stock. He saw no reason for withholding from the company the usual sanction on this occasion, but they would not be wise, who, with their eyes open, trusted to the guarantee of the country, when it was so pointedly denied and disclaimed.

Mr. Creevey said, all he wished for was, that gentlemen would agree to delay the third reading of the bill till towards the latter end of next week, when the accounts of 1804,5 and 1806, could be in the hands of the members..

Mr. Grant said, the mode of raising money now proposed, was more advantageous than that of adding to the company's stock. How it had been suggested that the country could be liable for this sum, he could not conceive: he knew it had not arisen from the company. They did not wish it to be supposed. If, however, it should be deemed necessary now to make a specific declaration that the country was not liable, that would be to leave it to be supposed that it was bound for the sums already raised.

Dr. Lawrence contended, that no reliance could be placed on any of the calculations made of the state of the company's affairs, in the year 1793. That statement is altogether fallacious. A promise was held out, at the time the company obtained leave to increase their stock, that by this time their debt would be reduced to 3,000,000l. Instead of that, however, it was now 30,000,000l. The company took credit in their accounts for every stock and stone they possessed abroad, but they never debited themselves with the amount of the capital borrowed. So it ap peared that every person who lent them money, sunk it for the dividends to be received.

The amendments were then agreed to without a division. On the question that the bill should be a read a third time the next day,

Mr. Whitbread observed, that the creditors of the East. India company could certainly have no claim whatever on Parliament for what had been before done; but if the House passed this bill without any examination into the state of the company's affairs, they might think that they had some claim to compensation on account of such conduct on the present occasion. Many were of opinion, that the company was approaching fast to a state of insolvency, whether it was so or not he did not pretend to say; bu un der these circumstances the bond creditors now to be created

ated might say, that they had lent their money on the faith that Parliament, in granting this power, had examined and foun the company in a state of perfect solvency. Parliament therefore would certainly incur a moral responsibiliy; with regard to the obligation of the company to pay the public 500,000l. annually, that was the condition of the charter, it was the valuable consideration. It was true that it was stated, that under certain possible circumstances this was not to be exacted, and these circumstances had unfortunately occurred so as to prevent them from making any more than one payment of 50,000l. All he would say upon this was, that whether they would give the country a valuable co sideration or not, the country had given them one, and had a right to expect something in return, unless it was smuggled in the bargain. He thought that a reasonable delay at least ought to be allowed in this case, if it were only for the sake of decency and decorum..

Mr. Dundas would have no objection to the delay if it was understood that it was only for the sake of decency and decorum, and that no serious opposition was intended. He defended the statements of Lord Melville, on the ground that no man could possibly calculate upon unforeseen cir

cumstances.

Mr. Creevey proposed, that the third reading of the bill should be postponed to that day se'nnight.

Dr. Lawrence could not by any means come under an engagement to give no opposition to the bill. He would support or oppose it as he should be justified by the

papers.

After a few observations from Sir John Newport, Mr. Grant and Mr. Whitbread, the third reading of the bill was fixed for that day se'nnight.

The East India regulation bill was committed. Report the next day.

IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.

Sir Arthur Wellesley moved that the Irish insurrection bill should be committed.

Mr. Whitbread mentioned that a bill of this nature was proposed to be introduced by the late administration. In the present bill there were certainly some things objectionable, but he was willing that it should go into a committee, in order to see how far it might be amended,

In the committee,

420

THE PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.

Sir John Newport adverted to the clause where the pe[COM nalties were to attach on persons taking and administering illegal oaths, and also upon those who should be "present, aiding and assisting." It might happen, he said, that persons might be present who were brought there under the influence of fear, and persons who knew nothing of what was going forward. It would be unjust to punish them as guilty persons, especially if the blanks were to be filled up according to the act of 1793, with the penalty of death. To remedy this defect he proposed that before the words "aiding and assisting," the words "knowingly and wilfully" should be inserted.

The Attorney General contended against the introduction of these words, as the ording of the clause, as it. stood at present, could not include those who only came to the assemblies in the manner described by the right hon. baronet.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that if persons should be present who were collected by force, and yet did not object, they would perhaps be considered as aiding and assisting, without any other ground of conviction. In a bill so highly penal, it was necessary by every possible means to guard the innocent, and therefore he thought the words ought to be introduced, as at all events they could do no harm.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the amendment would impose upon the prosecutor the necessity of proving, that the offender had been present by force, &c. &c. a circumstance which would render conviction in many cases impossible. Those that were brought into the assemblies by these means, might i form, and so save themselves. The clause, as it at present stood, would protect the innocent, without leaving an opening for the escape of the guilty.

Sir John Newport then proposed that the word "and" should be inserted between "present" and "aiding and assisting," so that the bare circumstance of being present might not by itself be ever supposed to be considered an evidence of guilt.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted whether this would not rather tend to subvert the object the proposer had in view; and it might, perhaps, be imagined, that the being present and the aiding and assisting were separate offences, each liable to the penalty.

Mr.

Mr. Grattan agreed that if persons went into these assemblies for illegal purposes, they would be justly liable; but there might be many present without any such views; they might go there from the influence of fear, or for the sake of the company, and not obstruct what was going forward from dread of the consequences; and care ought to be taken that they should not be considered liable to the penalties. This was a very penal measure, and he strongly urged the necessity of not extending it further than was necessary, and of having the crimes clearly defined.

Lord H. Petty proposed that the word "present" should be left out, and then the "aiding and assisting" must be distinctly in proof.

Mr. Simeon supported this amendment on the grounds that persons" aiding and assisting" at a distance would then be included, who might perhaps be the most guilty.

Lord H. Petty did not propose it with a view to extend the penalties; but yet certainly the most cunning might retire to another room, and so escape punishment, though the most guilty. This amendment would answer both the purpose of including the absent guilty, and protecting innocent present.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed disposed to admit the amendment, on the grounds of its including the guilty absent.

Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Lambe, however, objected to it as extending the penalties to an indefinite length, and leaving the crime not properly defined.

Sir A. Wellesley stated, that the penalty of death was out of the question, as it was intended to fill up the blanks with transportation for life, or for seven years, according to the nature of the crime.

After some observations from Mr. Croker, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Lockhart,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet the ideas of the gentlemen opposi e, by adding a provision, "that those who should be present from inevitable necessity, should be held in ocent, and justified, provided that they gave information within ten days afterwards." This amendment was agreed to.

The discussion on a clause which subjects persons wandering or sojourning in a place to be committed to jail, by any magistrate within the district, there to remain until re

leased

leased by due course of law, occupied the house for nearly three hours.

Lord Henry Petty, Sir John Newport, and Mr. Whitbread, enforced, in the most feeling manner, a consideration of the hardships to which strangers would be subjected, as they must necessarily have the greatest difficulty in clearing up their character, or accounting for any suspicious situation in which they might be found; they might, in fact, be apprehended either abroad or at home, either wandering or sojourning, for want of the power to give a satisfactory account of themselves.

Sir J. Newport moved an amendment, authorizing an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant, or to the quarter sessions, The Solicitor General proposed that the appeal should be to the Lord Lieutenant only. He was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and several other honourable members; both on the ground of expediency and of tenderness for the situation of the supposed prisoner. At length the House divided, and there were,

For Sir J. Newport's amendment
Against it

18

27

The clause was then so far modified that the magistrates should be compelled to transmit to the Lord Lieutenant, the story of the stranger, or other accused person, along with his accusation.

The other classes of the bill were agreed to without any material amendment.

Mr. Whitbread's bill for the relief of the poor was ordered to be committed the next day.

The other orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, JULY 21.

Mr. Hobhouse, and several members of the House of Commons, brought up the militia pay bill, the militia subalterns' bill, the militia adjutants' bill, the Irish excise bill, the Irish sugar bill, the naval stores impor ation bill, the compassionate list bill, and several private bills, which were read a first time.

The Irish glebe houses bill, and Ellis's divorce bill, passed through committees, and were reported.

The