Mr. Pulteney feconded the motion. The Lord Advocate of Scotland oppofed the motion, as being inexpedient, and not being the act of the people, but only of the clergy, of Scotland. He apprehended the motion infringed on the fpirit of the Articles of the Union. The Mafer of the Rolls, Mr. Dundas, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fpoke in oppofition to the motion; Mr. Anftruther, Sir A. Ferguson, and Mr. Fox, in favour of it; and, upon a divifion, the numbers were, Ayes 62, Noes 149. H. OF LORDS. May 11. The final hearing of the Scotch caufe, in which Sir John Henderfon, bart. was appellant, and Robert Bruce Henderfon, Esq. refpondent. It refpects the feudal poffeffions of the barony of Earif hill, in the county of Fife, and confequently gives a title to vote for the Scots Peerage. Affirmed the judgment of the Court of Seffion. In the Commons, the fame day, the order of the day, for going into a Committee on the Quebec bill, being read, Mr. Hobart took the chair. Upon the claufe being read for dividing the province into Upper and Lower Canada, a converfation took place, in which Mr. Huffey, Mr. Powys, Mr. Fox, Lord Sheffield, Mr. Sheridan, Alderman Watfon, and Mr. Francis, took a part against the divifion, as injurious particularly to the British fettlers, who would be harraffed, in confequence thereof, in Lower Canada, by an establishment of the Ca. nada commercial law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer con.. tended, that the divifion was a funda mental principle of the bill, and calculated for the happinefs and profperity of the people. Several other claufes were debated; after which, the chairman was directed to report progrefs, and afk leave to fit again: after which, the Houfe adjourned. H. OF LORDS. May 12. In a Committee of Privileges, heard counfel further in the cafe of Lord Ochiltree. In the Commons, the fame day, Mr. Grey moved for a Committee to enquire into the prefent practice and effect of imprifonment for debt, Mr. Burke feconded the motion. The Attorney General concurred with the motion, as the likelieft mode of getting at that mafs of evidence which was abfolutely neceffary to enable gentlemen to form a proper and adequate idea of the fubject. The learned Gentleman lamented the fituation of the debtor, and the unfortunate creditor, who might be fwindled out of his property, and kept at arm's length by the fwindler; who, at the fame time, rioted in gaul on his property. To relieve the one and the other, and to punish the knave, was, he believed, the object of the prefent motion; and, under that opinion, he should give it his affiftance, but was ftill afraid that it must be a work of time, and that, if it could be brought to a degree of maturity, in an advanced period of the next fellion, it was as much as could reafonably be expected. Mr. Burke supported the motion, on the ground of humanity, national honour, industry, and found policy. The motion paffed unanimously. Mr. Powys brought up the report of the Felons bil. Mr. Mainwaring objected to it; and moved, that it fhould be taken into confideration on that day three months; which was put and carried. H. OF LOR Ds. May 13. The royal affent was given, by commiflion, to feveral bills. Lord Portchefter moved, "That an humble addreís be presented to his Majefly, that he would be graciously pleafed to order an account to be laid before that Houfe, of the fate of the war in India." Loid Carlisle feconded the motion, fupported by Lords Stormont and Loughborough; and it was ftrenuously oppoted by the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Montrofe, Lords Mulgrave and Grenville, and negatived without a division. Lord Portchefter then moved for a copy of the minute of the Council of Bengal, intimating the intention of Earl Cornwallis to proceed to take upon him the conduct of the war; and of the minute of the Council of Mr. Speeke and Mr. Cooper, members of the Council, fignifying their confent to the measure. Or dered. In the Commons, the fame day, the order of the day was moved to be read, for the House going into a Committee оп 640 Parliamentary Proceedings of Lords and Commons for 1791. [July, on the bill for granting a reward, in certain cafes, on the conviction of felons. The Speaker wished to inform the Houfe, that the intent of the bill was, to amend an act of the 6th of Queen Anne, which granted, in certain cafes, a reward of 401. en conviction of felon v. The Lords, however, by the prefent bill, had taken upon themfelves fo far the difpofal of the public money as to lower, according to circumstances, the rewards offered by that act. The Mafier of the Rolls moved, That the Houfe refolve itfelf into a Committee on the faid bill this day three months. The motion was agreed to, and the bill, confequently, loft. The Mafier of the Rolls then moved for leave to bring in a fimilar bill, as he thought the intention of the Judges extremely wife, in withing for the difcretion of granting the rewards in fuch cafes as to them might feem proper. Several gentlemen fpoke in favour of the bill, and leave was accordingly given to bring it in. The Houfe then went into a Committee of Ways and Means; in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer propofed the following alterations in the duties on bills of exchange:-Bills amounting to 21. and up to five guineas, to pay the old duty of three pence; from five guineas up to 30l. fix pence. Bills not payable on demand, whether above or below five guineas, fix pence; from 50!. to fool. one filling; from rool. to 200l. one thilling and fix pence; and 200l. and upwards, two fhillings. He then propofed, that the re-iffuing of promiffory-notes fhould be legal, paying fix pence duty for a five-guinea note, and fo in proportion. His next propofition was an alteration in the receipt-tax, viz. two pence upon all receipts from 40s. to 20l.; four pence from 20. to gol.; and fix pence from 50l. and upwards. He concluded by moving, "That all the duties on bills of exchange, p.omiflory-notes, and receipts, thould no longer be paid, or payable." The refolutions were put, and agreed to, and the report ordered to be received on Monday. H. OF LORDS. May 16. The order of the day being read, to take into confideration the report from the Committee appointed to fearch into 2 precedents relative to the trial of Warren Haftings, Efq.; Lord Portchefter rofe, for the purpose of making a motion, which might bring the question fully and fairly before the Houfe; and would therefore, without further preface, move, "That a meffage be fent to the Commons, to inform them, that the Lords were ready to pro ceed in the trial of Warren Haftings, Efq." The Lord Chancellor was against this mode of proceeding; he was of opinion, that the grave and proper mode would be to refer the report to the confideration of a Committee of the whole Houfe, Lord Hawksbury, wishing the bufinefs to be referred to the Committee, moved the previous queftion. Lord Radnor moved, "that the Judges be fummoned to give their opinion upon the question of recognizances being in force." Lord Mulgrave was for the continuance of the impeachment, as were Lords Grenville, Stormont, Loughborough, Guildford, and the Bishop of Salisbury. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kenyon, Marquis of Lansdowne, and Lord King, were for going into a Committee; they contended that impeachments did abate by a diffolution. A very long debate was maintained by the above Noble Lords until three o'clock in the morning, turning princi pally upon the report of precedent. The queftion being called for, their Lordfips divided, firft upon Lord Radnor's motion, which was negatived by, Contents 20, Non-contents 70. The previous queftion, moved by Lord Hawkesbury, was then put upon the original motion, and negatived by a divifion of, Contents 18, Non-contents 66. Lord Portchefer's motion, "that the meffage be fent to the Commons," &c. was then carried without a divifion; and it was ordered, that the trial of Warren Haftings, efq. be proceeded with in Weftmintter-hall on Monday next, In the Commons, the fame day, the expiring laws and the pawnbrokers bilis were read the third time, and paffed. Mr. Ald. Warfon brought up a propofal from the Governor and Directors of the Bank, of the loan of 500,000l. for the ufe of the publick, on fuch conditions as would enable them to pay dividends; which was accepted. (To be continued,) 86. A 86. A Treatife an Air, containing new Experi THE eminence in the chemical world. What- But it hath been fuggefted to us, by a younger brother, though, we believe, a much older and more flagitious offender in the craft and mystery of reviewing, that probably no fuch perfon as Dr. Bewley exifts. To this we can fay nothing; but, from the fpirit of the work before us, we cannot doubt but he will foon be known;-indeed, from another quarter we have heard that he is at present very bufily occupied in compofing a CHEMICAL DUNCIAD. But, whatever may be his prefent purfuits, or wherever he may at prefent refide, we think the learned Do&or, we mean the author of that Review, has little Here, therefore, two opinions have been promulgated, on the truth or fallacy of either of which an immenfe variety of chemical and philofophical deductions depends. in Neither thall it, however, be our bufinefs, at prefent, to enter into a regular analysis of Dr. Bewley's treatife; bur, for the entertainment of our readers, we will felect a few quotations, which, we apprehend, will point out some of the many cogent reajons which may duce Dr. Pricftley (we beg his pardon, we mean the author of the chemical criticifm to which we allude,) to with, that by the influence of a mean, contemptible, and meretricious general confure, the publick may be prevented ✩ See Analytical Review for May, 1791, P. 54 from fairly and openly canvalling the GENT. MAG. July, 1791. theories Review of New Publications. 642 theories of Dr. Harrington, which he now knows himself unequal to the task of refuting. Dr. Bewley, like the author whofe fyftem he supports, fets out upon, the incontrovertible principle, that "fire, "when concentrated and fixed, forms "phlogiston." In his progrefs he thews the fallacy of every aerial opinion hitherto promulgated by the celebrated philofophers, Crawford, Lavoifier, Kir. wan, Priestley, Cavendish, and others. He maintains, as we have long fince done before him, that Dr. Harrington hath difcovered the true formation of the atmosphere, viz. that it confifts of fire, fixed air (or the aerial mephitic acid), and water. He publicly throws down the gauntlet, and challenges any one of thofe gentlemen to controvert the truth of this doctrine. Like Dr. Har rington, through his whole progrefs, he has the candour to appeal to their own experiments in proof and fupport of his deductions. He challenges them to come boldly forward, and not meanly to skulk behind the entrenchments of a Review. He knows the fyftem to be true, and appears determined never to abandon the cause of injured and neg lected merit. We were much entertained by the facetious manner in which he explodes Dr. Crawford's fuppofition, that heat and phlogifton are two diftin&t bodies; and in the fifth page we laughed very heartily with him at the ridiculous race which Dr. Crawford introduced as à corollary to one of his experiments in fupport of this futile hypothefis. ་་ Would but our aerial chemifts (he ❝ obferves, p. 85) attend to reafon, doubt about the truth of this every "doctrine might be removed by the "following fact. The electrical spark "will produce fixed air, when taken in "atmospherical air. Now, need I in"form chemifts, that in moft combuf❝tions dephlogisticated air is turned to "fixed air; that when the combustion " is more intense, it is turned to the ni "trous acid, as in the combuftion of "dephlogifticated and inflammable airs; Mr. Cavendish fays, he actually nay, "turned atmospherical air into the ni"trous acid, and not fixed air, in this "fame experiment. Dr. Priestley, I "think, need not be told this, fince he "has followed Dr. Harrington in prov"ing it; though, from an illiberal po licy, he has omitted to mention that "gentleman's name: but time, which [July, "exhausts all things, truth excepted, "ftrengthens thofe doctrines which are "founded upon just principles." This we conceive to be one of the many cogent reasons which may have induced the learned Doctor, we mean the author of the chemical criticifm to which we allude, to decline entering into a regular analyfis of Dr. B's publication. Dr. Bewley (p. 84) takes notice, as we have done before, that Dr. Harrington hath, in the most public, open, and candid manner, called upon Mr. Cavendifh, either to acknowledge the truth of his theory, or to defend his own and we think, with him, that it certainly becomes that gentleman to do it publicly. This too may perhaps be one of the many cogent reafons; but we flatter ourfelves that it will operate in a different manner upon the mind of that honourable and truly refpectable character, who furely cannot ftill be ignorant of the important truths contained in the writings of Dr. Harrington. P. 116. Dr. Bewley, with much hu mour and fuccefs, ridicules the theory of Mr. Lavoifier, in the following paffage :-" Now, can Mr. Lavoifier, up"on the formation of pure air from fix"ed air, find the carbone, which ought "to have been depofited in the water, "being fet free from its combination "with fixed air? Nay, will it not give ❝our reader a laughable furprize, when "I tell him, that Mr. L. feriously pro"poses a manufactory to obtain charcoal "by the decompofition of fixed air? See "his Elements, p. 230. But I will hint to him a better manufactory, and one more conformable to his hypothefis. "He fays, that water confifts of hydrogen and oxygen gaffes; and that thefe gaffes, with the addition of carbone, 66 or charcoal, form alkohol, or fpirits. "Now, as the river Seine produces "plenty of water, and as charcoal is a 66 "other hand. For, according to them, "water is formed of inflammable and oxygen gaffes, two bodies the moft "combustible in nature. If, therefore, "they fhould be able to fet the Thames "on fire, London would again be in "danger of being reduced to ashes." Whether or no the learned Doctor has any ferious thoughts of carrying these principles into effect, is best known to himself; but we certainly must acknowledge ourfelves obliged to Dr. Bewley for thus accurately pointing out the tendency of thofe principles which the learned Doctor appears to have adopted; and whenever the real existence of Dr. Bewley can be afcertained in The Analytical Review, we have no doubt but the Legislature will take proper measures to draw him from his prefent obfcurity. This too may be a cogent reason. Or poffibly the learned Doctor may take it amifs that Dr. Bewley should have afferted, p. 125, that the true, folid principles of chemistry "have been kicked out of doors, to "make room for the aërial flights of "modern chemifts." "Can any one poffibly be mistaken (fays Dr. Bewley, p. 149) of this ni "trous dephlogisticated air, even from "Mr. Kirwan's hiftory of it? Indeed, "after reading Dr, Harrington's ac"count, it was impoffible for Mr. Kir"wan, or any other chemift, who was "in the least acquainted with chemical "principies, to fuppofe it was dephlo "gifticated: but that difpofition which "has been the ruling mark of our aerial "pbilofophers is, to make it a point not "to name Dr. Harrington. What does "Mr. Kirwan do? He does not make "er call this air dephlogisticated, but "calls it deacidified. We have got a "number of new terms into chemistry "from their extraordinary ideas of it. But I fuppofe he means by this, the "air is more neutralifed. Could he not "have faid, agreeably to Dr. Harring 64 "that caufe, become the acefcent principle? But fuch are their abfurdities." This too may be enumerated amongst the cogent reafons. And in p. 153 we apprehend that he has given another reafon equally cogent. "Can aerial "chemifts, after this review, pass by "Dr. Harrington's theory as not de"ferving notice? If they do, it is evi"dent they are not willing (however "much convinced in their own minds) "to acknowledge to the world that "they have been mistaken. But che "mical philofophers, who will not at"tend to truth, when it is told them, "do not deferve the name." ton, more phlogificated? But, even "to take his own term, deacidified, "what bodies were there to deacidify "it but the fulphur and alkaline air? "And as, according to their hypothefis, air that will admit of the life of com“bustion (call it dephlogifticated, dea-, "cidined, or what they will) it is, they "fay, the acefcent principle or principles of acidity. Then, muft not it appear to form a chafm in reafoning to fuppofe that an air, which has got its acid taken from it, fhould, fron แ ་་ ་་ But the limits of our Review will not permit us to particularize a twentieth part of the cogent reafons, which this publication affords, why the author of that criticifm which we have here noticed may wish to decline giving a regular analyfis of the work before us. We fhall therefore, at prefent, bring forward one more only, referving to ourfelves the privilege of recurring to others, as occafion may require, at fome future period. 44 fhall now take a view (fays Dr. Bew ley) of thofe chemical writings with which Dr. Priestley has favoured the world fince the publication of Dr. Harrington's Letter. But the reader will allow me to make a previous obfervation; which is, that Dr. Priestley has been very careful not to mention that gentleman as a fellow-labourer. What reafon fhall we affign for his filence? The question, I think, may be very easily answered. There is an oppofition of hypothefes; and, if Dr. Harrington's is the true one, Dr. Priestley's muft of confequence be falfe. However, not to mention the chemical doctrines of his antagonist is, in my opinion, very wrong; fair difcuffion is the best way to know who has truth on his fide. Let, then, the two hypothefes be candidly canvaffed by thofe of an impartial publick, who are able to judge. Will it be faid, in exte. nuation, that Dr. Harrington's theory deserves no answer? Was any man, who in the leaft pretends to the name of a chemift, to make fuch an affertion, I fhould not fcruple confidently to affert, that he knows nothing of chemistry. "It is very poffible, after the ufage Dr. Harrington has met with, that my labours may receive the fame treatment. However chemists (fome of whom deferve the highest that may be, I publicly call upon modern praife, and whole works will be efteemed as long as true fcience lafts,) not to shrink from the prefent investigation, but to come boldly to it. If they do not, their labours, instead of promoting fcience, will rather retard -it. |