Star.
London, England, 1813-03-17 00:00:00

FIRE-ARMS.

On the second reading of the Fire-arms Bill, Sir
JAMES SHAW argued for the necessity of a law
to compel manufacturers to affix their respective
:mes to their articles, as by that mode their different
Jerks would be more precisely ascertained, and their
igenuity and industry rewarded.
Sir CHARLES MORDAUNT opposed the Bill.
Mr. WHITBREAD made a few observations on
Bill, in the course of which he said, that instead
the regulations of this Bill, he preferred the erection
a proper proof-house, at Birmingham, under au.

_.. WYNNE thought it better to leave the matter
it stood. Watchmakers might be injured on the
_ rinciple, and a Bill, of course, would be brought
in their favour. The fact was, that articles in a
laratively rude state, were made in the country,
,rought to London, where they were put toge-
arid finished. It this Bill passed, similar ores
ht be expected for other trades. In these ques-
, general views should be taken of the situation
trade and manufactures. Watches sent to Turkey
always, he understood, marked with the name
a particular person, whether he existed or not.
should be a great occasion that required Parlia-
- interference, but here no proofs of such ne-
,sity were afforded.
Mr. MA RRYAT said, he had heard some excel.
It reasoning on the subject ; but no objections to
principle of the Bill, whatever might have been
as to the details. It was fair and just to let
very man have that estimation to which his skill, la-
ir, and employment of his capital, entitled him: for
Ise reasons he should vote for the second reading.
Mr. P. MOORE should vote against the Bill, as
gross attempt at monopoly.
Mr. FRANKLAND supported the going into a
.tee on the Bill, as all the objections to it
tbe done away. He warmly defended its prin.
, as it was manifestly wrong to let an individual's
name be filched from linn, and leave him no re-
Let country manufacturers fight the battle
but let not a man's enterprise, talents, aid
.4, be stolen from under him.
Hon. Mr. WARD said, they ought to recol-
circumstances of the times iu which our ma-

i

nnractures were slanted, which were not inch as to •
invite experiments. Few Turks could read the. En-
glish inscriptions on watches ; but they considered the
' word London" as the English mark. If ,d Bir.
mingham" were engraven, they might take the irti-
de for one of a very different manufacture.
Mr. Foam and Lord BROOKE, opposed the Bill.
Mr. BARJNG felt a partiality for the capital. The
practice cok‘plained of was a general trick of trade ;
if the law dkl not prevent the engraving of indivi-
; dual names, he was willing to enact something on
' that subject. On the whole, he regarded the Bill as
L an effort at monopoly.
Sir JAMES SHAW said, it appeared to him that
of three objects proposed by this Bill, two were con-
ceded :—first, that Birmingham should be provided
with a proper proving-house ; and secondly, that a
security should be given to artists for the respect due
to their own names on their own works. Other ob-
jections to the Bill could be easily done away, and
he therefore hoped for a general concurrence in vot-
ing for the Committee. The name might be forged,
and punishment evaded, by the omission or the ad-
dition of a single letter. Government had a proof-
house in Birmingham, but there was no such thing
for the goods sent out for sale by the manufacturers.
On a division, on the amendment, the numbers for
postponing the reading of the Bill were—Ayes 787-
Noes 18—Majority 60.
The till was consequently lost.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed
of.—Adjourned.