thought the session was too far advanced for the introduction of a measure that went to make so great a change upon the law as it at present stood relative to Lead Mines. The bill appeared to him to take a step in a wrong direction, and to extend the liability to the poor-rates, instead of narrowing it, as sound policy seemed to him to require. He wished the hon. mover would consent to postpone the subject to another session. He did not intend to argue the case upon its merits, as other gentlemen might probably differ from him on that subject, and therefore should not move that the bill be read a second time that day three months; but he begged leave again to suggest to the hon. member the propriety of postponement to another session.

contended, that the bill was only to prevent an evasion of the present laws. By a decision of the court of King's-bench it was determined, that though the owners of mines who received a share of the gross produce, were to be assessed to the poor-rates on that share, yet if they commuted it for a money-rent, they were not liable to be assessed at all. The bill was to remedy this inequality; and at any rate he thought, that either all mines should be subject to the rates, or all should be exempted.

hoped for the attention of the House, for a few minutes, on two grounds; the first was, his extensive acquaintance with the whole nature of these mines; and the second was, his having made up his mind to give, on this occasion, a vote which directly clashed with his own personal interest. His full conviction was, that the proprietors ought not to get rid of this assessment through a legal quibble. On the general principle of the poor-rates, he had, twelve years ago, pronounced his opinion, and had then almost stood, alone in his view of their consequences. The experience of the years that had since intervened, had fortified him in his first impressions, and confirmed his belief that, unless the poor-rates could be arrested, they would absorb the whole surplus property of the country, and plunge both the payers and the objects of them into one general destruction. The steps taken on this subject by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Bourne), had done a great deal of good, and would, he trusted, in the ensuing session, be followed up by more decisive steps than were thought at the outset advisable. But the case in the present question of the mines was simply this—it was the custom of the proprietors to reserve a twelfth, or a given amount, of the dues from the occupier, and to take it generally in ore: they were for the last forty years assessed for the poor-rates accordingly, and on the principle, that they brought into the parishes a large number of labourers, who, when the mines ceased to work, were uniformly thrown as a burden on the parish. Now, in some late instances, certain proprietors had contrived to make the reserved dues payable in money; and it was decided by the judges, that a rent of this kind was not assessable as the law stood. The object of the present bill was, to make all the proprietors, whether they received their dues in money or kind, alike rateable. The occupier was to pay, with power of deducting from his proprietor; and where the proprietor was an adventurer in working the mines, he was to be rated in the usual proportion of the reserved dues. So long as the one class of mines were called upon to pay, he could see no equitable reason for exempting the other.

opposed the bill, upon the ground that it would render the owners of lead-mines liable to the poor-rates, and not the adventurers or occupiers.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the charge would fall upon the owners. There could be no danger of that, when the present leases expired. Great distress prevailed in the districts where those mines were situated; so much so, that the land was almost eat up by the poor-rates. The petitioners had merely stated their distress, which arose from the principle that was formerly acted upon, with respect to lead-mines, being withdrawn. He hoped, therefore, the House would interfere by some legislative measure.

said, the question was, whether this species of property should contribute any thing towards the poor-rates; for if the bill did not pass, those who had contributed for years would cease to do so. The best way would be, to put lead-mines on the same footing as coalmines. To rate the owner would be a less inconvenience than to let such property escape altogether.

expressed a wish that the bill should be withdrawn. When better understood, the country would be more ready to accept it. He should therefore propose, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

The question being put, that the bill be now read a second time, the House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 54.

rose to propose an address to the Crown for certain accounts. It appeared, that some years ago, an individual had bequeathed a sum, amounting to 120,000l. to charitable purposes. The will on the ground of some informality, was set aside; and the testator having no kindred, the property devolved to the Crown. His intention, in moving for an account of that property, was, to consider, whether that might not be a proper fund to meet the expense of the commission about to inquire into the grants for the education of the poor? He therefore moved, for "an Account of all sums of money received by the Crown under the Will of Samuel Troutback, esq. dated 21st July, 1780, and the application of the said sums."—Ordered.

took the opportunity of adverting to an important question of privilege. It was a matter of notoriety, that, on a recent trial in the courts below, viz. the King v. Merceron, an examination had taken place of the short-hand writer of that House, relative to the practice of that House in its committees, and to what passed in them. The House would feel there could not be a more important duty than to protect its witnesses. But it would be impossible to afford them that protection, unless the House had some restraint on the manner in which either its proceedings or its witnesses were produced in evidence before the courts of law. All the instances that he had considered concurred in showing, that an application had either been made to the House of Commons, or to the Speaker, for the permission. In a former case, where the shorthand writer was examined, and that situation was then held by Mr. Gurney, the gentleman who held it at present, application was made to the Speaker, and a permission granted. It was an extenuation of the present irregularity, that, though the permission was given, Mr. Gurney was ignorant of the fact, and remained so up to the present time. He attended, therefore, in the present case, on the subpœna, under a belief, that he followed the same course as was adopted before. He thought the House should make some "resolution on this question of its privileges.

expressed his intention of submitting a motion on the subject to-morrow.