Star. — London, England, 1818-05-26 00:00:00

_.~ PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. I • I HOUSE OF WEDS, MAY SIS. The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a Petition frovo the Parish of St . George's, Bloonnbilry, in &your of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. The Bishop of CHESTER presented two Petitions in favour .1 the Cotton Manufactories' Bill, which were referred to the Committee thereon. On the motion of Lord ERSKINE, the order for the second of the Libel Law Amendment Bill to-morrow, was &s -and renewed for that day se'unight. The Irish Fever Hospital, the Grand Jury Presentments, the Highways' COnviction, and a few other Bills, were brought up from the Commons, by Sir J. Nrwmar, Mr. Homers, and others, and read the first time. Mr. Lomax, from the Tax-office, presented some accounts relative to the redemption and sale of the Land Tax • end Mr. Mammas, from the East India House, an account res pecting the Sales of the Company's Goods.—Laid upon-the table. The Earl of DERBY presented two frees the town ' Liverpool against the Poor's Laws and Amendment Rill, and praying the Petitioners may be heard by their CounseL CUSTODY 01 THE KING'S PERSON. The House resolved itself into a Committee on the- Bill for amending the Regency Act. The LORD CHANCELLOR had several clauses ) propose. In consequence of the objections made iy some Noble Lords to the mode of increasing the Queen's Council as originally (=Tided in the Bill, he had already intimated Lis willingness to agree to the nomination being made by` Parliament, as was ti* case with respect to the first conncil appointed under the Regency Act. He should, therefore, now men tion the names he intended to propose for insertion in the Bill, subject to the approval of their Lord ships. • To the present number of the Queen's Coun cil, which consisted of eight persons, he would pro pose the addition of fours making ie whole of that body now twelve. If any of the persons nominated 'sy Parliament should decline to act, or if any va :ancy should otherwise occur, he would propose that, her Majesty should retain the power she has under the present Act of filling up the vacancy. He then proposed the following names, on each of which the question was put, and,carried in the affirmative with out opposition :—GEORGE, Earl of MACCLESFIELD ; WILLIAM, Bishop of Losoos ; ALLEYNE, Lord ST. HELEN'S; FREDERICK MORDEN, Lord HENLEY. On the first quest of the sill being read, Lord HOLLAND rose and observed, that the House ought not to proceed with the enactments of this Bill, without a strict examination of its neces sity. There was nothing stated in the preamble which in any way accounted for the clauses that fol lowed From the nature of the clauses in the Bill it was to be inferred that his Majesty's recovery was no longer an event to be anticipated. But if they were now, for the first time since the passing of the Regency Act, to legislate on the principle that his Majesty's recovery was not probable, the measure ought to be preceded by an inquiry into that fact,' If that probability no longer existed, why bring in a Bill merely to remedy the inconvenience which it was the object of this Bill to remove, when there was ) many circumstances which rendered the revision of the whole Regency Act necessary ? That Act was passed with a view to the probability of his Ma jesty's recovery. Every measure then adopted, on the suggestion of the Noble Lords opposite and their friends, had a reference to that event. Their Lord ships were told, as an excuse for the expense o± the Windsor Establishment, that it was proper his Ma jesty should, on his recovery, find again about him all that state to stiich he had been accustomed.— But if the probability of recovery had now ceased, ought not their Lordships to proceed to a reconside ration of the whole subject of the Regency ? He, therefore, could not agree to the first clause of this :ill, unless it were to be followed up by many other provisions, which were, in his mind, equally neces sary and urgent. The Earl of LIVERPOOL reminded their Lord ships of the circumstances under which the Regency Act had been passed. There had been then great differences of opinion on the question of limitations, and one of the grounds on which those limitations were defended, certainly was the probability of his .Majesty's recovery. When, after a year had elapsed, and the state of that probability was to a certain de gree altered, the limitations were removed. He should be sorry to say, at any time, that the proba bility of his Majesty's recovery had ceased ; but Par liament, in enacting any measures relative to Cie Regency, must necessarily legislate on the greater or less degree of that probability. With regard to as certaiwng the nature of the probability, there could be no necessity for any measure ; for their Lord ships must be aware that a quarterly report of the state of his Majesty's health is regularly made by the attending Physicians. Would it be advisable, then, to subject the country to the chance of the inconve nience which this Bill was calculated to prevent, in order to an inquiry, for which there was no necessity whatever? Earl GREY, in reply to what had fallen from the Noble Earl opposite, on the subject of the limitations in the Regency, should only observe, that he held zlle whole of the regal powers were given for the lublic benefit, and that they should, therefore, be fully and entirely vested in the person who was placed at the head of the Executive Government.— With regard to the present measure, in what case 'id their Lordships find themselves? They knew of ,o difference in the situation of his Majesty since the ? assing of the Act, except by a longer continuance of his malady. But the Noble Earl had said that no report was wanted, because a quarterly report was made by the Physicians. Their Lordships had, how ever, no information on the important question of the probability of his Majesty's recovery. Why had never before now been proposed to alter the Re- gency Act?—(Hear, hear.)—The Noble Earl was of opinion, that the country might sustain much in convenience if this Bill was not agreed to ; but the -ountry had been exposed to that inconvenience, whatever it was, ever since the passing of the former Act. That Act, which provided for the reassembling of the old Parliament on the demise of the Queen, vas passed with a view to the security of his Ma jesty s person ; but if that important provision was now re ed, it must be admitted that the measure on the ground, that his Majesty is now in a state which requires in a less degree the care and anxiety . of Parliament. If they legislate on this prin ;pie, it was obvious that the provisions of the Bill ought to be far more large and extensive. There were many things to be provided for, but he should at present mention only one. In the ease of the King's death, after a dissolution, the Parliament re assembled, and the Regency Bill placed the demise of the Prince Regent on the same fasting; but as the Prince Regent exercises the authority in the name and on the behalf of # l a t tjesty, it was pos sible that some difficultyinight arise if the writs for anew election were issued. It was his opinion that in such-a case the writs would be abrogated ; yet, doubts perhaps would arise which might create con siderable embarrassment to the returning Officer.— He would therefore propose, that, in case of the de mise of the Prince Regent after a dissolution of Par liament, the writs issued for a new election should cease and determine. The LORD CHANCELLOR adverted to the quarterly report, which, he observed, was drawn up by the Queen's Council, and was never made with out taking into consideration the opinion of the Phy sicians on the probability of his Majesty's recovery. These reports were laid before the Privy Council, and might be call‘d for by Parliament. The Noble and Learned Lord then read over various clauses which he wished to add to the Bill. They contained provisions relative to the proceedings to take place in the case of the demise of the Queen during a dis solution of Parliament, and one clause appeared to relate to the ceasing of the writs in the case of the demise of the Regent, as pointed out by Lord Grey. After these clauses were added, and several verbal amendments made, the Bill was ordered to be en grossed and reported to-morrow. POOR LAWS AMWDMENT SILL. The Earl of HARDWICKE moved the commit ment of this Bill ; in doing which, his Lordship went over the various clauses, and stated the object of each. He observed, that the present Bill was not to be con sidered as a solitary measure, but as part of a system intended for the reform of the Poor Laws. The Marquis of LANSDOWN had, when his No ble Friend.moved the second reading of this Bill, de clared his opinion that the measure was essentially at variance with the most important principles of public economy and private morals, and that opinion he still maintained. The measure came recommended by the Committee of the other House on the Poor Laws; but he must say, without any disrespect to that Corn mittee, that the Public were far more benefited by the principles they had laid down in their Report, than by the Bills they had thought fit to found upon it. In legislating on the Poor Laws, one principle ought to be kept in view: if their Lordships could not venture to cut off the springs of that inundation of ' evil which had overspread the land, they ought at ,least to take care not to legislate on the same vicious principle, the force of which had increased with the duration of the system. That system was better de scribed in the Report of the House of Commons than it could be by any words of his. The passage in the Report to which he alluded stated the infallible effect of compulsory contributions for the maintenance el the poor to be the abatement of those exertions and that industry in the labouring classes on which the happiness of mankind depend, and the checking of the impulse of natural affection. This principle, so ably and truly stated in the Report, was totally irre, concileable with the provision in page 6 of the printed Bill, which made it lawful for Overseers and Church wardens to take from parents, reduced to the neces sity of applying for relief, their children under twelve years of age. Nothing was more likely to increase that want of foresight in parents, which was the great evil of the present. system, than this provision, uhich held out to the inconsiderate that their children were to be taken from them and maintained at the public expense. It might lead to that effect which an emi nent writer on political economy had pointed out as the consequence of infanticide being permitted by the laws of China, and which was the great cause of 'the misery to which a vast portion of the overloaded population of that country was reduced. This Bill created the certainty of getting rid of the burden of a numerous family, and therefore removed all that prospect of difficulty which ought to be taken into consideration on contracting marriage. Its effect would be to foster new generations of paupers, who would look to the workhouse as their inheritance, and who would rely on the public (not on their own) industry for their maintenance. The expense of this mode of providing for the children ought also to be considered. A child could not be maintained by the parish for less than 201. but it was needless to ob serve, that a much less sum given for the relief of the family to whom the child belonged would be suf ficient. What too would be the moral effect of the separation ? Any system of education which was not founded on the interchange of the domestic affections was vicious. Goo and Nature had rendered the che rishing of these affections as necessary to the strength ening of moral character as hralthy exercise was to the physical constitution of children. This Bill then went to establish a system which would counteract what had hitherto been with pride regarded as the distinctive character of Englishmen. At 12 years of age, the children who had been separated from their parents were to be returned to them; but would the parents, whose affections the law will thus have en deavoured to extinguish, receive them? and if they refuse, what will the Parliament do with them?— He was aware it ought to be said, on the other hand, that many parents would be averse to part with their children, and mike every exertion to retain them; but the temptation to improvidence was so great, and the distress occasioned by that improvidence so pressing, that few would be able to act on such pleas ing impulses. The only true remedy for the evil was to breed up the lower classes with the idea that they must depend on their own exertions alone for their own support.—Another clause to which he felt a great objection was, that which enabled Parish Offi cers to buy land, for the purpose of employing those who could not find work. If the land were poor, it could only be cultivated at a loss, and the poor-rates must be increased to the amount of that loss. If the land were rich, the cultivation of it with parish funds would be an injury to those who laboured for their own support. The whole enactment was the result of that unfortunate principle that held it out as pos sible to create a demand for labour, whatever the circumstances of the country, or the state of manu factures and commerce, might be--a principle so ab suid, that it was at once subversive of itself. If t hi s principle were not abandoned, wages must be brought to use lowest limit that human misery could endure. In fact, the Magistrates at Birmingham had actually on this principle lowered the wages of the nailers, and told them that they must make up the difference with relief out of the poor rates. He, therefore, en treated the House to consider whether the perseve rance in this system would not plunge the commu nity into an irretrievable danger, which could only end in a convulsion. On these grounds, he thought it his duty to take the sense ofthe blouse on these clauses. After some observations from the Bishop of LoN vox, the Marquis of BUCKINGHAM, and the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the clause relating to the provision of children separate .from their parents was withdrawn without a division. The Marquis of Lorsnoww, the Earlof HA RROWBY, and Earl Gitosvnicsa, having made some observa tions on the other clauses of the Bill, and several ver bal alterations having been agreed to, the House di vided on the clause for rating the landlords of houses of above 4/. and under 201. annual value.—Contents, 'l7—Non-contents, 7—Majority, 10. NEW CHURCHES DILL. The consideration of the Report of this Bill being moved, ' Lord HOLLAND moved the introduction of the clause of which he had given notice on a former night. He observed, his proposition flowed purely from the principle of the Bill itself, and did not go an atom beyond it. By the operation of the Act of the 22d Charles IL called the Convention Act, those who adhered to the Church of England were obliged to take out a license for the erection ofChurches cr Cha pels for celebrating the service of the Established Church ; and without which the Clergy who offs • elated, and those who attended divine service, were liable to the infliction of certain penalties. Though the Act may originally have been proposed for a very different object, yet such was its present effect. Indeed, by the operation of the statute of William In. these penalties now attached only upon Members of the Church of England. To do away such an in jurious and discouraging regulation, was the object of his clause, which, being read by his Lordship, went to provide, that from and after the passing of this Act, no person in holy orders should be liable to the penalties imposed by the said Act ; or that no per sons who attended the performance of the service of the Church of England should be liable to the said though the said required licenses were not had and obtained. And the Noble Lord moved that the clause be added to the BiU. The Earl of HARROWBY argued against the adoption of the clause ; first, as entirely superfluous, inasmuch as by an Act passed in 11+12, every atom or particle of the Act referred to, which went to im pose the penalties complained of, was positively re pealed ; and in other points of view, as such a legis lative provision would afford too great a latitude w ith respect to places intended or pretended to be for public worship, he conceived its tendency must be not a little injurious. - _ . The Archbishop of CANTERBURY objected to the clause. The Bill did not affect Dissenters so as to make this addition necessary. If adopted it would go to overturn all the Canons of the Church. He hoped the present system would not be disturbed, and that the clause would be rejected. Lord HOLLAND briefly replied. The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion the clause was unnecessary, and that if adopted it would authorise the performance of divine service id a par lour or shop. The clause was negatived without a division, the Report was agreed to, and die Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMDONS. A Petition was received, signed by Sir F. Alderson and others, respecting the Bill pending is to the rating of the Lead Mines. Similar Petitions were received, presented by Sir C. Mosca, from places in Northumberland, Cumberland, &c. The lion. Mr. Lvercurom presented a Petition from a place in Worcesterdaire against the Poor Settlement Bill. Similar Petitions were pri.seuted and received from Exeter and Plymouth. The Highway Penalties Bill was read a third time. The Fast India Shipping Bill, and the East India Marriages Bill, were ordered to be committed, and the reports were or dered for Wednesday nest. The Negotiable Securities Bill was read a second time.— Committee to-morrow. The Widows' Prize Bill was read a second time.—Committee The Clandestine Marriages Bill went through the Committee, with some observation:, front General TuoutroN. The Irish Fever Bill was read a third time, and passed. LEAD MINIS . ASSESSMENT. On the order of the day for the second reading of' the Lead Mines Bill— Mr. BROUGHAM made some observations on the modes proposed for the ratio of assessment. He objected to the passing of the Bill at so late a period of the Session, and also to its extending liability for paying to the Poor Rates, instead of narrowing that Mr. MORRIT argued that the object was not to occasion an extension of the operation of the Poor Laws, but to prevent the evasion of payments from those who were Proprietors or persons interested in Lead Mines, who sometimes paid on the value of ore, and sometimes by money from rent. He ad verted to former Petitions on the subject, and main tained the necessity of preventing undue evasions. Mr. D. GILBERT said, that no personal interest of his own swayed him, for he thought that the lia bility of the Mines to the Tax was fair in principle; and, also, that the question had, in some cases, been got rid of by a mere legal quibble. He, therefore, should support the measure. There was no view of affecting the adventurers in mining, but only to touch upon the use and permission of mining, so as to make the arrangements of the Poor Rates fair and equal. On the subject of Peor Rates he remem bered that, twelve or fourteen years ago, when he was almost left alone in his opinions, he was adverse to the existing system. Upon this very important subject it would be found necessary to adopt some vigorous measures, or else the evil would absorb the means of the country, and lead the way to destruc tion. He hoped that measures recently proposed would, when adopted, lead to very beneficial effects. In Cornwall, the assessments to the Poor Rates had proceeded, as in other great Mining Districts (inde pendent of Coal Mines), on the ground of what was received by the Lords. A quibble had been set up about a reserve of rent ; but it could not be thought right that there should be a difference between re ceiving in kind or in money. One mode should not be freer than the other. There was nothing particu larly new introduced on the subject, but he thought peat skill and knowledge had been shewn in fram ing the Bil. On a question at law, a decision had been given, which made a difference between the receiving in ore or in rent. 'Me prepositkin *pre * . ed to him a fai r one , as i t l e ft the interests Lead Mines the same as they had been before, a .; only endeavoured to amend the regulation at Assessments. Sir CHARLES MONCK objected to the PilL Ic. cause it rendered the owners instead of the °topic:, of mines rateable. Lord LASCELLES observed, that all pat • were agreed as to the fact of the great d; ct ,„ vailing in those districts where the principal 4 2 4 Mines were situated. The burden of the Nor RA% in those places was such as almost to at5,,,,,k rent. It was manifest that much of this C from the exemption of the occupiers et from the payment of the poor rate. doubt that the leases contained cov ena with a view to this question of liability, , Bill, therefore, if it should pass into a rr create no practical difficulty. Under these 'rations, be trusted that the Bill, irr.rorut admitted to be, would at least be .C.lwsul a Committee. 3 I. If: Mr. STURGES BOURNE contcndvd priety of putting lead mines cm the same • ing as coal mines, with regard to thair the poor rate. After some further conversation betwe en MORPETII, Mr. Lono, and Sir J. r ;RA:IV4, the ! with a . view to the postponement GI tic the next Session of Parliament, moved, t!.at be read a second time that day <ix mr et th.. The House then ditided—for the tion 74—Against it E2—Majority 22. On our return to the gallery, we font•• engaged in considering cn wha: dz.:- the be committed, which was order&l for Wedriesd.r. CROWN PROPERTY. Mr. BROUGHAM moved an irtntb!e A I.!-e the Prince Regent. for a copy of a:l Fula, rt-.,:v by the Crown, tinder the will of re • Towson, Esq. The Honourable a It: ber said, his reason for makir.g ,;; understanding a large sun of money. tur.c.-1;:. ; 120.0001. had been bequeathed by -.'ae rata r charitable purposes, and forfeited ti) t:lc l lc. • consequence of some formal error iat:te . considered that, it had happened very en inasmuch as it might afford the means ti the expenses of a commission (for educatio:n pr • • ed by a Bill now in progress throw,;hanothcr —Ordered. PRIVI!.r.r.F The SPEAKER expressed himself de,imns cid» ling the attention of the House to a sulsject of cons . :. derable importance, as it affected the order and die. nity of its proceedings. The House was prohicir aware, for it was matter of notoriety, that a trial hld lately taken place in a court of law, in a ere of f , c King against Merceron, to a circumstance in erh;.h he thought it necessary to advert. This ciicum. stance was the examination of the short-hand trim to the House, with respect to the proceedings cirne of its Committees. The reason of his not heing before brought this subject under consi,!eratkn that he had been unable to procure a correct state ment of the facts, the short-hand writers rtes au being written out. In all former cases of a similar nature, the House had considered it of import-L.lO to protect its own witnesses, but this pririle t te - s evidently nugatory, without some restraint rn proceedings of other Courts. By comfrr—i:l::. I with Mr. Whittam, of the Journal Office, that a practice had prevailed for many years, el keeping that office open to the public, and of gram. ing office copies of proceedings to any person she applied for them, on paying a small sum of Trey per sheet. He could only understand this practice upin the principle that such copies were pm..mia to be granted for good purposes, and that the Heat held the parties responsible for the use made cf them. But the proceedings of the House were never publicly produced without its permission. He hal discovered only one case in which it had been fowl necessary to grant this permission, and there apyli. cation had been made for it. It was to allow, ass the present case, the short-hand writer to the Home to produce his notes before another Court. It a r geared also that Mr. Gurney, who was now, era also at that time the short-band writer. He found, however, upon communication with him, that be was not till now aware of the exigence of this neces. sary form, the parties in the preceding case having made the application to the House without his kaoir ledge. This explanation certainly accounted for the irregularity ; but it should be understood thn the necessity of a permission, which applied to the pi* duction of the Journals, extended to all evidence ekes before that House or its Committees, Mr. BATHURST said that he would move a re solution of privilege to-morrow. 1 * ........ il Thi Parisi 4 Aim Tit of th 4 4 Cam H on 1 = 1 : Thi • Ilighl from t and ri Mr • relatli 1 Maw Bales Th of Lii MTh 1 1 1 11 Tt Bill 1 $ , . 1 Ti I to ps I by u i , - Quee - had 1 nomi case the I 1 • tion in th I ' ships cil, I pose body by F , ! cans her I 1 the 1 • prop ques out e 'Vu. HEE, 01 Lc l i Hots this 1 , sity. , whit lowe was • no 1 were Reg• Mail ougi If th Bill was so rn of ti 1 .fi : was i jesty the s frien . ship: Win jesty all t 1 But ougi ratathey Bill, pros nary I T ship. Act diffe • and were Maj and , gree shot i bilis Lim Reg less cert.: he i ship state attei to si nien orde wha E Nob in tl , the 1 1, s publ i . Llly Witt l s' ' i c . 1 I slid 1 f rod i pass 1 of hi repo mad . 4 ever the I . 1' I ' it ne 't • I ' gene of oj 1. costs cous wha Act, of ti I was jest) now I , • proc a st: 1 anxi cipl4 ) 1 ougi wen i•I at 1 . 1 .• As . ••. % .N. • \ IuisCILLANIKS. Mr. STURGES BOURNE moved the order of Ise its re the further consideration of the Report on the Settlement 6t Poor Bill, for the purpose of g it. The order b,r4 read, the lion. Member ewe , that the Report be are 117 J further consideration on this day three months.—Onlete. l . The Milt Duty Bill was real a second time, and modern w be committed to-morrow. _ _ _ The Tobacco Importation Bill went thronzh a Conuninco- Report to-morrow. The Committee on the Churches of Scotland Ball was post poned till to-morrow. On the motion of Lord LASCELLE.S. the House met Sri a Committee on the Cutlery Trade Pill. The Noble Lot E that the object of the bill was to enable pure:xi:et to di .C.as". by proper marks between articles of good m..nefmtuo , aed e..t terfeits. He then brought up a clause, with+ Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up a clause, thy should be marked with the word " London." been manufactured in that city. This claw:: iv. , ,Ireol to. The House then resumed ; and the Trion ea. ordered 5 received on Wednesday next. The Committee on the Soldierf families was porrn till to-morrow. The Report on the Irish Excise licensies Bill wallet up and read, and the Bill was ordered w be read a tkir.l to-morrow, and then enyroseed. The I.uuatic Asylum 11111 was ordered to be read a third .1 3:li :6 ur.k rs thc) Li The l'ortuguese Slave-trade Bill Was ordtrai to be r , third time to-morrow. A Dill fur raising X 11,000,000, by P.:chequer Fi..F• brought in, read a first thaw, and ordered to be read a s. time to-morrow. A Bill for raising 600,0011. British currency, by Balls, in Ireland, was brought in, read a first time. arsa • to be read a second time to:morrOw. The House went into a Committee on the Vint; tr Mit" I The Report was ordered to be received to-morrow. Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up the Ripon of the !If! the Encouragement of Partnerships in Ireland. The 11.1 • ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. Sir JOHN NE.W'rOitT rose, and rilJ, .* The ( adjouene prvi Red P Nay Excl the sp ecn on tL ci up tot efeceL days, m templai upon ti Ninkc zniious t:: ti. r:cr ii:_ r;:: :ilk: kavi.• g comins ighne Vneir 1 c A ring ;rig, bui l'otTc qn.intll isercha same ti llic Pegt c banal •_ sentinx the Can fur one An finance would I change the fact ready been di anion AI from 11 debt is guatan domain million —The the ft) rest. verne I year, i: are Mt rroduc Mini.te order that a printed annoui her We 1 Inn to the 9t) rages ( chive, hrougl A 111 tom } titrACt te rill at Lite. dit te r tate . ' 1.1 k te t h 7.4 IPPIy beta did f t , au