Star.
London, England, 1820-07-20 00:00:00

ceed, and not to consign to death so many persons
'without making an effort to save these. the plan
'succeeded, it. would operate a great deal of good.—
lithe Petitioners felt aggrieved,. they might seelere-
dress iss some other way, but fie " hoped that their
Lordships would not suffer this night to pass. without
doing their duty with respect to this tr
• Lord LAUDERDALE. said, that he hAd not yet
heard from the Noble Earl so much as one reason
against the Petitioners beio eard at the Bar ac-
cording to the prayer of t etitions. They did
not apply to this House- againsi the plan which the
Commissioners had approved, they only said that
this Bill deprived them of the.benefits of their own
inventions. All he wanted was, that they might be
heard. If they were allowed to be heard, and if
they then proceeded to state reasons against the plan,
it was competent to the Noble Earl to move that
they should be stopped and prevented from proceed-
ing in that line of argument. But if they urged only
their own peculiar grievances he knew not on what
principle their prayer was to be refused.
Lord REDESDALE conceived, that none of the
allegations in the Petitions were sufficient to induce
the House to stop the progress of the measure.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE could not consent
so entirely to break through their Lordships' forms of
proceeding, as in the present case to shut their doors
against those Petitioners who now requested to be
heard, either by themselves or by Counsel, at the
Bar. If it were merely a question of reward, he
should consider the application in quite a different
light. One of the Petitioners in particular (Mr. Til-
loc'h), had no complaint against the Report of the
'Commissioners, recommending the plan that' had
been adopted : he did not complain of their taking a
part only of his plan—the Bank had taken it entire—
usurped it as their own,' and had never given him any
remuneration. Nor was this all: by the Bill before
the House he was to be shut out from the use of his
own art—from the kie of that very_art, from the ap-
plication of which ''to the manufacture. of Bank
Notes, so much benefit was promised to the Bank and
the Public. The Noble Lord opposite had said, that
the Bill as it now stood left to. the Petitioner full
liberty to exercise his art for Country Bankers and
others. He must suppose that his Lordship had read
the Bill for which he argued so strenuously. Now,
in this very Bill there was a clause which the Peti-
tioner contended went expressly to prohibit him from
using his art for the prodUction of Promissory Notes
and Bills of Exchange; and the assertion seemed-un-
deniable, for the clause not only prohibits any imita-
tion of a Bank Note (which would be quite reason-
able), but any Promissory Note 14 resembling the
ground work of a Bank Note." Now, the Bank
having adopted his very plan, it would be impos-
sible to produce anything in the shape of a Note
which might not be said to resemble " the ground-
work of a Bank Note," executed on the same plan.
This the Petitioner maintained would be the effect of
the Bill, if passed into a law, and this certainly pre
tented a fit ground on which he should be heard at
the Bar. It he should fail to prove this fact, his
opposition to the Bill would of course be unavailing;
but it was too much even for that House to take upon
itself to decide this point without evidence, when
evidence was offered to be produced. " Were I ask-
ing (said his Lordship) for remuneration to the Peti-
tioners, I might refer to a vote of the other House,
and which has also been sanctioned by your Lord-
ships, granting remuneration to a certain individual;
not as a reward for discoveries, but for experiments
to make Bank Notes, though they were unsuccessful.
I say, were I asking for remuneration, it might be
fit to tell me that. question could mot be entertained
here—but must originate elsewhere; but I ask only for
justice to the Petitioners—namely, that the ground
of their objection to the Bill may be heard." His
Lordship then moved, that the Petitioners should
be allowed to be heard at the Bar by themselves or
Counsel against the Bill.
The question was then put and negatived without
a division; and the New Bank Notes Bill was re-
ported without any Amendment.