horses and other cattle on straw mixed with hay. If, therefore, there was no prospect of much straw, it became necessary that the little hay we had should be kept in the kingdom for our own use. He was as great an enemy to prohibitions upon the exportation of hay, or any other article of export, as the hon. baronet. He was by no means fond of injunctions upon trade. He well knew it was, generally speaking, contrary to the interest of a commercial country; but when it appeared highly probable that there would scarcely be hay and other fodder sufficient for our home consumption, surely in that case it was expedient to take care of ourselves, and not export that which we ourselves want. Another circumstance was the similar situation of Flanders, France, and Spain, in which countries the prospect of scarcity, both in respect to hay and straw, was equally great. Upon these considerations, he hoped the hon. barones would wave his objections. that it contained a clause, giving the King in council a power to suspend the prohibition, whenever it should to them appear that the prohibition need not be continued. So far from that clause weighing with him in favour of the Bill, it was the strongest reason for his disliking it. The granting the King in council powers of suspension, was in itself highly unconstitutional; such powers ought at all times to be reluctantly granted by the House. The more constitutional way was to leave it to the minister to take off the prohibition at his own risk, when he thought proper, and to let him justify himself afterwards to parliament, and apply for a bill of indemnity. He disapproved of bringing in bills of that important nature at such an advanced period of the session, when more country gentlemen were not present. Upon these considerations, therefore, he should move to recommit the Bill, for the purpose of moving in the Committee, that the clause granting the power to suspend the prohibition to his Majesty in council be expunged. Alderman Sawbridge was surprised that the hon, baronet who had stated objections to the principle of the Bill, should have chosen that particular stage of it to meet it with resistance. With regard to the hon. baronet's declaration, that the granting powers of suspension to his Majesty in council was unconstitutional, he agreed with him; but what could mark its being unconstitutional more strongly than the making an express provision for it in the Bill? Instead of granting this power to his Majesty in council, the hon. baronet recommended that the minister should assume the power without any authority whatever. Would any gentleman seriously contend, that it was more constitutional or more prudent to let the minister, at his discretion, assume the power of suspension whenever he thought proper, than to grant it to the King in council for a limited time expressly? The hon. baronet doubted the probability of there being a general scarcity. Mr. Sawbridge said, that from the information he had received from different parts of the kingdom, he was convinced there would be a great scarcity of hay; indeed the scarcity of hay was notorious. Another extremely material consideration was, the little probability of there being any great quantity of straw this year. Gentlemen well knew that, in many parts of England, farmers fed their Mr. Pye could answer for the county of Berks, that they had a very scanty hay harvest during the preceding year, and that the present afforded no better prospect. In some part of the country where forty loads of hay used to be mowed, not above eight loads were likely to be procured. Mr. Drake gave the hon. baronet credit for his good intentions, but was rather surprised at his opposing the present Bill. Sir Robert Smith repeated his objections to the Bill, particularly to the clause giving his Majesty in council a power to suspend the prohibition. He concluded with saying, that the best way would be to put off the consideration of the report to another day, by which means they would be able to come to a fair discussion of it. Upon the question being put, "That these amendments be now read a second time," the House divided: Yeas, 28; Noes, 5. As there were not forty members present the House adjourned. June 19. The report of the Hay Bill was taken into farther consideration, and agreed to. Upon the question, "That this Bill be read a third time," Sir Peter Burrell said, that he had remarked with concern, that whenever an opportunity offered for the landholder to promote his interest, a Bill was introduced to prevent his taking a fair advantage of it. In this point of view he considered the pre sent Bill, for which he saw not the least I necessity. Regarding it, therefore, as an oppression on the landholder, which was neither requisite nor expedient, he should move by way of amendment, that the word, now be omitted, and the words this day three months' be inserted. Mr. Drake conceived that there was an actual necessity for the Bill, and saw no pressure upon the landholder. It was, in his mind, a perfectly safe Bill, and an expedient and right measure; the more especially as the prohibition was limited, and the extent of its operation left to the discretion of his Majesty in council. Sir James Johnstone said, that in his opinion the Bill tended unjustly to deprive the landholder and farmer of their property. The heavens, sir James said, had objected against the Bill, by raining ever since it had been brought in, and surely it was the duty of the House to submit to such high authority. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. Debate in the Commons on the Bill for regulating the Scotch Burghs.] June 17. The several petitions from the Royal Burghs in Scotland being read, Mr. Sheridan expressed his regret, that the unforeseen protraction of other important business had obliged him so long to defer a business of such importance, as moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the internal government of the royal boroughs in Scotland. He stated his sense of the magnitude of the object to be submitted to the consideration of the House; declaring that he did not deem it necessary to enter into any explanation of the reason why such a motion was brought forward by a person not interested by local connexion or personal habits with the parties whose petitions were now before the House. The fact was, that every member who had a single right idea of the first principles of the constitution, and, of course, of the first cause of the prosperity of the country founded on that constitution, or who felt, as he trusted every member of that House did, an equal and common interest in the happiness and well-being of the two countries comprising the united kingdoms; was perfectly competent to investigate the proposition he was about to offer to the consideration of the House. Mr. Sheridan then adverted to the advanced state of the session, the uncommonly thin attend ance which could be procured, even upon subjects in which the minister himself was particularly interested, and declared his reasons for not entering into the general merits of the question at this time, ob. serving, however, that it fortunately happened that the present question was of such a nature as to admit of a perfect explanation in a single sentence. The evil complained of, by as respectable a body of petitioners as ever had approached the bar of that House, was, that certain enormous and inveterate abuses had prevailed, and did prevail, in the administration and government of the royal boroughs in Scotland, and that there existed no competent qualification to check and control these abuses, or to give redress to those who were injured by them. That certain selfelected magistrates and counsellors assumed a power of levying money upon their fellow subjects, without authority from law, and of punishing those who withstood them, by a partial and corrupt exercise of an illegal discretion; that those magistrates and counsellors claimed a right to dissipate the public property of their fellow citizens, and to neglect the duties of their own station, without admitting themselves to be accountable in any way, to those whose interests formed the only pretence for the existence of any power or superiority in those persons, a power and superiority necessarily forfeited the moment those objects were not at tended to. The existence of those evils was proved by the petitions, and the want of a remedy by the decisions of the courts of judicature in Scotland, it having been determined, both in the court of session and in the court of exchequer, that as the law of Scotland stood, there was no remedy for evils and abuses which both courts admitted to exist, and to be productive of the worst consequences to the general interests of the community. Surely, then, if there ever was a justifiable ground of application to the legislature of any country, it was when those who were entrusted with the administration of the laws acknowledged the prevalence of some great abuse, and at the same time acknowledged, that there existed no legal mode of obtaining a remedy for it. Mr. Sheridan next explained the nature of the remedy proposed, in the Bill he wished to submit to their consideration. His object, for the present session, was only to give the members an opportunity of informing themselves; for which purpose, he should be content to have his Bill, which he then held in his hand, read a first time and printed. He complimented the character, firmness, and moderation of the petitioners, and the abilities and exertions of the gentlemen they had employed to manage their business; and concluded with a hope, that forgetting all national distinctions and narrow prejudices, he should find, on the next discussion of the subject, a very general disposition to diffuse principles of civil liberty to that part of the united kingdom which had hitherto partaken in our glory and in our dangers, without sharing the equal blessing of civil liberty, which England so fully enjoyed. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for correcting the abuses and supplying the defects in the internal government of the royal burghs, and in the manner of accounting for the property, annual revenues, and expenditure of the same, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland." Sir James Johnstone would not give his consent to the bringing in of the Bill, being convinced that the evil complained of in the first part of the hon. gentleman's speech did not exist, and that the latter part was unnecessary, it being in the power of the Lord Advocate to compel an accurate statement of the revenues of each borgh. Mr. Anstruther regretted that his hon. friend always brought the business forward at the close of a session, when it was impossible to be carried. His hon. friend had stated no specific grievances; bat had confined himself to a general statement of grievances, to which he (Mr. A.) entirely objected, being fully convinced that no such grievances existed. With whatever specious appearance his hon. friend brought in the present Bill, it went effectually to a change in the election of representatives to serve in Parliament. His hon. friend not having gone into a detailed support of his Bill, he should not give a detailed opposition to it; and the rather, as he did not believe his hon. friend really meant to carry into effect the Bill he had moved for leave to bring in. With respect to the accounts of the annual revenues, he fully agreed with the hon. baronet, that those accounts might be now demanded by the Lord Advocate, who could insist upon the delivery of them in the same manner as the Attorney-general in England might demand an account to be made out of the revenues of the corporations in England. Mr. Dundas said, that upon inquiry it would be found that the revenues of the Scotch boroughs were funds as well managed as those of any corporation existing; but if the hon. gentleman could prove the contrary, and demonstrate that frauds existed, he would be ready to concur with him in any motion he should propose to correct such abuses. So far would he go with the hon. gentleman in his Bill, but he would not follow him to that branch which extended itself to the internal reform of the boroughs, which, however speciously expressed, was neither more nor less than a proposition to alter the charters of every corporation of Scotland, which charters existed at the time of the Union, and ought to be regarded as sacred. He could not avoid observing, that the hon. gentleman was, in his present motion, both long-sighted and shortsighted. He had, in his long-sight, discovered imperfections and corruption in the boroughs of Scotland, but at the same time, he was so remarkably short-sighted, that he could not possibly discern the imperfections and corruption in the English boroughs. The hon. gentleman had not stated a single circumstance against the Scotch boroughs, which might not with equal justice be stated against the boroughs in England; and it was his wish, that if the House agreed eventually with the hon. gentleman's Bill for a Scotch borough reform, that the hon. gentleman would extend the reform to both parts of the kingdom, and would be particularly careful not to forget Stafford. If the Bill was meant to effect a difference in the mode of election, he wished it boldly to be avowed. Sir Thomas Dundas said, that the Bill meant to be brought in, was precisely the same in principle with that proposed by the corporation of Stirling, when the right hon. gentleman was Lord Advocate. With respect to that part of it which went to demand a statement annually of the revenues of the boroughs, he was convinced of its necessity. Sir Joseph Mawbey said, that in his opinion the Bill would prove the means of extending the rights of electors in boroughs. He wished the hon. baronet or some other gentleman, would boldly stand forward and propose an extension of the rights of election for Scotch knights of the shire. Such a measure, if earried, would be of the most important service, and confer the greatest honour on the mover. Sir James Erskine was adverse to the motion, and contended that the evils complained of, had no existence. of Commons, from March to July 1786, and was again summoned by the Lords, at the requisition of the managers, to attend Mr. Pitt said, that wishing to know the as a witness, from January to June, in contents of the Bill, he was as desirous as this year. Captain Williams was ordered any gentleman could be to have the mo- to attend the House of Commons from tion carried. If it went to a reform, it February to June 1786. He also was exwould be one reason to induce him to be amined at the bar of that House at that partial to it; but to the latter part he ob- time. He was again summoned to attend jected, conceiving the House would be in January 1788, and continued in daily guilty of a violent act in charging the attendance on the Lords, to the last day boroughs with abuses, and giving a coun- of the trial. It is true he was not called tenance to an infringement of their upon, though he could give most material charters, before such abuses were made and important information, if the manaapparent. In what he had stated, he gers really wished for the elucidation of meant no obstruction to the Bill, but truth; but it did happen that the manamerely to suggest the propriety of adopt-gers, though they had expressly summoned ing some other mode, by committee or otherwise, that might be more consistent with the forms of the House. Mr. Sheridan said, that what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, was perfectly fair and candid. He believed, that the right hon. gentleman's objection went only to a few words in the latter part of the motion, in which he saw no novelty or deviation from rule; but to gain his acquiescence, he was willing to alter the motion as recommended. He accordingly withdrew his motion, and instead of it moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for regulating the internal government of the royal burghs in Scotland." Upon this the House divided; Yeas, 54: Noes, 00. Mr. Sheridan immediately brought in the Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed. Debate on a Petition from certain Witnesses on Mr. Hastings's Trial to be reimbursed their Expenses.] Major Scott said, that he rose to bring to the notice of the House a petition which had been presented from major Gilpin, captain Williams, captain Scott, and Mr. Holt, praying some compensation for the expenses they had incurred by attending for several months in London, either by a summons of the managers of Mr. Hastings's Impeachment, or by an order of the House of Lords, in consequence of the managers' summons. The major said, he would not do more than state the circumstances under which the several gentlemen were, at the time they were summoned; the compensation he would leave to the justice of the House, without presuming to make any motion upon the subject. Major Gilpin came home in 1785, was summoned from Lancashire to attend at the bar of the House captain Williams from South Wales, in order to examine him, had closed their proceedings without calling him to the bar as a witness. The managers had done this, when they knew he (Williams) could give very material information. Captain Scott, who was his brother, had been summoned from Shropshire in January. He had been examined by the managers, who thought, possibly, that his evidence, however im portant, did not tend to advance their cause, and, after three months attendance, permitted him to return to Shropshire, unexamined by the Lords. Mr. Holt, the fourth petitioner, stood upon very different grounds. He not only had been subject to very great expenses, but had actually lost the fair advantages of the services. The major said, he contented himself with merely relating the facts, as he trusted fully to the justice and the honour of the House to make the gentlemen a fair and honourable compensation. Mr. Pitt pressed the necessity of settling all claims of the kind in question, and read the resolution of the committee of managers upon the subject. Mr. Sheridan thought, that all the witnesses summoned at the instance of the managers were fairly entitled to come under the same rule of consideration, and that if there were any exceptions, those exceptions ought to be submitted to the special decision of the House. Mr. Burke adverted to the propriety of distinguishing witnesses in narrow circumstances from those in affluence. Mr. Bearcroft said, that it was common in civil cases for a witness to say, pay me my expenses, or I will not utter a word of evidence. In criminal cases the custom was necessarily different, and every man was bound to declare the whole truth. Major Scott said, the committee of impeachment had resolved that no person should receive a compensation, who was not in straitened circumstances. But he did not apply for relief upon such a plea: he was convinced that no officer would suffer any person to assert that he was in straitened circumstances, who could purchase daily at Dolly's a beefsteak and a pot of porter; but if those gentlemen who were settled in Wales, Lancashire and Shropshire, with moderate fortunes of 3 and 400l. a-year, with which they were perfectly happy and contented, were compelled to come to London, were kept for some months in lodgings, leaving their several establishments in the country, he would put it to the honour of the House, whether they ought not to be paid their expenses. Mr. Sheridan hoped the hon. gentleman would allow the managers to judge for themselves, what witnesses were most proper for them to call. Mr. Burke had ever understood, that all persons capable of giving evidence, touching the facts charged on the trial of a criminal cause, were bound by law to reveal all they knew upon the subject in question, without having any right to a claim for expenses, and that the same rule obtained in every species of parlia mentary prosecution. The committee of managers had early in the progress of the business laid down several rules touching the expenses to be incurred, which, he had no doubt, the House would consider as wise rules; and, indeed, he trusted, that all their rules of proceeding would be found to be made on mature consideration. One of their resolutions went expressly to the payment of witnesses; but where there were particular exceptions, those exceptions ought to be considered on their particular merits. When a witness was in straitened circumstances, he ought, undoubtedly, to be considered, but not so in cases of a different nature. Suppose Mr. Middleton and Sir Elijah Impey attended at the instance of the committee of managers; surely, no man would be so absurd as to contend, that either of them ought to be paid for attending. The present conversation reminded him of a new discovery which took place in anatomy, at the commencement of the present year. A man had been dissected, when his heart had been found lying upon his right side, his liver on his left, and all the viscera out of place; so in the prosecution of Mr. Hastings, the committee of managers, who might naturally be supposed best acquainted with what their own witnesses could prove, it appeared, did not know half so much of the matter, as the friends of Mr. Hastings, who had taken the witnesses against the prosecution into their protection. With regard to captain Williams case, they had nothing to do with it, but it lay (where it ought to lay) with the House, who naturally would refer it to the decision of the solicitors for the prosecution to decide upon. With respect to Mr. Holt, he knew that gentleman was not in great circumstances, and that he would be a sufferer by being detained here in England; but he thought the court of directors were bound to take care that none of their servants appointed to lucrative offices in India, and detained here in consequence of their being called upon to give evidence on the trial of Mr. Hastings, should substantially be sufferers by such a detention. Mr. Burke questioned the fact of the petitioners having applied to the solicitors, and not having received satisfaction. He stated to the House the directions he himself had given the solicitors how to act upon all applications of a similar nature. Here the conversation ended. Debate in the Lords on the African Slave Bill.] June 25. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill" for providing certain temporary regulations respecting the transportation of the natives of Africa, in British ships, to the West Indies, and elsewhere," Earl Bathurst rose, and argued against making the Bill retrospective. He contended, that all "ex post facto" laws were unjust; that the present Bill would be particularly so; and that no compensation the legislature could propose, could possibly meet the case. The merchants had embarked their adventures before the Bill was proposed, and it was to attach upon them from the 10th of June, and thus subject them to the certainty of a loss, after they had put themselves to the whole expense of an adventure. Lord Rodney said, it was absurd to suppose that the merchants, whose profit arose from the number of healthy Africans they landed in the West India islands would not attend to their own interests, and take every possible care to preserve their health. Every voyage was attended with its inconveniences, but the voyage to |