itain might be deluged
with those people, all of whom the law would hold as natural-born
subjects, and their progeny as freed from all tha restriction contained
in the act with respect to naturalized foreigners, lord Harley moved for
leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the said act as related to
persons professing the Jewish religion, who should come to settle in
any British colony after a certain time. The motion was seconded by sir
James Dashwood, and supported by the earl of Egmont; but being found
unequal to the interest and elocution of Mr. Pelham and Mr. Pitt, was
rejected by the majority.

{1754}

EAST-INDIA MUTINY BILL.

The next object that claimed the attention of the commons, was a bill
for improving the regulations already made to prevent the spreading of
a contagious distemper, which raged among the horned cattle in different
parts of the kingdom. The last bill of this session that had the good
fortune to succeed, was brought in for punishing mutiny and desertion of
officers and soldiers in the service of the East India company, and for
the punishment of offences committed in the East Indies and the island
of St. Helena. This being a measure of a very extraordinary nature, all
the members were ordered to attend the house on the day fixed for
the second reading; at the same time all charters, commissions, and
authorities, by which any power relative to a military jurisdiction, or
the exercise of martial law, had been granted or derived from the crown
to the said company, were submitted to the perusal of the members. The
bill was by many considered as a dangerous extension of military power,
to the prejudice of the civil rights enjoyed by British subjects, and
as such violently contested by the earl of Egmont, lord Strange, and
Mr. Alderman Beckford. Their objections were answered by the
solicitor-general and Mr. Yorke. The bill, after some warm debates,
being espoused by the ministry, was enacted into a law, and despatched
to the East Indies by the first opportunity.

Some other motions were made, and petitions presented on different
subjects, which, as they miscarried, it will be unnecessary to
particularize. It may not be amiss, however, to record an exemplary act
of justice done by the commons on a person belonging to a public
office, whom they detected in the practice of fraud and imposition.
Notwithstanding the particular care taken in the last session, to
prevent the monopolizing o