MARCH 18.

A Committee of the House of Commons

fat in the large committee room, derman Oliver in the chair, to examine evidence on the petition of the lord-mayor, aldermen, and common-council of the city of London, for leave to make a navigable cat or canal from Moorfields to Waltham Abbey, and there to join the river Lee.

Mr. Whitworth, a furveyor for the city, was examined for feveral hours by alderman Townend, Mr. Molineux, &c. concerning how many enclosures, gardens, ditches, &c. of private property it would cut through; likewife the depth the canal would be obliged to be cut in fome places, and the height that banks must be raifed in others; the breadth, height, and number of bridges; the number of locks, Quices, &c. and how the water of the ditches the canal would cut through was to be carried off. Several other questions were put to him, to all which he gave full and accurate anfwers. The committee confifted chiefly of the city aldermen, members, &c. and at four o'clock broke up and adjourned. March 24. A committee fat in the great room, Mr. Alderman Oliver in the chair, to hear farther evidence on the utility of the intended cut from Moorfields to Waltham Abbey. Mr. Robert Whitworth was called in and examined for two hours by Mr. Townfend, as how the New River Company would be able to convey their water where the canal cut acrofs; he was anfwered by iroa pipes carried underneath the canal: whether it was really neceffary to have a fluice in White Hart-Lane, and whether ope at Tanner's End would not answer the purpofe as well; he answered, the latter would not be fo convenient: had he made himself mafter of the ftate Moorfields was in, in the year 1415, and whether, if the canal was carried into execution, the water would not be ft gnated in the bafon in Moorfields, and cause an epidemical diftemper among the citizens; whether he had bored the ground from Moorfields to Waltham, and knew if it Was natural or made; what width the river would be in different places; whether the canal would not cut through feveral gardens, run near brick kilns, and whether it would not be poffible to draw out, by the new canal, fo much water from the old river as to damage the working of the mills? He answered all the queftions very fatisfactorily to the committee, but not to the mind of Mr.

Feb. 1775.

Townsend. Mr. Townsend wanted to produce a printed book as evidence against Mr. Whitworth the furveyor; but Mr. R Whitworth, member for Stafford, ftrongly objected to it, unless the witness gave his confent. It was at laft agreed by the committee that the book was not proper evidence.

March 25. The committee for examining into the merits of the petition for leave to make a navigable cut from Moorfields to Waltham Abbey, Mr. Oliver chairman, met at twelve o'clock, when Mr. Yeomans, an engineer, attended, and was examined for near two hours; his answers were taken down, and about two o'clock, when a fufficient number to form the committee came, the queftions and anfwers were read over to him, which he confirmed as his evidence. He was then examined and cross examined, by Mr. Townsend, to nearly the fame queftions as had been put to Mr.Rob. Whitworth. Mr. Townsend defired to know whether the water, in times of flood, would not overflow the meadows?" He answered," any danger that way might be prevented, by making the banks high enough, and by having back drains." Whether they would not be often obliged to pay fums of money to perfons for damage done to their grounds by fuch overflows? He faid, the fund arifing by the increase of tonnage would pay any damages that could accrue from the intended canal." He gave his opinion much in favour of the canal.

Colonel Rainsford faid, he had been informed that many parts of the ground intended to be cut were fo low already, that they lay under water all the fummer.

Mr. Townsend got up, and expatiated very warmly on the manner in which the bufinefs had been conducted: he faid, the city about feven or eight years ago, petitioned for the cut already in being; that they now petitioned against the cut; that, by the fame rule, in feven years time they would petition against this, if carried into execution. He said, that he hoped no gentleman would accufe him of afking frivolous and vexatious queftions; that it was true he was a party concerned, and poffibly that made him attend his duty more than he would have done ; that this canal would run close to the end of his kitchen garden at BruceCaftle, which had coft him fome hundreds of pounds in fitting up; that it would likewife run through fome other parts of his eftate; that he

H

thought

thought it hard his eftate fhould be any ways injured for city projects, after he had been at near 10,000l. expence to make it complete; but he had not taken fo warm a part in the affair merely for himself but for his neighbours.

Sir Roger Newdigate faid he was at prefent very much for the canal, but if he found that private property would be materially injured he fhould oppofe it when the bill came into the House.

April 12. A petition of feveral perfons in Shoreditch, Hackney, Tottenham, Edmonton, Enfield, &c. was prefented to the Houfe against the intended canal, pleading that great damage would enfue thereby to their eftates and property.

April 14. Mr. Oliver presented seven petitions from the landholders, occupiers, &c. of eftates in the different parishes through which the city canal was to pass, highly expreffing their approbation of the defign, and imploring the House to grant the city's requeft, as it would be of the utmost utility to the poor of London in general.

The petitions were read and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Alderman Oliver brought up the report fom the committee appointed to enquire into the allegations fet forth in the petition of the city of London, for leave to make a navigable canal from Moorfields to Waltham Abbey. The report was read, which contained the whole of the evidence in favour of the canal, and took up full an hour. Juft before the report was finished reading, Mr. R. Fuller arofe and faid, as the whole evidence feemed in favour of the canal, there was no occafion to read every perfon's evidence feparate, but let the clerk fay at once the report was favourable.

Sir Fletcher Norton faid, he entirely agreed with the hon. gentleman, that fuch a thing might have been done, but as there was not above four or five pages of evidence to read, they might as well go through with it.

After the report was finished, Mr. Alderman Oliver arofe, and faid, as the report was fo full, he need not expatiate on the utility of the measure, and fhould only move" that leave be given to bring in a bill to enable the city of London to make a navigable cut or canal, for boats or barges of burthen, from Moorfields to Waltham Abbey, and there to join the river Lee by a small cut."

Mr. Sawbridge feconded the motion, and faid, that the measure would be of the utmost fervice to the poor; it would lower the price of provifions in general; and the only thing that could be urged againft it was, a few perfons interested in it had not confented.

Mr. Townsend defired that a petition, which had been figned by feveral perfons against the canal, might be read; which being accordingly done, he faid, he trufted that, as the Houfe faw fo many perfons

against it, they would not fuffer fuch an idle frolic to pafs; that there was not the leaft neceffity for a canal, as the river Lee would fupply any thing that might be wanting.

Mr. Sawbridge replied, that, as to there being a petition against the bill, figned by many, as the worthy alderman had said, yet a great number of the perfons who had figned the petition did not live near the part intended to be cut, neither were they in the leaft interested; that, as to the perfons who had figned the feven petitions, they were all people who lived on the spot, and, if the canal would hurt private property, they would be the greateft lofers, yet they were for the canal; and that the number of perfons for it were upwards of fifty to one againft it.

Mr. Oliver faid, he trufted there could be no objection to bringing in a bill, as the report was fo favourable; and that any gentleman who had objections to start might make them afterwards.

Sir Richard Sutton faid, in the report the prefent plan offered was faid to be even as good as the plan propofed for the Selby Canal; he only rofe to defire that this plan might not be put in competition with that which, in his opinion, was the best plan ever offered to parliament.

Mr. R. Fuller faid, he thought there was not the leaft neceffity for the prefent canal;that in his opinion the measure ought not to be encouraged, as it would greatly injure the river Lee; that parliament had lately enabled the river Lee to amend their navigation; that this canal would entirely hinder them, as it would take away their trade, and the proprietors would be great fufferers.

Mr. Prefcet faid, the proprietors could be no fufferers, as the city of London had engaged to pay them any lofs they might sustain, and had agreed to farm the tolls of their river at the price they now bore: that he fhould be highly for the canal being carried into execution, as it feemed to be done by the city with a good intent; that they had no private emolument in view, which was the cafe in moft undertakings, but they had purely undertaken it with a view of ferving the poor; that, in his opinion, the city of London would be lofers by the canal, but it was proper that large bodies, such as they were, thould contribute to the public welfare at large.

Mr. Whitbread fpoke a few words againft the canal, yet, he faid, was it carried into execution it would be of great utility to him, as it would bring malt and hops close to his brewhouse.

Mr. Richard Whitworth faid, he should be greatly for the bill being brought in; that there would be plenty of time between the bringing in and the commitment of the bill, for every perfon to give his affent or diffent; that he was certain every gentleman who

was

was against the bill had not fully weighed the matter with themselves, on the difference between a river and canal navigation; that he was fure thofe gentlemen had never sent any goods by the river Lee, otherwife they must know the dangers they were liable to; that any gentleman who did not know the difference, he should be glad to see down at Stafford, where he would be bound to fhew them, and he was certain they would return thoroughly convinced of the utility of this meafure.

Mr. Sawbridge defired to remind the Houfe, that though the honourable gentleman (Mr. Townsend) had faid, there did not appear upon evidence that any person had given their confent, yet there likewife did not appear by the report that any person had ciffented.

The queftion was called for, and on the motion being put," that leave be given to bring in a bill, &c." the Houfe divided, for the bill ro; against it 61.

MARCH 25.

A petition from the East-India Company was prefented to the House of Commons, relative to the bill depending in the House, to enable the Bank of Air, in Scotland, to iffue 500,000l. in bonds of 50l. each, like EaftIndia bonds, Navy and Exchequer bills, but intended to bear an intereft,'as the petitioners apprehended of 51. per cent. per annum, which, in the judgement of the petitioners, if the fame fhould pafs into a law, would moft materially affect and prejudice the intereft and credit of the Eaft-India company, by reducing the value of their bonds, which are iffued at an intereft of three per cent. only.

March 28. A petition was prefented against the bill by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, which ftated that if the bill should pass, it would be highly injurious to trade, and depreciate the value of the national funds. The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and objected to be proceeded in on account of the latenefs of the time in which they presented it. Mr. Adair and Mr. Perrin, counsel for the Eaft-India petitioners, were called in, and heard. After they had finished their arguments against the bill, they were ordered to withdraw.

Mr. R. Fuller spoke much against the bill: faid it was of a dangerous tendency; that it was giving the perions concerned in that bank a greater privilege than ever was granted before; that the Houfe ought to be very careful how they granted things of this fort: he faid, they last year granted a lottery to Mr. Cox, and another to the Meffrs. Adams; that they were both like to be attended with very fatal confequences; the latter indeed, he said, had proved itself to be bad, and he should therefore give his hearty negative to the bill.

Lord Beauchamp and Mr. Herbert (poke in favour of the bill; faid, that the bonds to be circulated would not in the leaft hurt the fale of thofe of the India Company.

Mr. Ongley was greatly against the bill: he faid, the Air Bank had wantonly and unpre cedently extended their credit far beyond what they could fupport: that they then endeavoured to redress their grievance by borrowing money at any rate, and that he looked upon them to be as bad as ufurers.

Mr. C. Fox was fmart upon the hon. gentleman, who he said, was the first perfon that he ever heard term a borrower an ufurer; he faid, the India Company had no occafion to be afraid of their bonds not paffing fo current as before, for thefe new bonds could never affect them, as India bonds would always have the preference, on account they could at any time be paid in upon the company at par on their fales.

Mr. Cornwall (poke against the bill: faid it was founded upon bad principles, and would hurt the India Company, and other merchants much more than was forefeen at prefent.

Mr. Wedderburne entered into the form of the laws of Scotland: faid, they were erroneous, that they differed much from those of England, that he could with this bill to pass, as it was in his opinion a very neceffary bill for the extricating of noble perfonages (the Dukes of Buccleugh and Queenfberry) who had engaged a great part of their eftate in this undertaking.

The Lord Advocate went through the whole of the bill, and mentioned the distress that public credit was in, in the year 1772; that by a long and continued run upon the Air Bank, it was drove to great inconveniences; that fo large a run upon any bank would oblige it to ftop: but the noble perfonages concerned in this undertaking would not stop payment, because they knew it would involve hundreds in their calamity; on that account they borrowed money at so extravagant a rate.

Capt. Phipps entered into the whole of the bill; fet forth the dangerous confequence it was of; that it would undoubtedly hurt the India Company, and that it was raifing fo much money upon the public. He faid he fhould give his hearty negative to the bill, as it was founded on one of the worst principles he ever knew.

Governor Johnstone faid, he did not think the bill would have that effect upon India bonds as was imagined, for he did not think thofe new bonds would ever bear a premium, neither would people be fond of purchafing them.

The ftrangers were ordered to withdraw; and the queftion being put, "that this bill do pafs," the House divided: ayes 176; noes 36.

H 2

MARCH

MARCH 30.

The Speaker defired that the order of the day for the fecond reading of "the bill for explaining and amending an act made in the 32d year of his late majefty, for improving the navigation of the river Clyde to the city of Grafgow; and for building a bridge across the faid river from the faid city to the village of Gorbelis; and part of another act made in the 8th year of his prefent majefty, for explaining and amending the faid act; and for repairing, widening and enlarging the old bridge across the river Clyde from the city of Glasgow, to the village of Gorbells," might be read; it being accordingly read, Sir John Dalrymple and Mr. Camden, counfel for the bill, were called in; likewife Mr. White and M'Donald, counf. for the freeholders, farmers, and inhabitants of the county of Renfrew, the inhabitants of Paifley, &c. against it.

Mr. White ipoke against the pe- fons who had the management of building the bridge, for their having been wantonly extravagant.

Mr. M'Donald arraigned the conduct of the trustees of the river in a very fevere manner, and made many pertinent re marks.

Sir John Dalrymple fpoke much of the loyalty of the town of Glafgow, and vindicated the conduct of the trustees.

Mr. Camden fpoke a very few words, faid his learned colleague had entered fo fully into the cafe, that he had but little to say on the occafion.

Mr. White made a short reply; and on Mr. M'Donald's faying he had nothing further to trouble the Houfe with, the counfel were ordered to withdraw.

Lord Frederick Campbell made a motion that this bill, with amendments, be now read a fecond time."

Mr. M'Doual faid he should move for an amendment, that the word "now" be left out, and in the room be inferted this day four months." This occafioned a debate of near three hours. Lord Frederick Campbell spoke in favour of the bill, and in fupport of the conduct of the trustees. He was fupported by Sir Richard Sutton, Mr. Solicitor General, &c.

Mr. C. Fox arraigned the behaviour of the committee, and faid he was in favour of the petitioners.

Mr. Dempfter (who was chairman of the committee on the bill) anfwered him, and fpoke much in favour of the bill.

Mr. M Deual again poke against the bill, and was firongly fuppor ed by Mr. E. Burke, Mr. Mackworth, the Lord Advocate, &c.

At feven o'clock the queftion was put, that the word "now" ftand as a part of the -question; which was carried without a divilion.

Lord Frederick Campbell then moved, that this bill be ordered to be engroffed, which Mr. M'Doual objected to. On a divifion there appeared, for the motion 101; against it only 12. MARCH 31.

Lord North moved for leave to bring in a bill for appropriating the private eftates of bankers to the discharge of their partnership debts, in cafe of bankruptcy: likewife to hinder certain bankers from ufing any trade, or from dealing in any goods, wares, or merchandize whatever; and for the more fevere punishing fuch clerks belonging to bankers as fhall be found to embezzle their masters property. He was feconded by Mr. Martin. An amendment was propofed, and agred to, which was, to infert any banker within the cities of London and Westminster, or within ten miles adjacent," as, if the bill extended to bankers in general, it would entirely ruin thofe in the country. few other objections were made to the bill being brought in, as too late in the feffion, &c. but on the queftion being put, it was agreed to without a divifion.

A

April 22. Lord North prefented "the bill to oblige the eftates of certain bankers to be liable to the payment of the partnership debts, in cafe of bankruptcy, and for the more fevere punishing the clerks of bankers who fhould be guilty of embezzlement of their masters property." The bill was read a first time, upon which Mr. C. Fox laid the Houfe was fo noify that he did not hear a word of the contents, and defired to know whether the bill made the embezzlement felony or not.

Lord North anfwered, there was a claufe inferted for that purpofe, but the punishment was left blank.

Mr. C. Fox faid, he did not think a breach of truk was equal to a robbery, and therefore did not deferve fo fevere a punishment; that he trusted there were many perfons in the Houfe befides himself who were of the fame opinion; he should therefore with that the bill might be printed, and the fecond reading be put off for a distant day. Lord North propofed that day fortnight, which was agreed to.

May 4. A petition of the bankers of London was prefented to the House against the bill depending, for making the eftates of bankers, only within the cities of London and Westminster, liable to the payment of their own and partnership debts, &c. and praying that they may be heard, by themfelves or their counfel, against the faid bill, and that the fame may not be paffed into a law. The petition was ordered to lie upon the table, until the bill be read a second time; and that the petitioners be then heard, by themselves or counsel, against the said bill, if they think fit.

May

May 6 was the day for the second reading of the bill for making the eftates of fuch perfons as are bankers only within the cities of London and Westminster, and within a certain distance thereof, liable to the

payment of their own and partnership debts, and for other purposes therein men tioned.

Mefirs. Mansfield and Leigh, counfel for the petitioners against the bill, attended, but were not heard, on account of a motion being made for the fecond reading to be on that day fe'nnight.

A member, an enemy to the bill, moved that the word fennight be left out, and three montbs inferted in its ftead, which occafioned a fhort debate, in which Lord North and Mr. Martin were the chief fupporters of the bill.

At feven o'clock the queftion was put, "that this bill be read a fecond time on this day fe'nnight." Upon which the Houfe divided, ayes 60, noes 45.

May 13. The fecond reading of the bankers bill was put off for two months, and dropped. APRIL 12.

Colonel Luttrell appeared in the House for the first time during the feffion, and spoke to the following purport.

Mr. Speaker,

I think it proper, Sir, as member for Middlefex, to oblerve to this House, that the fummons fent by the fheriffs to Mr. Wilkes to take his feat in this Houfe as member for that county, is an infult on the honour, the character, and dignity of this Houfe. The time has been, when an attention to the privileges of this Houfe would, have crushed fuch a conduct in its infancy; but, Sir, whether the Houfe will in its wif dem vindicate its honour; or perhaps that exp effion may offend certain honourable members-the credit-the character of the Houfe of Commons of Great-Britain--or overlook the infult; I think it becoming to my character to move the Houfe to cenfure this proceeding: I can do no more, it then refts with the House, Sir, to act as they think proper.

Mr.CF. I fecond the motion of the honourable member. It is my intention, and I hope I that as long as I fit in parliament adhere to the idea, to take every opportunity to vindicate the privileges of this Houfe, because I always conceived that thofe privileges were in fact the deareft privileges of the people of Britain. For what purpose, Sir, have we for ages earned and defended thofe privileges, which whenever they have been put feverely to the proof, have proved the true palladium of national Liberty? When the Houfe has been vilified by feditious attacks; when you, Sir, have been fcandalously abused in the execution of your high office; when our privileges have been fet at nought by the loweft of the rab

APRIL 19.

Mr. Rofe Fuller moved "That this House will, on this day fe'nnight, refolve itself into a committee of the whole Houle, to take into confideration the duty of 3d. per lb. upon tea, payable in all his majesty's dominions in America, impofed by an act made in the 7th year of his prefent majefty, intituled, an act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America. &c."

Mr. Pennant feconded the motion, and faid he wished much it might go into a committee, because he thought the principle upon which the bill was established, as fet forth in the preamble, was unjust and impolitic; that it changed the nature of their conftitution, and took away the power which had always been held facred to an Englishman, that of levying their own money; that it was imilar to railing the hip-money in King Charles's time; that thofe who condemned that meafure muft of courfe condemn this, the one being as arbitrary and unconftitutional as the other. He faid, he fubfcribed to the fupremacy of parliament, but he thought there was a plain method for raifing by requifition, the money which you wanted; that the people of America must be better able to ascertain how, and in what manner the fame ought to be raifed, on account of the local circumftances which attended it. As the people of Boston will be the first victims to your refentment; repeal this bill, and you will meet with fupport from the reft of the colonies.

Captain Phip. fupported the motion, and urged the neceflity of it. He faid, the Americans beft knew what method was moft agreeable to raise money by; and they as yet never refused to raise an aid when it was required. He faid, the tea tax was not worthy the name of a tax; it seemed only meant to irritate the people, and keep up a wrangle between Great-Britain and her colonies.

Mr. Burke fpoke for two hours: he first fhewed the inutility of the tax, and its mifchievous confequences to the liberty of Ame rica, and the trade of every part of the Bri

tifh