answer that would be satisfactory: the instrument had no reference to any immediate act of the British Government.

believed it would be fouud, that this was by no means the first indictment which had been preferred for similar offences. Earl Stanhope begged the noble and learned lord to explain himself. Mere

The Earl of Darnley, under the circumstances, could not avoid hoping and be lieving, that if the document were authen-inoculation was the promulgation of an tic, it was not authorized by ministers.

SMALL-POX PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Boringdon stated, that in the session of 1813 he had brought in a Bill to prevent the spreading of infection by the inoculated Small-pox, which was withdrawn. He had introduced another bill last year; which, after having undergone a good deal of consideration, was also withdrawn; the noble and learned lord opposite having stated that the offence was punishable at common law. This opinion had among the unlearned occasioned great surprise; it did not appear that any indictment for the offence had then been preferred, and he had therefore pledged himself to bring in another bill of the same description as the former bills, this session. That pledge he would have redeemed, if matters had stood in the same situation; as it was not to be endured that persons should be allowed with impunity to spread infection by a disease which might so easily be prevented by vaccination, which was approved by the best physicians, and sanctioned by Parliament. Lately, however, in a case where eight persons had lost their lives, owing to the indiscretion of a mother, who exposed her child when it had the inoculated small-pox, an indictment had been preferred at common law, and the offender convicted and punished. He trusted, therefore, that when it was known in all quarters of the country, that the offence exposed the party to a heavy punishment at common law, the practice of bringing children into public places when they had the innoculated small-pox would be discontinued. If the recent judgment of the King's-bench should not be found to produce that effect, he should still feel it his duty to bring in a bill for that purpose; but under the present circumstances he did not feel himself called upon at this moment to proceed farther.

Lord Ellenborough said, that the judgment of the King's-bench, in the case alluded to, did not lay down any new law. It was a thing perfectly well known among lawyers, that the offence was punishable at common law; certainly, the opinion which he had given last year, could have created no surprise among them, and he

infectious disease; and he wished to know if it were meant to be asserted, that under the statute that was punishable? The fact was, that inoculation was not discovered until long after the passing of the Act. It did not appear to him per se illegal.

Lord Ellenborough said, that in the next term he should be called upon to decide upon the precise case. He would, however, anticipate his judgment so far as to say, that inoculation, with proper precautions of secluding the patient and preventing the spreading of the infection, was not illegal. The abuse of the practice only was criminal.

Earl Stanhope added, that he did not think any court of law could decide otherwise: if it did, he should have thought it dis duty to bring in a bill that would give them such a trimming as they had never before received.

Lord Boringdon observed, that he believed that only one prosecution and conviction had taken place under the statute.

Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that other cases might be found on the books, of the same kind, under the same statute.

ALIEN BILL.] On the motion for the committal of this Bill,

Earl Stanhope said, there never was a bill with so many absurd clauses. He adverted to an Act of the 2nd of Richard 2, by which aliens from nations in amity with this country were permitted to come into the country freely for purposes of commerce, and to transact their business without molestation. Bills of this description trenched on that law; but if it was proper to pass them at all, it was at least incumbent on those who ought to attend to them particularly, to take care they were in a state fit to be passed. was absolutely necessary that more attention should be paid to the bills that were brought into that House. The Commons had sent them up a bill relative to the borough of Hellestone, which it was found impossible to deal with; and now they sent this Bill, which was little better. It ought to have been submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor-general, before it was brought in. One objectionable part of the Bill was, that all aliens having no

It

no engagement to Mr. Kemp, for they had offered the sum of 65,825!. under three several modifications, which he had refused to accede to, until the treaty had been suspended, and on the supposition that the whole was freehold. Earl Nelson so far preferred the estate in Wiltshire, that he had offered, if the trustees were not able to obtain the additional grant, to pay the difference himself.

Mr. Western saw no good grounds for the additional grant. He thought there could be a very good estate purchased for 90,000l. There was no urgent necessity for making the purchase at present; and as the commissioners had waited so long, they might have waited a little longer to find an estate suitable in every respect. He condemned the conduct of the com

any estate could have been procured for the sum which was in the hands of the commissioners? And the grant now proposed was not for the purpose of giving an additional recompence to the family of lord Nelson, but for purchasing the particular estate of Mr. Dawkins. In making these observations, he did not put himself in the invidious character of an opposer of a grant to the family of lord Nelson, but merely called on the Trustees to give an account why they had not concluded the purchase of an estate which had been offered them within the terms of their trust. The estate called Branches, in Suffolk, had been offered to the commissioners. The agents for the trust had surveyed, earl Nelson had approved of it, and the trustees had offered about 65,000l. for it, which Mr. Kemp,missioners with regard to Mr. Kemp; and the proprietor, had, after some delay, stated that he would accept. The trustees had then refused to complete the purchase, and without one reason assigned, and concluded a treaty for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Dawkins, of which great part was not enfranchised, although the trustees were forbid to purchase copyhold land; and although one of the objections to Mr. Kemp's estate was, that part was copyhold. That part . of Branches was, however, small, and was now actually enfranchised. He did not, therefore, stand forth in the invidious light of wishing to cramp the public - munificence to lord Nelson's family, but to require an account why, without any given reason, the commissioners bad applied for an additional sum for the purchase of an estate, which, in point of revenue, would not be understood to be very beneficial.

Mr. Rose stated, that since 1800, when the trustees, of whom he was one, were appointed, only two desirable estates had offered themselves to their attention before the estate of Branches and that of Mr. Dawkins, viz. one in Suffolk, in the sale of which they were outbid, and another in Hampshire, on which too high a price had been set, although all possible inquiries had been made. The estate which the trustees were in treaty for with Mr. Kemp, was in a bad country, and accessible only by roads which in winter were impassable; it was for that reason that the trustees had thought fit to prefer the estate in Wiltshire, which was in all respects much more desirable. It was plain, also, that the trustees were under

thought they should not, on such light grounds, have broken off a treaty so nearly concluded.

Mr. W. Smith thought, that leaving the negociation with Mr. Kemp entirely out of the question, the proposition before the committee ought not to be acceded to. As to Mr. Kemp, all that he had ever heard of that gentleman's case was, that he had some years ago bought an estate on cheap terms, which estate he was anxious to dispose of to lord Nelson, on such terms as should secure to himself an extraordinary bargain; but although no advocate for Mr. Kemp, he thought the contract with that gentleman binding. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, was, therefore, in error, if he supposed Mr. Kemp's case the cause of the obstacles which were presented to the proposed vote, and still more in error in assuming that those obstacles implied any disrespect to the memory of the late lord Nelson. For no such disrespect was felt; on the contrary, he himself, who was such a warm admirer of that hero as to be among the first to support the erection of a monument to his memory, in Norfolk, which monument would be a lasting honour to the object, and to the country, conceived it his duty to oppose this vote, because no circumstances appeared to him to have occurred since the original grant was voted, to make the additional sum now proposed either just or necessary. Even supposing the present carl were equally meritorious with his predecessor, he should, upon principle, feel himself bound to oppose the proposition. His objection was, that if there

time.

that some compensation was certainly due | moving, That the Bill be read a second to the high bailiff on account of the expenses he was put to in consequence of an involuntary candidate being started. As this was a case not in the contemplation of the law, he was entitled so far to compensation. As to the larger sum, he did not conceive the claim substantiated. Mr. Byng could not see why a difference should be made between the high bailiff of Westminster, and any other returning officer in the kingdom. He did not know where this principle of compensation was to stop.

Mr. Lockhart replied, that the high bailiff was bound by the Act of Parliament to expenses to which other returning officers were not bound.

Mr. Horner observed, that the high bailiff was almost the only returning of ficer in the kingdom whose office was one of emolument as well as trust.

The resolution was then postponed.

Mr. Gordon objected to the motion, on the ground that the public ought not to be called on to pay such a sum of money, without a strong case being made out of the necessity of building such a post-office at all. On that head there had been no question whatever asked by the last com. mittee, but they had merely referred to the report of the former committee; and even in that there was, in his opinion, no case made out which would justify the House in giving countenance to the Bill. The Post-office had been carried on for many years in the present situation in which it stood, with every advantage to the public. It was true, Mr. Freeling when before the committee had stated, that they had wanted a new Post-office for a long time, but they could not prevail with the city of London to agree to it before. He could not, therefore, but be a little surprised that the City should all at once come forward and join their aid to the Govern

NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.] Sir James Shaw, on rising to move the second read-ment in saddling the public with such an ing of the new Post-office Bill, adverted enormous expense, at the moment when to the Report of the Committee, which the burthens under which they laboured the House had now perused, and which were so great. He objected also to the was so diffuse and clear as to leave no reason assigned by the City for now agreedoubt upon the subject. He observed, ing to this measure, because great part of that the only difference in the calculations the money was to be taken from the of expense, arose from the difference of Orphans' Fund. He denied that the City the proposed grounds; and the committee had a right to apply that fund to this par was decidedly in favour of the ground in ticular purpose, and said the consequence the plan, Number 1, being that of Saint would be a continuance of the tax on coals Martin's-le-Grand. The hon. baronet and wines imported into the port of Lonthen explained the difference of the four don for three years longer than it ought plans which had been considered, and to continue, which would be laying an also the difference of the calculations of additional burthen on the inhabitants of expense. The select committee, on pre- the city of Westminster, and the parts adsenting these different plans for the con- jacent to London, for the benefit and adsideration of the House, had thought it in- vantage of the more distant parts of the cumbent on them to express their opinion empire. He sifted the evidence of Mr. as to that which was most eligible, and Hasker and other witnesses who had been which appeared to be No. 1. An hon. examined, and observed that they were member had certainly made a great im- all in some degree belonging to the Postpression on the House, by stating that the office; and when one part of their evidence enormous sum of 700 or 800,000l. would was compared with another, it appeared be necessary for this building; but if he to him to be little better than a delusion. (sir James) could have thought such a He adverted to that part of the report sum would be required, the measure which stated that the new building should should never have had his support. On be devoid of ornament, to which he the contrary, however, there was every objected as much as he did to the adop reason to believe that the expense would tion of the measure at all. If we were to not exceed 244,4001. and considering the have a new building on which 244,000%. sum to be taken towards it from the was to be expended, he thought, that as a Orphans' Fund, it would appear that the public edifice, it ought to have the adcity would have to contribute very ma-vantage of ornaments and decorations. It terially towards it. He concluded by was true he would not wish to see the