convince the House, but even that noble lord, that in no instance whatever did the measure proposed go to violate the spirit, or infringe the act of union; and that it did not provide for the creation of more places or offices than existed at that period, and subsequent to the time of the union between the two countries.

Lord Grenville urged additional arguments to the same effect; and, after a few observations from the Marquis of Abercorn and Lord Redesdale, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be cominitted on Monday next.

The Irish taxes regulation bill, the marine mutiny bill, and several other public and some private bills, were brought up from the Commons, and read a first time.

Mr. Longlands presented further accounts from the Tiend's office in Scotland. Ordered to lie on the table. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 13.

Sir John Frederic obtained leave to bring in a bill for building a bridge over the Thames, at Vauxhall, and for making roads adjacent thereto.

Mr. Courtenay gave notice, that on Monday he would move to postpone the present order for taking into consi deration the Culross petition.

On the motion of Mr. Hobhouse, the following com mittees were appointed:

A committee to prepare an estimate of the charges for the pay and clothing of the militia of Ireland, for 1807.

A committee to prepare an estimate of the expence of allowances to subalterns in the British militia in time of peace.

A committee to prepare an estimate of the charges for the pay and clothing of the militia of Great Britain, for 1807. And a committee to prepare an estimate of the expence of allowances to subalterns and adjutants of militia disembodied.

The names of the defaulters on the Dublin ballot were read over, and Lord Bruce was ordered to be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.

Lord Howick observed, that, when the preceding evening he proposed that the second reading of the army and navy Roman catholic bill should take place on Tuesday VOL. II. 1806-7.

Ti

ext,

next, he was not aware of certain, circumstances which would render it inconvenient to many members to attend on that day (Tuesday next being St. Patrick's day.) Ile therefore moved, that the second reading should stand for Thursday; and it was ordered accordingly.

Sir John Newport presented several accounts from the exchequer in Ireland. On moving that they be printed, Colonel Barry expressed his wish to the honourable baronet, that a few days might be allowed to elapse before these papers were sent to the printer's. He also suggested the propriety of having duplicates of Irish papers as well as of English, that while one set went to the printer's, the other might remain on the table of the House, for the inspection of members.

Sir J. Newport acquiescing, withdrew his motion for printing the papers.

Sir J. Newport postponed his motion on the Irish annual loan and malt duties to Monday.

The royal marine mutiny bill was read a third time, and passed.

Mr. Hobhouse brought up the report of the sugar bounty drawback bill, and the coal inland navigation bill. The reports were agreed to, and the bills ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

On the motion of Lord Temple, it was ordered, that at its rising the House should adjourn to Monday.

Mr. Gooch, from the select committee appointed to take into consideration the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Taunton, reported, that the sitting members had been duly elected, and that the petition was frivolous and vexatious.

Mr. Montgomery was ordered to attend in his place on Monday next.

The Irish excise licence bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.

The Secretary at War presented certain accounts of the ordinary recruiting in the years 1804, 1805, and 1806. Ordered to be printed.

On the motion of the Secretary at War, the mutiny bill was read a third time, and passed without opposition.

On the motion of Lord Temple it was ordered that on Monday the House should go into a committee on the duties on oil, and other produce of fish imported into Great Britain.

In a committee on the malt act, the chairman was instructed to ask for leave to bring in a bill to continue the malt-making regulation act of last session for another year, in order, as it was stated by Mr. Vansittart, to allow time to digest the important information which had been laid before government on the subject.

The House having resumed, leave was granted accordingly.

Lord Henry Petty brought in two bills. The one was for charging 12,000,0007. part of the loan of the present year on the war taxes, and for continuing a certain portion of the war taxes beyond the war, with a view to that object; the other was for the further regulation of the sinking fund, according to the new financial plan. Both the bills were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday, and to be printed.

Mr. Vansittart gave notice, that on Monday he would move that the House should resolve itself into a committee to considler of the trade in spirits between the different parts of the united kingdom. Adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

SATURDAY, MARCH 14.

The loan bill, the Irish assessed taxes bill, and the royal marine mutiny bill were read a second time, the commitments negatived, and the bills ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

The Irish tobacco importation bill was read a second time, passed through a cour.nittee, and was reported. Adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, MARCH 16.

The union bill, and the Irish assessed taxes bill, were read a third time and passed.

Lord Walsingham presented the report of the committee of privileges relative to the claim of Charles Augustus Ellis, to the barony of Howard de Walden, which, after a few words from the Duke of Norfolk, was agreed to, with an amendment, that he had made good his claim to the said barony, and was ordered to be communicated to his majesty.

Lord

Lord Grenville presented several papers relative to recruiting, moved for on a former day, which were ordered to lic on the table.

On the question for reading a second time the mutiny bill,

Lord Hawkesbury said there were some parts of the bill on which he wished to make a few observations in a future stage of its progress. It was, however, necessary that the papers, for which he had moved some time since, relative to the army, should be previously in the possession of the House.

Lord Eldon observed, that it had not been usual to debate mutiny bills, and perhaps matters of importance might thus have been sometimes passed over without notice. He wished to know whether there were many material alterations in this bill.

Lord Grenville said, there were several alterations made in this bill, of the importance or propriety of which the House would of course judge in the proper stage of the bill. With respect to the papers, he expected to be enabled to lay the remainder on the table the next day.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be printed.

COURTS OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.

On the order of the day being read for going into a committee on the Scots judicature bill,

The Duke of Montrose expressed himself decidely hos tile to the measure in its present shape. He conceived the proposed division of the court of session into three cham. bers, with a superior court of appeal, to be an infraction of the articles of union, inasmuch as the court of session would thus no longer be the supreme court of Scotland, but would be rendered inferior to another court, namely, the court of appeal. The division into three (hambers might also be productive of serious inconvenience; a case, for instance, decided by a majority of ten judges to four, might, by the operation of this bill, be again decided upon by four judges in one of these three chambers, and these four might happen to be the minority on the former decision. The chamber of review would, he thought, also defeat the object sought to be attained, namely, the more speedy administration of justice, by again narrowing the channel of that administration; and he had little doubt

that

that this new court of appeal, if established, would soon be as much overloaded with appeals as that House was at present. He thought it would be much more advisable to divide the court of session into two chambers, consisting of eight judges, and seven, from each of which three judges might be detached into the outer house, to do the business there in a manner more complete than that now practised. The judges might take it in rotation every year to go into the outer house. If this mode was adopted, and the courts were empowered to give possession in consequence of judgment, and to order the payment of money, or to take good security in case of an appeal, and also, if in that House costs were given on appeals to the extent of the expence actually incurred, together with damages for any injury sustained, there would be no necessity for an intermediate court of appeal, and appeals to that House would become much less frequent. With respect to the introduction of trial by jury he thought it an experiment replete with difficulty, and one that ought not to be tried without the most mature consideration, at least, the experiment ought to be confined, in the first instance, to the city of Edinburgh. In order, therefore, that there might be still further time given for the consideration of this very important part of the subject, he moved an instruction to the committee to divide the bill into two or more bills, in order to keep that part of the bill relating to the judicature, and that respecting trial by jury, perfectly distinct.

This motion was not put, the first question being on the committal of the bill,

Lord Redesdale considered the present measure as a breach of the act of union, as if it was carried into effect› the court of session would, in fact, no longer exist.

The Earl of Selkirk contended that it was perfectly consistent with the act of union to make regulations for the be ter administration of justice in Scotland, and this measure did nothing more. He could not conceive that the establishment of an intermediate court of appeal would tend to increase appeals, as experience in this country, with respect to the court of exchequer chamber, proved directly the reverse,

Lord Eldon was of opinion that the proposed division of the court of session into three chambers was not consistent with the spirit of the act of union; he thought that much might be done by the mode proposed by the noble:

duke,