Thursday, May 30.

Mr Shaw brought up a bill for amending the laws relative to bakers in Dublin; read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.—Mr. I. H. Brown presented a second report of the committee on the Caledonian canal. Ordered to be printed.—The bill for amending the general turnpike act was read a third time, and passed. —The chairman of the committee appointed to consider of the propriety of allowing coals to be brought to London by the Paddington canal, reported that the pressure of time did not allow the committee to give the subject the full consi?deration which its importance required. The committee recommended that 50,000 ton of coals should be allowed to be brought by the canal between this period and the 1st of June, 1806, paying the same duty as coals brought coast-wise. It was also recommended that a committee should be appointed early in the next session for the full and complete investigation of the question. The report was ordered to be printed. —Sir C. Price presented a bill for making compensation to persons injured by the erection of the London docks. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.—Mr. P. Moore presented a petition from certain freeholders of Middlesex, praying the house to interpose its authority to procure them compensation from the parties in the late controverted election for that county, for their loss of time in attending as witnesses before the committee appointed to try the merits of that election. The precedent of the Carlisle case being read, the petition was referred to a committee.—The bill for regulating the office of paymaster of the forces was read a third time and passed.—The bill for amending the act of last session, for the better prosecution of felons in the united kingdom, was read a second time, and ordered to be committed tomorrow.—Mr. Vansittart brought in a bill to provide for the more effectual administration of the office of justice of the peace in Dublin; and a bill for amending the act allowing bounties for supplying certain places in the united kingdom with fish. The object of this bill was, to allow the lord lieutenant of Ireland to appropriate the sum allowed for bounties in that country, to the repair of harbours. —Both these bills were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. —Sir John Stuart, as chairman of the committee on the repairs of the Romney, &c. reported, that the lords had, in answer to the request of the house to permit the earls of Buckinghamshire and St. Vincent, and lord Sidmouth, to come and be examined before the committee, as to the proceedings with respect to sir Home Popham, desired to be informed of the grounds of the request, and the particular objects of the examination. The chancellor of the exchequer thought the matter of this report worthy of consideration, and moved that it should be taken into consideration to-morrow. —Mr. Foster brought in a bill for regulating the collection of the hearth duty in Ireland. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second tune to-morrow. —On the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer the order for the production of accounts of monies invested in the funds in the name of the accountant-general of the court of chancery, and the deputy remembrancer of the exchequer, for the account of suitors in these courts, was discharged, and the accounts were ordered in the amended form of account of unclaimed dividends, and that part of such dividends as stood in the names of these officers. —On the motion of Mr. Jeffery, after a few observations from admiral Markham, a number of accounts relating to the supply of foreign timber to the navy, were ordered, with a discretion Of omitting the names of the places and persons. whence the timber was to be obtained, when the disclosure would he inconvenient to the public service. The form of this limitation was suggested by the chancellor of the exchequer. Several accounts relative to the stores of British oak timber, and the building and repairs of ships, were also ordered on time motion of Mr. Jeffery.—On the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, the Smuggling Prevention bill passed through a committee. When the house being resumed, the report was brought up, ordered to be printed, for the purpose of being taken into further consideration this day se'nnight, and an order made that the petitioners against the bill be heard by counsel against the bill if they think fit, on the further consideration of the report. —The Irish Stamp Duties bill, the Irish Malt bill, and the Irish Excise License bill, were read a third time and passed. —The Irish Distillery bill, the West India Free Ports bill, the Post Horse Duty Farming bill, and the Auditors of Public Accounts bill, passed severally through committees. To be reported to-morrow. —Mr.Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the propriety of allowing the lord lieutenant of Ireland to grant the sum of 20,0001. to the paving board of Dublin for paving that city. The resolution was agreed to; and it was ordered to be an instruction to the committee on the paving commissioners' bill, to make provision therein pursuant thereto.—Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee for exempting woollens exported to the East Indies from duties of customs; the resolution was agreed to, and a bill ordered accordingly.—The house went into a committee on the Southern Whale Fishery act; and, on the motion of Mr. Rose, resolved, that the bounties at present existing for the encouragement of that trade, should be continued. The report was ordered to be received to-morrow. —Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the Irish Excise and Customs Offices bill, which was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time tomorrow. —On the motion of Mr. Foster, an order was made for a committee of the whole house to consider of the propriety of improving the harbour of Dublin on the north side of the hill of Howth, and making it a fit station for his majesty's packets.

Mr. P. Moore rose, pursuant to notice, to move the appointment of a committee to examine the petition he had the honour to present to the house in time month of March last, from the journeymen calico printers; and also to move, that the evidence taken before a committee in the course of the last session upon this subject

should be referred to the consideration of the said committee, in order to make a report thereon. In bringing forward this business, the hon. member was glad to see the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer in his place, as he was led to believe that that right hon. gent. was not unfriendly to the object of the petitioners; but, on the contrary, rather disposed to accelerate their relief, and to render them complete justice. The knowledge of this circumstance without doors would, he hoped, have the effect of urging the masters in the calico printing trade to accede to that amicable adjustment with the journeymen, which had been so strongly recommended by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan) about the close of the last session. It was very much to be regretted that such an adjustment had not taken place, and the disinclination of the masters to consent to it, rendered it indispensably necessary to the cause of justice, that some legislative proceeding should be adopted. He had consulted with the chairman of the committee which sat last sessions, and it was his opinion, with that of many other members of that committee, that it was highly proper that something decided should be done. The question for consideration, as it struck him, was this, whether the ordinary and established relation between masters and journeymen in the other mechanical professions should exist in the trade of the calico printers. At present no such relation did exist. All the advantages of the system of apprenticeship were, in this trade, on the side of the masters, which, the moment an apprenticeship ex?pired, the person who served it was likely to be thrown out of bread, without even the chance of future employment. It was, he contended, one of the first duties of a good government, particularly in a trading country, to attend to a case of this nature. While the system of apprenticeships went on, it was surely unfair that it should operate altogether in favour of one of the contracting parties; the one devoting so many years of his life to qualify himself to work as a journeyman at a trade, from the op?portunity of employment at which the master excludes him, by the extreme and successive multiplication of apprentices. In consequence of this practice, there were at present some thousands of journeymen calico printers out of work; the greater part of whom are refused employment, unless they consent to sign a second con-

tract, or indenture, binding themselves tor serve a kind of second apprenticeship, on the terms. prescribed by the masters. The difference between the wages of an apprentice and a journeyman was, he observed, from 4s. and 7s. to 24s. and 30s. per week. Of course the masters were naturally disposed to prefer the former. It was, however, incumbent on those to whom the duty of legislative arrangement belonged, to consider fairly the interests of all classes. And the interest of the master was not, surely, entitled to such a preference as should put that of the journeyman entirely out of view. But with respect to the interest of the community; the value of any article of manufacture was to be estimated in a great measure with reference to the price of labour. Now, as the calico printers sold their goods at a price, founded on the rate of wages at 30s. per week, although they obtained persons to work at 4s. and 7s. it struck his mind that they had more profit than they were justly entitled to. For the fact was, that although the journeymen were deprived of their subsistence, to make way for the employment of boys, and thus to reduce the expence of manufacture, no reduction whatever took place in consequence of the price of the article to the public. All the profit was confined to the master, none whatever was given to the consumer. It really appeared to him, that such a case formed a fit subject for taxation, and ought to be made productive to the revenue. The hon. member concluded with submitting his motion.

Mr. Rose, was ready to admit the importance of this question, and was fully inclined to give the utmost attention to the prayer of the petitioners. Their case, he was well assured, was deserving of consideration. But from the knowledge be had of a similar business in the course of the two last sessions, he was much afraid that the subject was too complicated to be gone into at the present advanced period of the session; that it could not be disposed of in one or two days, as the hon. mover seemed to imagine, nor in so many weeks. He therefore submitted to the hon. gent. whether it would not be better to postpone the matter till the next session, when, as early as he chose to bring it forward, he (Mr. Rose) should be ready to give him any assistance in his power.—Mr. Egerton and Mr. Lascelles thought the case of the petitioners highly deserving of atten-

tion, but concurred with the right hon. gent. who spoke last, that it was too late in the session at present to give it all the consideration that was due to it.

Mr. P. Moore expressed his unwillingness to press the subject at present. He wished and hoped that ministers would take up the case of the petitioners, and have justice done to them. They could hardly select a case where the exertion of their influence would do them more honour. The petitioners he felt to be treated with great injustice, and he trusted that the gentlemen who professed a disposition to attend to their claims, would give him their assistance next session, when, at an early period, he pledged himself to bring the subject before the house.—The hon. member, with leave of the house, withdrew his motion.

Mr. Whitbread said, that when he bad given notice of a motion arising out of the tenth report, for Thursday next, it was on the supposition that the report of the select committee might have been printed by this day, and that members would consequently have sufficient time to take it into consideration. As he was now informed that it could not be printed till Saturday, he was under the necessity of postponing his motion. As he understood Monday se'nnight would not be a convenient day, he should now fix Tuesday se'nnight for the motion of which he had given notice.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he understood the notice which the hon. member had given, embraced two objects: the first was the impeachment of lord Melville; the second, certain resolutions which he intended to move against him. As to the first object, it was possible that the grounds which the hon. member night take, would be so connected with the voluminous matter of the report, that it might be absolutely necessary to allow members time to read and consider the whole; but, if the second object of his notice, the resolutions which were to be moved against him personally, did not depend upon so many circumstances, but laid in a narrow compass, he hoped it might be possible to bring them forward on the day first appointed. It certainly was not for him to name any particular day: that must be in the breast of whoever should bring the motion forward, but he felt very desirous, that whatever related to,him personally, should be sub-

mitted to the consideration of the house with as little delay as possible.

Mr. Whitbread declared, that it would be his personal wish to bring the motion forward as soon as possible; but when it was considered that many members would go out of town for the holidays, and would. not see the report till Wednesday next, he thought it would be too much to ask them to discuss it the following day. Many would wish to read the whole report before they felt prepared to give an opinion on any part of the subject; he must therefore adhere to his intention of bringing forward the motion of impeachment on Tuesday se'nnight, and as soon as that question was disposed of, he should be ready without delay to proceed with the resolutions respecting the chancellor of the exchequer.

Mr. Canning said, the matters which were to be made the grounds of charge against his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer must be known, and any member of the committee was competent to say, whether what related to the conduct of his right hon. friend was capable of being considered first. He wished some other member of the committee besides the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) to say whether that part of the report could be separated from the general matter. If it could be separated, and if it could be clearly understood in this distinct form, he saw no reason why any member of the committee might not move that it be taken into consideration on Thursday.

Mr. H. Lascelles stated, that the general matter of the report related to lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. The part which related to the right hon. gent. the chancellor of the exchequer, was distinct. There were only three points that could be made the ground of resolutions against the right hon. gent.: the application of the 40,000l. the conversations with Mr. Raikes, and the affair of Jellicoe. These points were plain and distinct, and required no delay for the consideration of them, at the same time that it was most important that the sense of the house upon them should be speedily pronounced. If no other member of the committee thought there was reason for delay, he thought the matter ought to be proceeded on without delay; and if no other was disposed to move that the points he had referred to be taken into consideration at the earliest period, he should

Mr. Whitbread said, if the hon. gent. did what he proposed, he believed he would

do that which was wholly without precedent. When one member gave a notice of a motion, it would be very extraordinary indeed that another should take the business out of his hands, merely because he might wish it to be decided upon a day or two sooner. It would be for the house to consider whether any thing resulting from the papers could be judged of before the papers were fully considered, and whether the the papers could be fully considered in any time short of that he proposed. Unquestionably the members of the committee had the means of forming distinct opinions without this delay; and it was as a member of the committee he had the means of forming the opinion on which he had given his notice. But that was not a reason for calling on the house to pronounce without consideration on what the members of the committee were already perfectly acquainted with. The committee, as a body, had not agreed to propose any proceedings on the report. If the committee had been of opinion to institute such proceedings, the chairman would have been instructed accordingly. He had asked the chairman, whether he meant to submit any motion to the house; and it was on being informed that the chairman had no such intention, that he formed the determination of bringing forward the, measure of which he had given notice. He again represented the extraordinary proceeding of the hon. gent. in taking the matter out of his hands Merely because he wished the business to be considered a day or two earlier. The papers would not be ready before Saturday evening. Many gentlemen Would have left town before that day for the holidays, and would not, of course, have the papers in their hands before Wednesday. He thought the day he mentioned sufficiently early, and he adhered to the order he had laid down.

Mr. H. Lascelles hoped that he was not disorderly in the notice he had given, as he assured the house that nothing was farther from his intention than to be guilty of any irregularity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked whether the hon. gent. meant to bring forward both motions on the same day? thought the hon. gent. could hardly expect the house to decide so summarily.

Mr. Whitbread said, he had meant merely that there would be no delay on his part. He would be ready to submit his second propositions as soon as the house

could meet after the discussion of the first part.

Mr. Fox would not say that it was not competent to any member, who should think proper so to do, to give a notice for the anticipation of that of another. It was, however, a matter of delicacy, subject to that discretion which was usually exercised on every such occasion.

The Attorney-General moved the third reading of the Stipendiary Curates' bill.

Mr. Barham opposed the motion. He thought it a bill that took away part of the property of the rector, although the duty was performed. If the duty were not performed, he might see some reason for the measure. The bill was at variance with existing statutes, and at variance with its own enactments. If the property of the church was to be attacked, let it be attacked directly and openly, and not indirectly and in disguise. He was one who wished the church supported by the state, believing our church to be upon the whole the purest church in Christendom. But the present bill tended to vitiate the constitution, and subvert the establishment of the church. Not only the ecclesiastical, but political power it conferred on the bishops was alarming. It gave opportunities for their interfering in elections, which, from cases easily to be remembered, might be much and very grievously abused. On the other hand, it shook to the base the foundation of all ecclesiastical property. The tenure of such property would, after the passing of this bill, should it pass, be totally changed. The scale of appropriation did not measure income by the necessities of the curate, but by the opulence of the living. What, under the circumstances, he should have thought, and did think, most desirable, was, to have moved for a committee to examine into the statutes bearing on the subject, and generally to consider of the best mode of regulating the interests of the curates, and others affected by the present question.

Mr. Alexander was decidedly inimical to the measure. Ever since the commencement of the French revolution, church property was rendered insecure, by new doctrines. The present bill partook of the character of the revolutionary edicts of the French Jacobins, Church property was unsettled by such laws. The king and parliament ought to resist innovation in the rights of property with regard to the church.

Mr. Fuller knew that in the county of Sussex, which he had the honour to represent, the clergy had not had time to make up their minds as to the bill. He therefore, if seconded, should press that the bill should not be read a third time till this day six months.

Mr. Deverell thought the measure both premature and imperfect. He should not have opposed it if it had thrown the church property into a mass, and proposed to appoint a vicar-general of church revenues, who should distribute incomes to the curates as they might be worthy. At present it was a bill to enlarge and extend the patronage of the bishop. If it was for the good of the public, he should not object; but when it was a bill empowering the bishops to raise the incomes of the curates to 250l. or 150l. a year, it was a bill of mere diocesan patronage. As far as it changed the usage of the law of the land, it was still more objectionable. No appeal laid, but to the quarter sessions, or the archbishop in London. It took away the ordinary option of the common law. For all these reasons he thought the measure ought to be postponed.

Mr. Graham had so great an objection to the bill, that he would support the amendment. The ,bill placed the clergy in a worse situation than any other of ins majesty's subjects. It was a bill to enforce the residence of curates, but to banish the rectors.

Mr. I. H. Browne supported the bill. It went no farther than other statutes, except in as far as related to livings above 400l. a year. The objection to this law would be a good objection to all other laws.

Mr. Pole Carew thought the measure incomplete. It ought to have been devised so as to embrace the subject of great ecclesiastical bodies, Unit did not give more than from 20l. to 50l. a year, though their revenues were enormous.

Lord Porchester went over the grounds of his former arguments against the measure. He thought the measure founded on the antient jacobin principle. The worst reform and innovation would be, if it were attempted to reform the church on those principles so exploded by gentlemen over against him on former occasions; yet these were the very principles now set up in this bill. If the gentlemen of opposition had said, in 1794 or 1795, that the church revenues were salaries, mere properties, which the public gave, and the public might take

away, the other side would have denounced such language as unwarrantable, and unconstitutional. He thought the bill unprincipled, incoherent, and wicked. He moved an amendment, that this bill be read a third time this day three months.

The Attorney-General defended the measure, but would not go over a ground of argument which had been previously so much contested. He insisted that there was nothing new in the principle of the bill, and took shame to himself for nothing so much as that he did not introduce it before.—The house then divided; for the original motion 38; for the amendment 17; majority for the bill 21.—The bill was accordingly read a third time, and after some verbal amendments passed, and sent to the lords.—Adjourned.