoken of the lenity of the bill. Now what was the situation of the parties to whom this boasted lenity was applied? Are they not men anxious that every part of their conduct should be investigated. But, in the absence of all conclusive testimony against them, labouring under a charge of the most foul and atrocious kind, and denied all opportunity or means of repelling, they deprecated a measure which went to deprive them of a most important con stitutional privilege. In whatever point of view the subject was considered, the remedy proposed was inadequate. Was it meant to be said that the magistrates fomented disturbances? In support of so serious a charge, there was not a tittle of evidence. He had to say then, that during the absence of riots, there was no evidence of the inadequacy of the magis trates to preserve the good order of the town. All that was therefore necessary was, that additional power should be given when the existence of riots rendered the ordinary police of the town inadequate to the maintenance of tranquillity. He was therefore in favour of a clause to this effect. Mr. Rose said, the bill was rendered indispensably necessary, not merely by recent occurrences, but by the successive history of riots, which he could trace to almost every former election at Notting ham, so far as 120 years back. In none of these cases did it appear that the ma gistrates were competent to preserve peace; and whether this incompetence arose from imbecility, negligence, of want of sufficient powers, some measure appeared to be indispensable, which should secure the peace of the town. The bill was ordered to be committed on Monday. May 3. On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill, Mr. Fox said, that he considered it calculated for the future undermining of the laws of this country, by throwing an additional power into the hands of the executive. Was the bill formed under the supposition of guilt or innocence? If not guilty, there was no occasion for parliamentary interference; if guilty, the laws were sufficient for their punishment. If the magistrates in the execution of their duty could not suppress such riots, the proper remedy would be, to enlarge their powers, by adding to their numbers, according to the constitution of that body; but by no means by the addition of others, where an elective magistracy had alone existed. It was a strong feature of the constitution, that the magistracy of this country was divided between the appointment of the crown and the right of election. The county magistrates were appointed by the crown, and in towns the magistracy was generally elective. It was said, that the inhabitants of Nottingham were not interested in this subject. Had men no interest in electing their magistrates, by whom they were to be governed? But you say the elective magistrates have not been able to do their duty. If Nottingham is said to be riotous, other places were equally so. If the magistrates were guilty, let them be tried. But it was a new principle, that if elective magistrates were guilty, those who had the right of election should be injured. He strongly objected to the jesuitism of the proposition, not to impute guilt, and yet to punish by rendering men objects of contempt. He objected to the bill as a precedent, which, if followed up, would not leave a corporation existing in the country. Riots had prevailed in almost every part of the country; and if, which God forbid, the riots of 1780 should again happen, it would be a ground for disfranchising even London. After a short debate, the question being put, That the bill be now read a third time, the House divided: Proceedings against James Trotter for Contempt of the Orders of the House.] March 25. Lord Euston presented a petition from James Trotter, now a prisoner in the custody of the serjeant at arms, in consequence of not having obeyed the summons of the House to attend as a witness before the Dunfermline election committee. The petitioner acknowledged his fault; begged pardon of the House; declared he had erred from ignorance; that his absence from home was a great detriment to his private affairs; and prayed that he might be set at liberty. The noble lord then moved that he be brought up on Monday, in order to be discharged.- Mr. Tierney said, it was proper to consider how the rights of a petitioner might be affected, if a material witness refused to attend. The conduct of this man the House ought particularly to set its face against. It was more dangerous, as affecting the rights of election, than even perjury or prevarication. These could be detected, but nothing could compensate for a man's withholding his evidence altogether. If this man had been forthcoming, his evidence would have made a most material alteration in the decision of the committee. He should therefore move, that he be brought up, in order to be committed to Newgate for six months. A long conversation then took place, relative to the proceeding that ought to be adopted on this occasion. It was at last agreed, That J. Trotter should be brought to the bar of the House on Monday next. March 28. James Trotter was heard in his defence. After he was taken from the bar, lord Euston moved, "That he be again brought to the bar, in order to his being discharged." Mr. Tierney considered this punishment as altogether insufficient. He could by no means believe, that the prisoner could have remained so long ignorant of a summons, from such high authority, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, which was a thing that must have been spoken of, as a circumstance rather unusual in the neighbourhood. It was much more likely, that he was absent from his house to avoid being obliged to answer some questions he might be asked, about 164 bribing a voter at Queen's Ferry. He thought, that he ought to be committed to Newgate; and should move a resolution, declaring the sense the House en 29 ༣། tertained of his conduct, and should follow that up, by a motion for committing him to Newgate. Mr. Sheridan also thought an exem. plary punishment should be inflicted upon him; he, himself, had confessed, that between the times of the service of the first and second warrants, he had returned to his family; and yet he had paid no attention to the warrant he had seen. The Lord Advocate was against a severe punishment, on the ground, that there was no wilful contempt; but, that the prisoner might have really thought the first order needed not be obeyed, as he did not receive it till after the day on which it specified, that he ought to attend: he thought his confinement, his being brought up here, nearly 400 miles, and his expressions of sorrow, should weigh with the House, against inflicting a severe punishment. Mr. W. Dundas and lord Dunlo thought, that under all the circumstances, of what he had already suffered, and his situation in life, he might now be reprimanded and discharged. Mr. Fox said, that when he looked to all the circumstances of the case, he felt strongly the propriety of inflicting some very signal punishment on the prisoner for the crime of which he had been found guilty. He could not, indeed, conceive how any man who had the smallest respect for the privileges of the House, or the importance of a free and fair election, could possibly think of voting for the motion of the noble lord. He had no difficulty in saying that, in a moral point of view, prevarication and perjury were crimes of a more atrocious kind than that of which the prisoner stood convicted; but it was to be considered, that there were laws to which these crimes were amenable, and that the institutions of society had attached to them a punishment adequate to their enormity. Was it, however, so with the crime of which the prisoner had confessed his guilt. If it was not to be signally punished, where was the case to present itself when severity of punishment was to be employed? If the House were so far wanting to themselves as to suffer this crime to escape with impunity, there was no longer any protection for the rights of individuals in the exercise and enjoyment of the highest privilege of a free people What was the case now before the House? The prisoner says that he was duly served with the order for his attendance. Ignorance is not therefore the plea on which he rests his defence. He tells the House, however, very plainly, that, if he had known of the dangers of disobedience, he would, without hesitation, have complied with the order. The house were called on to consider well the nature of such a defence. If ignorance of the danger of disobedience was, in this instance, admitted, what could prevent the same plea from being set up in every other quarter? Bribery and corruption were to be severely punished. But would any man say that wilful absence was not equally criminal, when, in consequence of this absence, the existence of this bribery and corruption could not be established, and individuals were deprived of their just rights and privileges with regard to the national representation? If cases of this nature were once suffered to pass with impunity, witnesses, on points of the highest importance, might be kept back, and no redress for the injured party could be obtained. In certain circumstances, they might be kept back to prevent & most material subject from being brought to a full and fair investigation; and, in other instances, this absence might be useful to conceal the existence of prac tices which no principle of our constitu tion could sanction. Under such circumstances, it was only necessary for a candi date, however corrupt the manner in which his election was carried, to calculate the expense of keeping back material witnesses, and then the whole business of election would become a matter of mere calculation. On this plain ground, he was decidedly hostile to the original mo tion. It appeared to him that a case of manifest guilt had been made out against the prisoner, and therefore he should give his hearty concurrence to the amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt on the importance of preserving the pri vileges of the House, and said, he could not consent to allow the prisoner, under all the aggravating circumstances of the case, to be discharged without a more exemplary punishment. He confirmed and illustrated the arguments of all the former speakers on the same side, and in the course of his argument discovered the extent of his knowledge of parliamentary proceedings. Mr. Rose contended for a punishment, in the present instance, far more severe than a simple reprimand. The crime was one pregnant with evil, and no time ought to be lost in showing the public that it was one which the legislature were determined to punish with severity. Mr. T. Grenville delivered a warm speech in support of an exemplary punishment. He supported, with filial enthusiasm, the spirit and tendency of that bill, from which the public has derived such important advantages. A motion such as that which had been originally brought forward was one which would disgrace the Journals of parliament, and he therefore earnestly conjured the noble lord to withdraw it. Lord Euston's motion was negatived: after which, the chancellor of the exchequer moved, "That so much of the minutes of the evidence taken before the select committee, as relates to the said James Trotter, be laid before the House;" which motion was agreed to. April 4. After a short debate, the House, on the motion of Mr. Tierney, came to the following resolutions: "That James Trotter, now in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, 'having been duly summoned by the Speaker's warrant, and also by an order, signed by the chairman of the select committee on the Dunfermline, &c. election, to attend to give evidence before the said committee, and having disobeyed such warrant and order, by not appearing in pursuance thereof, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House." And it was ordered, nem. That the said James Trotter be, for his said offence, committed to Newgate. -Trotter continued in Newgate until the 6th of May, when he was reprimanded and discharged. con. its object to generalize the law with regard to certain penal offences, and to adapt it equally to every part of the united kingdom. Among other provisions, he had introduced several to meet the defects and difficulties that now lay in the way of conviction for several offences of the most criminal nature. One went to constitute an assault with intent to commit murder, a capital felony, whereas at present it was only a misdemeanor. Another to make the attempting to fire a gun or pistol, with intent to kill, although the attempt failed by the weapon's missing fire, by flashing in the pan, or other accident, a capital felony. A third, to constitute the administering poison with intent to destroy, also a capital felony. Another to relieve the judges from the difficulties they labour under in respect to the trial of women indicted for childmurder, in the case of bastards. At present the judges were obliged to strain the law for the sake of lenity, and to admit the slightest suggestion that the child was still-born as evidence of the fact. Upon this point, the law, as it now stands, is so severe in a constructive view towards the mother of a bastard child, supposed to have been murdered after its birth, that in case of such child being found dead, or being made away with, the proof of the mother having previously concealed her pregnancy, is to be taken as sufficient to convict of the murder. A clause was therefore inserted in the present bill, repealing the law as it now stood, and reenacting a proviso, requiring that evidence should first be duly admitted, that such bastard child was, or was not, born living, previous to the final decision upon any trial. Another provision went to the punishment of those guilty of administering drugs and potions to procure abortions. There was another crime highly atrocious, which was not capitally punishable by the laws of Ireland; namely, that of a man setting fire to, and burning his own house, with intent to defraud the insurers; for this species of arson, the capital punishment only attached where the fire extended to the house of his neighbour; but as it was a crime not only calculated to defraud one set of men as much as that of forgery, or of sinking a ship at sea, but with incalculable danger to the lives and properties of a whole neighbourhood, and consequently fraught, as much as any act could be, with the very essence of criminality, namely, deliberate inten Lord Ellenborough's Maiming and Wounding Bill.] March 28. Lord Ellenborough reminded the House, that he had, on Friday last, moved to postpone the committal of the chalking bill for Ireland. He had done so, to introduce to their lordships a bill, for the purpose of explaining and amending the Coventry act, under which no man who wounded, maimed, or defaced another, could be convicted, unless the lying-in-wait, with a view to commit the offence was proved; and for want of that sort of proof, an atrocious offender had recently been acquitted at the Old Bailey. It had also for tion and malice prepense, it was as deservedly to be ranked amongst capital crimes in Ireland, as in this country. The bill was read a first time. Debate in the Lords on the Irish Bank Restriction Bill.] May 3. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, Lord King delivered his sentiments fully on the subject. He considered, that it was those restrictions, which, by encouraging an enormous issue of bank notes, had produced their depreciation, and finally the rate of exchange so unfavourable to Ireland. Country banks had not done so much mischief as was usually attributed to them; on the contrary, they had afforded great accommodations to the public, and he believed they were a salutary check upon the Bank of England, which was now much more careful and vigilant, as to its notes, than probably it otherwise would have been. The country banks were also an excellent check to forgery, which would seldom be detected, if there were no other notes circulating than those of the Bank of England. In Ireland, during the year 1797, the number of notes issued, amounted to only 600,000l.; and now there were no less than 2,600,000l. in circulation. This was a circumstance which sufficiently accounted for the balance of trade being so unfavourable. He thought the directors of the Bank of Ireland had grossly abused that discretionary power which had been vested in them; he should therefore move a clause in this bill, that the Bank of Ireland should be obliged to pay their own notes in those of the Bank of England, which would prove a check on the enormous issue they had lately made. He thought there ought not to be two standards of currency in the countries which were now united; he should not, however, propose that such a clause should operate sooner than six months from the present time. The Earl of Limerick defended the conduct of the directors of the Bank of Ireland, who had been prudent, as well as vigilant in the discharge of their duty. The first great increase in the issues of the bank of Ireland, was in consequence of an effort of the conspiracy that was then forming, to distress the government by a run upon all the country banks, which must necessarily also produce a run on the bank of Ireland; it was to counteract this scheme, that they were first obliged to increase their issues. The bank of Ireland had, in spite of surrounding difficulties, of foreign invasion and rebellion, still kept up its credit, and given great accommodation to the public. He attributed the unfavourable state of exchange in a great measure, to the increase of the public debt, which was now 40 millions, although in 1797, it was but 7 millions. Lord Auckland entirely coincided with what had fallen from the earl of Limerick; he therefore supported the bill, which was read a second time. May 5. On the committal of the bill, Lord King again adverted to the rate of exchange between the two countries, the unfavourable state of which to Ire land, he attributed to the depreciation of its currency naturally arising from the excessive issue of bank notes, which were the circulating medium. He concluded, by moving a clause, that the governor and company of the Bank of Ireland, should be obliged, upon demand, to pay their notes in English bank notes. The Marquis of Sligo said, it was im possible to add such a clause as this, to bill for restricting payments in specie; as the Bank of Ireland could not get those Bank of England notes, without paying guineas for them. Such a clause would militate against the whole principle of the bill. As to the rate of exchange, it per haps carried with it its own remedy: the exchange operated as a tax upon im. ports, and a bounty upon exports. He admitted the very unfavourable circum stances in which Ireland now stood; but he hoped, that better prospects would soon appear. The Earl of Limerick also disapproved of the clause, which was negatived. Debate on Lord King's Motion respect ing the Financial State of the Country.] May 13. Lord King rose to call their attention to the papers which had for some time been in their lordships' hands. It was a subject of the last consequence, that the erroneous ideas which had been spread among the monied interest, and the public in general, in consequence of a noble lord's statements, should be cor rected. With this view, he had for some time been anxious, that the situation of the country, with respect to its finances, might be clearly ascertained. The noble |