MISTIORY: OF EUROPE 
in the straits of Gibraltar, on the 
12th of July, 1801; recommended 
the grant of an annuity of 1200/. 
to Sir James Saumarez, for the 
term of his natural life. 
When this message was taken 
into consideration, the next day, 
The chancellor of the exchequer, 
recounted his former services under 
lords Rodney, St. Vincent, and 
Nelson; but particularly dwelt on 
the last gallant action, when he had 
acted as commander in chief. Af- 
ter a complimentary speech, he 
concluded, by moving a resolution, 
agreeably to the recommendation of 
his majesty, which was unanimous- 
ly agreed to. 
On the 28th, lord Ellenborough 
brought forward, in the house of 
lords, the bill, now known by the 
name of Lord Ellenborough’s Act, 
for making the maiming, w ounding, 
and disfiguring, any of his majes- 
ty’s subjects, a capital felony. In 
consequence of the Irish Chalking 
Bill, which was soon to come again 
before their lordships’ consideration, 
he had turned his attention to the 
subject, and, in this instance, would 
wish to assimilate the LEnglish cri- 
minal law, to that of Ireland. By 
the Coventry Act, “a lying in wait” 
must be proved; and, at present, 
an assault, with intent to murder, 
was, by the law, only a misde- 
meanor, although an assault, with 
an intent to rob, was a felony! He 
then stated, some of the provisions 
of his bill, respecting child-murder ; 
and the wdudinistering medicines to 
procure abortion. He should also 
propose, to make it a capital of- 
fence, for a man to burn his own 
house, for the purpose of defraud- 
ing the underwiiters. 
Lord Auckland highly approyed 
109 
of the bill, which was then read 2 
first time. 
On the same day, in the house 
of commons, a very long debate 
took place, on the punishment 
which ought to be inflicted, on 
James Trotter, who had been com- 
mitted, for not attending a com- 
mittee of the house of commons, 
to give his evidence respecting the 
Dumferline election. 
James Trotter, having surren- 
dered himself, and presented the 
usual petition, expressing his sor- 
row for having offended against the 
privileges of “the house, was brought 
to the bar; and being asked, had 
he any thing to say in his defence? 
said, ‘* that he was absent from 
home, for ten days, after the first 
summons was sent him; and that 
his family did not send the second 
after him.” He then expressed 
contrition, and asked pardon. 
Lord Euston moved, that he 
should be reprimanded, and then 
discharged. 
Mr. Tierney, considered this 
punishment, as altogether insuf- 
ficient: he considered that thecrime 
of staying away, from giving his 
evidence when required, was full as 
bad as prevarication, if he had at- 
tended; he could by no means be- 
lieve, that the prisoner could have 
remained so long ignorant of asum-=- 
mons, from such high authority, 
as the speaker of the house of com- 
mons, which was a thing that must 
have been spoken of, as a circum- 
stance rather unusual in the neigh- 
bourhood. It was much more 
likely, that he was absent from his 
house on purpose, to avoid being 
obliged to answer some questions 
he might be asked, about bribing a 
vote, at Queen’s Ferry.’ He hones 
that 
