Page images
[ocr errors]

ready existing force, would provide the means of per ina. nent resistance to a permanent danger. tle therefore did not see the use of the amendment.

Lord Sidmouth distinguished between the plan of his noble friend (lord Selkirk) and that recorninended by the noble carl (Stanhope). His noble friend was for so mos delling the measure as to make it operate in training the whole body of the youth of the country to the use of arms. In that plan he willingly acquiesced; but if the amendment of his noble friend should be rejected, he should give his support to the present bill, as approxi. mating next to that which he thought would best áce complish the object which government had in view, and which the natute of the times made indispensably necessary

After a few observations froin Lord Radnor, lord Selkirk's amendment was negatived without a division.

Lord Radnor proposed an amendment to secure persons balloted for in the training act, from serving in the local militia.

This amendment, after a few words from Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord Stanhope, was also negatived, and the motion that the bill do pass was agreed to, and the billa ordered to the house of commons..

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM. The order of the day bing read,

Lord Elliot rose, pursuant to the notice he had given yesterday, to call the attention of their lordships to the billnow before them. He had bestowed much attention on the nature of Mr. Palmer's claims, and on the evidence which had been adduced for and against them. After due consideration of these points, it was his opinion the. bill ought to be rejected, and he should conclude with a' motion to that effect. The noble lord then went into a minute examination of Mr. Palmer's contract with Mr. Pitt, which he contended had in view future as well as past services.' He also asserted, that Mr. Palmer's appointment was during pleasure, and only to continue as long as his conduct deserved approbation, and as his exertions weré beneficial to the public. There was nothing, there. fore, in the terms of the contract, on which to rest the claims, which Mr. Palmer now advanced. Besides, the conduct of Mr. Palmer, in several transactions, was of ą VOL. III.-1$08.

3 U

complexion to merit the severest reprobation, and the forfeiture of any conditions that might hive been entered into in bis fivour. On this head he would refer their lordships to the evilence on the table, more particularly to that of Mr. Long, who was, from his situation at the time, best enabled to be informed of every particular conn'cted with Mr. Palmer's contract. That' evidence was far from speaking very strongly in Mr. Pamer's fivour. On these grounds it was, he had thought proper to bring forward his present motion, not purely from any private motive of ill-will towards Mr. Palmer. His lordship.concluded with moving that the bill be rejected.

Earl Moira, in supporting the claims of Mr. Palmer, expressed himself sorry that Mr. Palmer had brought them before their lordships in their present shape: he would rather have seen them appealed io on the matter in their judicial, than in their legislative capacity. But as the business now stood, he was at a loss to see the propriety of disposing of it in the manner now proposed. The evidence given before the other house of parliament was now on the table of that house at their lordships' desire : and a committee had been appoin'ed to examine that evidence, and to consor with Mr. Long upon it. He should make no furiber olvservations upon that commiitee, than that, in liis mini, a noble earl now high in his majesty's cou cils (lord Camden) should have been on that com nittee. Ilis evidence he should have preferred to Mr. Long's ; not that he would impute any but the purest motives, the inost upright intentions, to that gentleman; but because from the part he had taken in the transaction between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Palmer, he must necessarily labour uncler some bias, and that even without being himself conscious of it. For that reason it was that he should not lay so much stress on the evidence of Mr. Long, as some other noble lords might be disposent to do. Besides, it could be no secret, that a powerful party, and persons high in place, were rather indisposed towards Mr. Palmer; and i hat he was an individual supposed to be injurer!, and known to be un. protected. Taking all the circumstances that accompanied the case, to treat the matter as it was proposed by the noble baron would haye the appearance of injustice and oppres in; not certainly the reality. But still this was enough to call for a serious consideration of the bill, and the cvidence before the house; for if their lordships would reject the bill without any such consideration, it was impossible they could do any thing more to lower them in the estimation of the public. lie had rather the bill should be allowed to expire. He should therefore move that the house do now adjourn.

Lord Harrowby agreed with the noble earl, that Mr. Palmer would have done well not again to ha.e brought his claims before parliament. They went further than there was any proof or document to justify. As to the evidence of Mr. Long, it was the best that could possibly have been projuced; because that gentleman, whose honour and veracity were acknowledged by all parties, was intimately acquainted with every circumstance of Mr. Pitt's contract with Mr. Palmer.

Lord Erskine said, it was his opinion that the nature of Mr. Palmer's contract fully justified the claims of that gentleman. Nor was it his opinion only, bu! that of men of such weight and name, that he should not venture to compare himself with them. He thought their lordships were bound in honour to examine into the case, and not to dismiss it in this mamer.

· Lord Walsingham was for rejecting the bill, and urged a variety of arguments in favour of his opinion upon the subject.

The Lord Chancellor defended the conduct of Mr. Pitt, with respect to Mr. Palmer. No one could believe that that great man would have acted as he had clone, without the most satisfactory reasons for every step he had adopted. He did not at all agree with his noble and learned friend (lord Erskine), nor with the learned persons to whom he alluded, as to the binding nature of the contract. He could not help thinking that the opinion was taken upupon light grounds. He should vote for rejecting the bill.

Earl Stanhope would not say a word for or against Mr. Palmer : that was not the question before the house: bat whether when an individnal complained of injustice, and when grave opinions were in his favour, the house should not call for the opinion of the judges upon the question. He thought they should be consulted, and in that persua. sion he should vote for the adjournment.

Lord Radnor was also for the motion of adjournment. Lord Redesdale opposed it, and after going over many of the circumstances of the case to prove that Mr. Pal. mer had no just ground of claim, declared that it concerned the dignity of the house that the bill be got rid of as speedily as possible. The house then divided on lord Moira's amendment : Contents

10 Not-wontents



24 The original question that the bill be rejected was then put and agreed to without a division.

After some routine business the house adjourned,


TUESDAY, JUNE 21. The paymaster general's bill, the warehousing bill, the American goods bill, and the lottery bill, were read a third time and passed.

Sir W. Scott obtained leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of the 45th of his present majesty, for the encouragement of seamen, &c. He immediately brought in the bill, which was read a first time, and or. dered to be read a second time to-morrow.

The woollen act suspension bill, the Irish spirits bill, and the Woolwich waterworks bill, were read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.

The reports of the Welch coal bill, the southern whale fishery bill, the silk duty bill, the vote of credit bill, the Irish gaols bill, M‘Dougall's estate bill, and the Irish treasury bills bill, were brought up and agreed to, and the bills ordered to be read a third time to-morrow,

Mr. Huskisson brought in the appropriation bill, wbich , was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

Mr. Iluskisson presented an account of the expences of clothing the German legion for the years 1805 and 1806. Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Huskisson obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the marking of bags and pockets of hops.

The Brazil postage bill passed through a committee,


the report of which was ordered to be received tomorrow.

Mr. Eden inquired whether it was thc intention of his majesty's ministers, to found on the report of the committee on the state of the West India trade, any measure except that of the distillation from sugar, that had been already before the house.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that the distillation bill was not the only measure calculated to relieve the West India merchant. The lowering of the duties on coffee, and the increase of the duties on brandy, would have a similar tendercy. It was not in the contemplation of his majesty's ministets to propose any other measure on the subject.

Mr. Barham then gave notice of a motion on Thursday, respecting the state of the West India commerce.

The reception of the report of the annuity bill was postponed until to-morrow.

The house went into the further consideration of the Scotch judicature bill. The bill was recommitted.

Mr. Horner objected to the clause enacting that no appeals should be permitted from the interlocutory judge ments of the court of session, without the consent of the court of ordinancy. In this opinion he was supported by Mr. Abercrombie and Sir S. Romilly, and opposed by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Solicitor General for Scotland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

After a very long conversation, Sir S. Romilly proposed an amendment to the clause enacting that appeals should not be permitted, in the following words : “ except where there is a difference of opinion among the judges.

The Solicitor General opposed the amendment, in a speech of some length, but after some further conversation between Sir Samuel Romilly, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Horner objected to that part of the clause which allowed an appeal where an interlocutory judgment may become final, and moved that that part of the clause should be expunged.

After a few words from the Lord Advocate of Scotland and Mr. Abercrombie, the words were expunged.

Mr. Horner proposed, that the commissioners for in. quiring into the regulations and the proceedings of the

« PreviousContinue »