Star. — London, England, 1819-06-16 00:00:00

~~ 'V I L' I 1 4 • PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. 110VSE OF LORDS, JUNE IS. 'The Cash Payments' Bill and On: Scots Ber' Reform Bills were brought up from the Vommons by Mr. BeAoarx and Mr. Deserts lhats., isitie - The Earl of DARN LEY begged leave to address a few or at to the House, on a subject which he deemed of the greate-t pos sible importance; not so meth to the hope that what he should say could carry sufficient weight, as with a vlew to direct their Lordships' atzention to the subject, and than in order that some Noble Lord, more competent than himself to do it justice, maybe induced to tome forward. tie had frequently, from time to time, felt occasion to call the attention of the House to the situation and circumstances of Ireland. In the present instance, as he found from the Votes of the other House of Parliament, that among the proposed new Taxes, it was in tended not to extend the Duties on Spirits, but to extend those on. Malt to Ireland : from the observations he had mode in that country, a country unfortunate in some respects, because with all the advantages she derived from Nature, she was diverted of alt opportunity of enjoying many of these ; and if any one cause operated more than another to solamentablc a result s he thought the great preference given to Spirituous over Malt Liquors, may be considered as that cause. Every thing possible; on the con trary, ought to be done to encourage the consumption of Beer. Or. this ground he had to entreat the Noble Lords, whose can.; dour on all occasions he was aware of, seriously to consider the point before they carried These Duties in that country any fur ther ; while at the fame time he suggested the propriety of their discouraging the great consumption of Spirituous Liquors in that country. He was strongly impressed with these considera tions, and therefore took this early opportunity of calling the serious attention of the Noble Lords to the subject. The Earl of LIVERPOOL, after moving the first reading of the Bank Restriction Bill, stated, that if the prints should be or the table, he should move the second reading of the Bill on Friday. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice of hisintention to move the second reading of the Madhouses' Regulation Bill on the same day. The Noble Marquis then gave notice, that he meant to-mor row to lay upon the table a Bill fur the purpose of indemnifying witnesses produced as evidences, with reference to a Bill then in progress before their Lordships, from the consequences of any testimony given - by them. Ile stated his intention now, as the witnesses were summoned to attend to-morrow. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the House would have to proceed in hearing causes to-morrow. PROPOSED QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE CURRENCY. The Order upon which their Lordships were sum moned being read— The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to bring for ward his noticed motion for the above object. After several Acts, chiefly of the present reign, relating to the Coin and Currency of the Realm, were read by his Lordship's desire, the Noble Earl proceeded to observe, that on a former occasion it had been argu ed, that as the Silver Coin had been for a long time lowered 2.5 per cent. in its actual value, and that the Silver Coin so depreciated had not the effect of ex .pelling the Gold Coin at the time, so it was clear that the Mint Regulations could not have such an effect at present. In the interval between 1774 and 1797, the time on which the argument was founded, he thought that their Silver Coin so depreciated could not be a proper legal tender ; and as it was thought proper to press forward the Bill now before their Lordships on the subject, he was of opinion their Lordships should learn from the best authority, namely, the Judges, how the law actually stood at the time. It could be no objection to urge that the. coin adverted to circulated freely, as law and suffer ence were two very different considerations. The Noble Lord opposite was well aware of the immense amount' of the coinages in the present reign ; and notwithstanding these immense issues, it was known. though the exchanges were generally in our favour, that the gold had vanished. He thought it therefore of material importance, that the questions he had re ferred should be put to the Judges for their opinions ; and among other points, as to the law whether or not the Silver Coin, though depreciated, by tale, un der 25 per cent. was a reallegal tender ? and a part of one of the questions he had so framed. The law, as it stood relative to the subject previous to the year 1774, declared that such was not a legal tender.— The Noble Earl then referred to the effect and ope ration of several of the Acts upon the subject, and argued, that those considerations all tended to shew the necessity of their being duly informed as to the actual meaning and state of the law - upon this im portant subject. The first question he should have to propose would go principally to resolve the point, whether the Silver Coin was or was not a legal ten derby tale,' though depreciated, or lost in its value, at least 12 per cent.? With respect to Silver also, he observed, that every nation but this made it the legal standard of value ; but the Act of the 56th of his Majesty made a most material difference between the intrinsic or relative value of the Gold and Silver Coin of the Realm. And it became an important question, whether, under the Proclamation issued at the time, the depreciated Silver Coin, out of which a high seignorage was taken, was raised to such an e q ttality with the Gold Coin, or whether the Gold Coin by such an equality, was so diminished in its value, as to be on a comparative level with the Sil ver Coin? The raising or diminution of ,value must act reciprocally with respect to either description of coin, and. the solution of his intended questions was the more necessary, as by the 56th of the King, no more than 9,0 lawful shillings could be legally taken for the Sovereign. Ile was anxious that the truth with respect to the actual state and effect of the law sheiuld . be ascertained in those respects• before their .12frdships should decide as to the important measure, just come before them, and in such view he had framed questions to the effect he had stated ; and for the purpose of submitting those to the highest legal authority, ,he moved that the Learned Judges be ordered to attend the service of the House on Tues- day next. The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose, and admitted the great importance of the subject in question, but then - on the other hand he thought their Lordships should 'consider before they sanctioned such a motion, the extent and multiplicity of business which these sages of the law had to dispose of, not only with respect to the criminal justice of. the country, but with re ference to the whole administration of the law gene rally. Therefore without a very sufficient case being made out (which he thought the Noble Lord had by no means established), the opinion of the Learned Judges should not, in his mind, be called for. Ano ther objection was, be did not think the answers would at all facilitate their Lordshipss• decision upon the subject. The molt ample inquiries and discus sions had already taken place upon these several points, and he really thought there was scarcely one practical, or man of business in the country, who en tertained a doubt that for every practical or useful purpose, that the gold coin was intended, under the present law of the country, to be the real measure of value or property. He was of opinion, that whatever changes in weight or actual value might have taken place in these respective descriptions at coins, it made no different in the present question. And notwith standing the depreciation which had taken place in the silver coin, if it qccurred from wear, it was, while in circulation, a legal bender to the amount of £2.5 per cent. The Noble Lord opposite argued many points in the subject, as if they had never been dis cussed or decided upon at all, and many of his other arguments bore not in the least upon the present question. No man could deny that the proportions of gold and silver in the country must vary, accor ding to the fluctuation of circumstances; but this could certainly form no ground why gold should not be taken as the legal standard of value, and of which silver was only the aliquot part when used in circu lation.. It. was a coin provided for the convenience principally of retail transactions, and had no more to do with representing the property of the country than iron, or any other metal. Gold was the real measure of value, and silver a legal tender only to a '! certain amQunt. The time for bringing forward this question he could not but regard as extraordinarily' chosen. The price of gold had greatly fallen since the important discussions upon the general subject were entered upon, and that metal, .which not long ' since was at 41.35. the ounce, the Noble Lord could ' now get as much of as he chose for 3/. 19s.—so far' was the prediction from true, that gold by the recent measures would be driven out of the country. There was little doubt that the real fact was, that the state of the exchanges, while they continued against us, was the principal cause •of the gold being exported. So, when those turned in our favour, the precious metals flowed into the country. He repeated his opinion, that the information proposed to be called for would be attended with no practical advantage, nor in the least facilitate their decision upon the im portant measure which would soon come under their Lordships' consideration. He should therefore cer tainly give the motion his negative. The Earl of LAUDERDALE spoke shortly inex planation ; after which the question was put, and de cided in the negative.—Adjourned till to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Sir G. HILL presented, pursuant to an order of the House, certain papers relating to the regulation of the collection of du ties.—Ordered to lie on the table. The report of the Loan Bill was taken into further considera tion, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The LORD ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND brought up the report of the Scotch Criminals' Banishment Bill, which was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW gave notice, that on the irssi inst. he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Acts relating to the admission of Attorneys into the Courts of Law. Colonel DAVIES moved for returns sheering the distribution of troops in Great Britain and Ireland, and in the islands in the Channel, distinguishing cavalry, artillery, and troops of the line ; and also skewing the effective strength of the Officers, Non commissioned Officers, and Privates.—Ordered. The Fisheries Preservation Bill was read a s:cond time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. On the motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the Committee on the Irish Partnerships' Bill was postponed till that day six months. Mr. SHAW presented a Petition from the Merchants and Tradeis of Dublin against the Foreign Enlistment Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table. - 1 Mr. W. COURTNEY obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law as to suffering recoveries of Land held in an-, tient demesne, and with regard to Sales and Leases of such LAnds belonging to lunatics. Sir J. MONTGOMERY postponed his motton for Papers relative to Mr. Pritchard's Petition complaining of acts of op pression committed in British America, Red River Settlement, till that day se'nnight. The Lottery Bill went through a Committee, the Report of which was ordered to be received to-morrow. ; 1 t I • • • 1 • . - . o . I `,.. li , 1 . 1 ' i 1 '' ) • a . .kt ' r . , A ' 1 I. t EXCISE DUTIES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of the Excise Duties' Bill. Mr. BRAND offered a few words in opposition to the Bill, and :bade an objection to the provision made for levying the Duty on the stock of Malt now on hand. On this subject he had a Petition to present from some of the most respectable Maltsters in England. He hoped the hardship of their case had been taken into consideration, and wished to know if it were intended to allow them time to make the payments. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, be de fended the course intended to he pursued, and said it was intend ed to allow the Maltsters tomake the payments by instalments. Mr. N. CALVERT objected to the new Duda, principally on account of the hard and distressing case of the Maltster.-- Ile disapproved of the subject being brought on so early in the day as much as be did of its being brought forward at so late an hour as it was when it last came before the Home. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to take off part of the Day on the stock in hand, he should be more disposed to abstain from offering opposition, but otherwise be was inclined to take the sense of the House on the present motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the details of the measure co& be more conveniently gone into When the MI got into the Cisminittee, and then, if so disposed, the Honourable Member could take the sense of the House on that to which he objected. Mr. CALVERT declined giving the House the trouble of dividing on the present occasion. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. WEAVERS OF CARLISLE. Mr. CURWEN wished to ask a question as to a Petition which be understood had been referred by his Royal Highness the Prince Regent to his Ministers, from the Weavers of Car lisle and some other places:—Had any measures been taken, or were any in contemplation for their relief? ' Lord CASTLEREAGH said he was not in possession of any further information on this subject. PUBLICANS LICENSES. The Report of the Publicans' Licenses Bill being taken into further consideration, Mr. BENNETT moved that the Bill should be re-committed. The motion was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into the Committee. Several of the clauses were debated, and several amendments were pro posed and adopted. Mr. EISTCOURT objected to the clause giving Publicans, in cases where Licenses were withheld, an appeal to the Quarter-Sessions, on giving five days' notice of their intention. He thought the operation of the clause would be found very inconvenient, par ticularly in the country. Mr. BENNETT expressed his apprehension that, in consequence of the great opposition which that clause seemed to experience, he should be under the necessity of relinquishing it. • He stated shortly the' considerations which had urged him to introduce the Bill. It was well known that there were a great many brewers, who, for purposes of interest, entered into Corporations, became Magistrates, and ultimately Proprietors of Public-houses. Those persons were in many cases induced to give a bounty on the con sumption of their own li q uor, by the encouragement of every kind of vice. He bad received a letter from a respectable Clergyman at Exeter, stating, that he resided in a ravish in that city, inhabited by the poorest classes of the people, 800 in number, of whom only 18 paid Poor's Rates; that out of those 18 seven kept Public-houses, five of which were with;n a hun-1 dyed yards of. each other; that, ne vertheless, one of the Members of the Corporation, who was a Brewer, wished to set up another house in the parish, against the establishment of which the Clergyman in question had in vain applied to the Magistrates, to his Dioce san, and to one of the Members. The Honooralile 'Gentleman here read a list of the number of Brewers who were Magistrates in a variety of small towns, which he named, and declared the happiness he should feel if he could be.the humble instrument of putting down so great an evil. Mr. COURTENAY warmly defended the Magis trates of the City of Exeter against the charges pre ferred against them—not in the Report of the Com mittee on the subject, but on an ex parte statement contained in an anonymous letter. And what was the whole of this mighty accusation? That, in the opinion of a Clergyman of Exeter, there was one ale house too much in a parish of that city. The Hon. Gentleman felt so strongly that the sense of the Ilouse wat: against the clause which he had described, that he had abandoned it, and having abandoned it, proceeded to utter calumnies against a body of men who were not there to answer for themselves. Mr. BENNET replied, that as he had beer. accuse.] of calumny, he would read the letter, and the name of the. Clergyman from whom be had received it, which the Honourable Member accordingly did. Lord MILTON said he could not help complain ing that his Honourable Friend had consented to abandon the clause relating to Boroughs and Towns having separate jurisdictions where the evil exited. In the country, the Public-houses were no doubt often in the hands of the Brewers; but the Magistrates did not let the evil attain such a head. • He would press it on his Hon. Friend not to abandon the clause. After some further observations on the part of several Members, a division took place:—For the clause, 76—Against it,' 114—Majority, 38. Some discussion took place as to whether cert:tin parts of Southwark and its vicinity, not under the jurisdiction of the City of London, ought to fall within the operation of the Bill? and Mr. lioLstE SumNER, with whom the discussion originated, stated that he would not press the matter at present, hut would take an opportunity of bringing. the subject forward in a future stage of the Bill. The other clauses of the Bill were read and agreed to. The House resumed, and the Report was or dered to be received to-morrow. THE TlNtrs NEWSPAPER. Mr. WYNN moved the Order of the Day for the attendance of Charles Ilell,,the printer and publisher of the Times Newspaper. Mr. BELL was then called in, and the Papers which had been put in at the table by Mr. CANNING were handed to him. Q. Are you the printer and publisher of these Papers?—l ant. Q. Who is the Editor of that Paper?—'There is an FAitor . who has the general superintendence of the Paper ; but I have brought the manuscript of the paragraph which is complained of, and the author is in attendance, and ready to appear before the House. Q. Who is the Editor?—The Editor who has the conduct of the Paper is Barnes. Q. from whom did you receive the manuscript of that part of the Publication which purports to be a speech of a Member of this House ?—I was not at the Printing Office on the evenini when that report was written; but •I have searched for the ma nuscript, and and that it was written by a Gentleman whose name is be is in attendance, and ready to acknowledge it. I can speak to his hand-writinir. Q. Prom whom did you receive that paragraph (skewing him the paragraph in the Monday's Paper)?—lt is necessary for me IQ state, that I was not at the Office at the time. I have been forty years Printer of the Paper, and do not attend to it as much as I formerly did. The Gentlemen who report the debates have the strongest injunctions from the Proprietor to give a faithful report of what passes in the House, without partiality. The' execution of this must rest on their own responsibility, as it is impossible that any one cah controul what is written by them. If the House knew the method in which a Newspaper is com posed, the number of Reporters who are employed, and the haste in which it is necessary that they should write, and that what they write should be printed, they would see that it would be impossible to correct what they have written. The Repor ters of the early parts of the proceedings often return to the House, after they have written an account of what they have before heard. The question referred to the paragraph in Monday's Pa per; who wrote it ?—I conclude that it was written by the Edi tor. I mean the letter fiom Mr. Hume and the comments. I was not In town when it was printed, but in Hampshire. Question by Mr. Huani,—?Vas the part of the debate complained of signed by the person who wrote It?—\o. Question by Mr. HOLME SIMNEL—Was that debate transcribed from the short-hand notes by the person who took it in short hand?—ln some instances, the notes are not taken in short- I hand; but the Gentleman who wrote the account in question is ' , in attendance.—The witness was then directed to withdraw. The SPEAKER said, that he had also been in formed by a letter from Mr.— that he had reported the speech in question, and was in attendance. The Gentleman who reported the speech in The Times was then called in, and having looked at the printed paper, was asked who had written that part of it which purported to be a speech of Mr: Hume ? He said that he had. The manusci ipt which'Mr. Bell had produced was also shewn to him, and he stated that it was in his hand-writing. Being asked whether' the original was in short-hand? he stated, that ii was necessary far him to explain, that from the situa tion in which those who reported the debates were in the Gallery, it was impossible always to hear, or, if hear ing, to write what was heard with perfect accuracy, and by these circumstances he was led into the error, which was the cause of his appearance at the Bar. He'had been seated in a back row of the Gallery, and in consequence of the passing and repasing of persons in front of him, and the station rather under the Gallery, which the Honourable Member, Mr. l Hume, had taken, lie was obliged to apply to a per son before him to learn what the Hon. Member had said, and the person to whom lie had applied, had distinctly stated to him,.. not - the words, but the substance of the paragraph which had. been com plained of. He added, that the inconvenience which he had been subjeq to, was one of frequent recur rence, and was an unavoidable cause of occasional incorrectness in reports. .In the *sent faitante, he had no motives to misrepresent the Hondniiiile Mem jeer, had neitherpassion nbr political--a n i mos i tyto grat if y. now been engaged many years is Concerns of this kind, nearly ten years, and •thisi was the first occasion in which he had given cause of complaint either to the House . or any of Members. .Wit nes i was. sked, 'whether; the manuscript poisession cf the House, was a transcript of an original in short hand? f said . they Were,rasTar as the inconvenience ro:wkich Ittihad been subjected allowed him to take notes i the notes in questiOn he.had mislaid. • Mr. C. HERVEY asked when the report was '4- - written ? Witness said that it 'was written the same night, immediately after the debate had taken place. From the great haste in which it was necessary to fur nish the account of the proceedings, each slip of pa. per being taken away by the printers as soon as th e hand of the writer was removed from it there was no room for deliberation beyond that which could be given to it in the act of writing. Wit l e ss was asked whether he had inserted the words n to& tinned cheers" in the parenthesis? he answered tha t 'he had. He had a certain mark for Cheers which might be heard in the House, and his idea of their continuance was derived from recollection which might be incorrect. He had also inserted the name. of Mr. Canning in a parenthesis. He had a strong recollection that Mr. Hume bad alluded to a smile on the Ministerial Bench, though Mr. Hume had not mentioned that allusion in his sketch of the speech t and he had also heard, though indistiuctly, other words, which corroborated his opinion, that the in formation which had been given him that the allti k sion was directed personally against Mr. Canning ' was co; rect. He was at the time not able to Inter, toin whether Mr. Canning was in his place, and front the previous allusions which had been made to him, he had no reason to believe that he was not r for if Mr. If ume, as he stated, had regretted dal absence of the :'!ember for Liverpool, nb such words had reached the witness's ears: he expressed his re gret that he had fallen into an unintentional vier, which he was convinced would not have occurred if those inconveniencies to v.hich he had alluded were removed, and added, that he might appeal to the frequent misconceptions between Honourable Members themselves—(Cries cf Order.) The witness having retired, Mr. WYNN said, that after the evidence whiA they had heard, nothing had occurred to ;alter tit opinion which be had before expressed, that the min representation did not originate in misconception; but if it had arisen from misconception only, still it was a breach of privilege, not merely as a publics tion of a debate, but as containing matter libellous on one of its Members, for though reflections on par ticular Members might be uttered in the House, it was not on that account fit that they should be puls• fished. In this he was confirmed by the greatest au thority on the subject of Parliamentary privilege, Mr. Fox, who had said, that he might not only be justified, but bound by his duty, to make ol;- servations, which it would be a gross libel to publish in Newspapers. The reports of what passed in that House must be given at the responsibility of those who composed them—and as for that extreme haste which was pleaded in excuse for inaccuracy, how. ever strongly he felt the advantage of the present mode of publishing the debates, he still thought it far more advisable that their publication should be delayed for a few hours than • that they should be given without the possibility of revision or corm tion.—(Ficar.) He should therefore move that the paper which had been put in and read was " a scan dalous misrepresentation of the debates and proceed ings of this House, a calumnious libel on the charac ter of one of its Members, and an aggravated breach of its privilege-rt.". . Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had no intention to oppose the declaration that the publication was a breach of privilege, but he reserved to himself die liberty, if any further proceeding SAOUId be pi epose,e, of remarking on the various circumstances of exte nuation which had come to the knowledge of the House. But it occurred to him that there would be a great difficulty, after condemning in terms so strong as those contained in the Resolution now proposed to the House the publication which had been laid before them, whether they could consistently stop, without inflicting on the writer a severer punishment than he• really merited? It therefore might be more advis able that he should first observe on those circum stances of extenuation before they came to that Reso. lution, and submit it to the House, whether it would be necessary to put the Resolution at all ? For there would be a great inconvenience, if, by a Resolution thus framed, the House should feel itself bound ts go farther than in justice perhaps ; certainly farther than in mercy, they were warranted in going. Then. were circumstances in the examination of the last witness, which induced him to think the usual pro ceeding in such cases, viz. to commit the individua: to custody, would be too - severe. If he thought that, after Such Resolution as that which had been pro posed, they could stop at a reprimand, and he should not objectto the motion before them ; he would fain hope that they might do so, framing the reprimanc so as to refer to the circumstances disclosed in evi dence, as an extenuation of what would have been. but for those circumstances, a grave offence. He had thrown out these suggestions, being either prepared at once to enter upon the discussion of those circum ' stances of extenuation, or to allow the Resolution to pass, under the agreement, that it should lead only to the mitigated punishment. Mr. BATHURST' thought the House could no: do less than commit the witness, whatever the eaten: of it might be v.mild be a matter for after considera tion. Though the defence of the witness had been ingenious, it appeared to him that though.this Gen tleman might in the hurry hate substituted one thiny for another, he could not, with intention, have inserte. a complete sentence containing the most unfounde. aspersion. Mr. PHILLIPS said,. the defence of the witne . did not appear to him, as to the Riglit Honourabi • Gentleman, ingenious, but most ingenuous—(Hear henr.)—The account which he had given of the marl ' nor in which he had been led into the mistake, ap peared to him very natural and probable. He hair himself often heard in the House expressions applier , to the Right Honourable Member for Liverpool.yery like those which 'the witness had attributed to tb Hohourable Member for Aberdeen--(Cries of 2% If that. was a mistake in the ivitness, it was a riaistak which by - the cry: in the House, he had himsch fallen • into on sonic other occasions., for he (Mr. Phil , liPr)'fiad imagined that at ogler tinieS the Right Ho 'tearable Gentleman (Mr. Canning) had been repro : seined as.- associating mirthful ideas with the repre ; sentations• of lunhan suffering—(Hear,- hear)e—lt was, aierifore, anatiiral mi,takefor a hearer to fall iota . The whole of the evidence at the Bar had-con vinced him that there was no malignity in the snia,! oithe 'W intention br gay to misrepresent;. ant as hecosild not sever the •or ihttintiosthern the declaration that it was " caluruniouslibed," he could not, as an honest man, vote for the Resolution.