Star. — London, England, 1818-05-01 00:00:00

wer e carried, the Master-General could not deny ' z , te rn their arrears. They would amount to £15,000. This brought him to the question of Finance. There wer e six other troops of this very corps, on the Eng lish establishment, disbanded in 1814. It had been well asked, if they had not served as well as their brethren ? Their arrears would be £lO,OOO. There v as, besides, a battalion of Irish Artillery reduced pall-pay, never to return to the artillery service, dad at least not yet adopted in the line. If these, t o came within the rule, (and they might pretend rt) their arrears would be 22,0001.; in all, pro. ; tubly, 47,0001. ccertainly 25,0001. besides a certain a dditional expense of 60001. a year. With no prin ciple for them, with all precedent against them ; were the House prepared to grant away all this money ? elan) Or when the department was called upon, from one end of the kingdom to the other (by no cue more loudly than the Honourable Gentleman) to lower the estimates, could they be deemed good ' , swards if they sanctioned the claim ?—(hear, hear.) Fe repeated, he had every respect for these officers, whose services he never would undervalue, and, in particular, the character of Captain Humphreys !rood high; but he avowed himself at a loss to dis cover what there was in the services of these two troons so much beyond the services of their brother officers and those of the whole British Army, as to entitle them to have all rules broken in their favour. In the line there were many instances of Gentlemen who had bled in battles, or whose best years had been consumed, and their healths totally ruined by cli mates which the Driver officers never witnessed, and who had also paid for their commissions, which the Driver officers had not, yet for whom the Com mander-in-Chief had laboured in vain to procure more than the rule admitted. He had ascertained his Royal Highness's opinion of this measure, and he was competent to say, that if it were carried his Royal Highness thought it would occasion great dis content throughout the Army—(hear, hear.) The caly colour of pretence for it was, that while they were told they could not return to the Driver ser s.co, they were not considered of so military a cha- Liar at the Horse-Guards as to allow them to suc ned, according to their seniority, to commissions on lull pay. Mr. Ward knew not why this was. If being accustomed to act in the face of an enemy, to evolutions in the field, to command and to obey, made officers, they were so. But, at any rate, this was in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, not the Master-General that discretion which governed the return of officers in the line itself, from half to toll pay. Upon this whole subject Gentlemen seemed to fall into this great fallacy, that half pay gave a tight to return to full pay. This was not so—but all 01.5 at discretion. The King might regulate cases ahe pleased for what he thought the good of the ! , rvice. Suppose he issued a regulation that no half p.y officer should return to full pay, after the age of thirty—this would exclude a large class of Gentle men; but would any man say it would give them a riht to come to Parliament and demand full pay In life ?—(hear, hear.) This was clear. Ndverthe kas, at the officers in question were for ever out of the service, the Master-General. in communication with c Government and the Commander-in-Chief, was u far anxious for their interests as to consent, should the blouse permit it, that they should be allowed to enjoy their half pay, together with any income they night otherwise acquire under Government, and therefore-to release them from the obligation of the kali pay oath. For any other boon he was convinced there was not a colour, and this being the opinion of thosehe represented he was bound to state it, although i.i taking the line he did, his Parliamentary duty had ever cost him so much regret—(hear, hear.) Mr. LIT fLETON felt perfectly satisfied with the ot.Aervations made by the Honourable Member, for the candour in making which he gave him great cre it ; indeed, some part of the Honourable Member's =arks were an anticipation of those which he in tended to offer on the subject. He would not, there fore, take up the time of the House by adverting bather to the topics on which the Honourable Mem- kr had so ably delNered himself. There was, how ever, one circumstance, on which he begged leave o say a word. He alluded to the affidavit which was is be made by every officer on receiving his half pay, d his not holding any situation under the Crown.— This he conceived to be a great grievance to the hhole service. He could not see why a military man, oho had long served his country, and after that sex , lice had been placed upon half pay, should be pre cluded from again acting in any other than a mili tary capacity, except with the loss of their half pay. If they were found efficient for civil situations, he law no reason why they should not be employed, and lola their half pay at the same time. Mr. BENSON observed, that the case of the Offi cers alluded to, was one of justice, for though their commissions did not say they were to be promoted to higher situations than that of Captain, yet there has something held out to them by which it was tw o to be understood that they were not to be dis banded altogether. The Honourable Member read an extract of a letter from the Duke of Richmond, illicit he observed did not contain any direct pro tise, yet it left in the minds of the Officers sufficient awn to think that they would not be treated in the 157 of which they now complained. • Mr. CALCRAFT thought, that from the clear and undid statement made by an Hon. Member (Mr. Ward), there was nothing in the case of the Officers ti which they had a just right to complain. He therefore felt himself obliged to oppose the motion, ylach, if carried, would, in his opinion, create invi- Claus distinctions in the service. He therefore ' trusted hat his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bennet) would not press o motion, and he felt satisfied that if th e Officers whose behalf it was made, should come to hear of what had fallen from the Hon. Member opposite Olt Ward), there was not one of them who would tat feel that no injustice had been done to him. There talteQes a great difference between the situation of the Olcers of the Artillery Drivers and the °M tell of the Army, in this respect, that the latter pur- ' Ilased their commissions, which the former did not. Mr. BENNET, in reply, repeated, that the case of tc Olken he had mentioned was one of great hard. ' 1 1 5% The nature of their services seemed altogether be overlooked. They were, in fact, the very 1 t k'''s of the Army, for without them the guns, ans- "sition, or provision, could not be carnal from, ! 4 . aue to place. A great many of the Officers had wafted severely in the se: vice, and many of them ' were at present entirely dependent Upon the small allowance which they enjoyed. If the motion he had made should not be carried, it would at least be some satisfaction to him, that by the agitation of the ques tion some benefit was likely to result to the Officers of this deserving corps.—The motion was then put and negatived without a division. ALIEN BILL. Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to put off his motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the regulation of Aliens, to Tuesday next, in consequence of the thin attendance in the House. ifIGHWAF LAWS. Sir C. MONCK moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the application of such penalties, fines, and forfeitures, as may be incurred by any surveyor of highways, or by any inhabitants of parishes, or other places, for neglect of duty in repairing such highways. On the question being put, Mr. CURWEN would make no opposition to the motion, but should suggest to his Non. Friend to postpone the measure till the next Session, that in the mean time the opinion of the country might be learned concerning it. Sir C. MONCK would not precipitate the measure, though he did not see the necessity of its being post poned to the next Session. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. LAWS OF SETTLEMENT. Mr. STURGES BOURNE rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Laws regarding the Settlement of the Poor. That motion he was induced to make under the authority of the Committee upon the Poor Laws. The Laws regarding the Settlement of the Poor ori ginated in the time of queen Elizabeth. By these laws a parish officer was empowered to remove pau pers at his own discretion, and that continued to be the law till the time of Charles 11. Much doubt had existed on the subject of the right by residence, some being of opinion that the right of settlement was con stituted by a month's residence, and others that a still less time was su ffi cient. By the Act of the 13th and 14th of Charles IL the doubts as to the length of time necessary to constitute a right of settlement hid been removed. The object of these Acts was to con fine labourers to their own parishes, and a residence of forty days conferred a right of settlement. But should the pauper appear likely to become charge- , able to the parish, the overseer had a right to remove him. A law afterwards passed, by which it was en acted, that notice should be given in writing upon the arrival of a stranger to reside in a parish : that, however, not appearing fully to answer the end in tended, it was enacted that the notice should be pub lished in the parish church. Subsequently, it was made necessary that a certificate should be given to the party removing, attesting his residence in the pa rish that he had. left. That continued to be the state 'of the law till-the year 179.3, when a new Bill was brought in upon the subject of Settlement by a Gen tleman then holding a high official situation; and who was still :disc That Bill was of much impor tance. By the law, as it at present stood, a labourer who wanted relief must derive it from his own pa rish, however distant it might be from the place where he actually resided. That appeared to be a great evil. The law on the subject of Settlement had failed completely in its object, as in some cases a settlement might be gained by a residence of forty days, and in others not by a residence of the same number of years. The question was complicated as to the point of law, and with the law the question of fact was also involved. Notwithstanding the num• ber of decisions that had taken place in the Courts of Law on the subject of Settlement, some questions still remained to be decided. In the year before the last there had been 4700 appeals to the Quarter Ses sions against orders of removal. Upon the subject of settlement being gained by being hired a servant, there existed much doubt, and consequently much litigation. Upon that point he begged leave to refer to the Report of the Committee upon the Poor Laws. But the litigation was not the greatest evil. By the law, as it then stood,,an individual might be removed ' from the place where he had lived the best years of his life, unless he rented a tenement of the yearly va, lue of 101. In many cases, the right of settlement was often industriously defeated; and a labourer was hired for fifty weeks instead of a year, by which he would be entitled to a settlement. The first re medy that had been proposed for an evil so generally felt, was to take away the Law of Settlement alto gether, and to give relief to the poor in the place where it might be wanted. That plan would neces sarily occasion a resort to particular parishes, and the poor would be always retnoving from one parish to another. Others had been of opinion that relief should be afforded from a national fund. But 4000 places maintained their own poor, and the relief to be af for-Jed must be divided among all these places.— Frauds were committed upon the public purse by those who would not be guilty of frauds upon indi viduals, and such frauds would be greatly multi plied, in cases where, as in that of a national fund, the call of humanity might be pleaded. A residence of three years should be a necessary condition of a right of settlement, and as the parish in which any individual resided had the benefit of his labour, he had the 'best right to be supported by that parish. After a residence for a certain time, notice might be given that such had been the fact, when the case might be laid before two Magistrates, without the necessity of an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. The law was not intended to have a retrospective effect, and sufficient time was to be allowed to carry its pro visions into effect. A residence of three years, if the party had not been absent more than sixty days dur ing that period, and havl not been convicted of any crime, would entitle to a right of settlement. No set tlement was to be gained under the age of sixteen years. Another provision of the Bill was, that in case of appeal, the removal of the party should be sus pended till the appeal had been decided. By such a provision, in many cases the expense attendant upon a removal would be saved. The proposed measure might be accounted a bold one; but its object was to bring back the law to its original state. Greater in novations had been proposed on the Poor Laws, both by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Whitbread, though he was not disposed to concur 'with them. Dr. flume, in his work on the Poor Laws, an author of high respecta .bility, anct who had paid the utmost attention to the 'object, had recommended to bring back the right of settlement to a residence of three years, an:kelvin& that to be the most natural standard. Upon any Miasnre of the nattie 'Proposed sariotij improvements would naturally be the result bf Mare extensive ex perience. The Honourable Gentle concluded by 1 moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter And amend the Laws respecting the Settlement of the Poor. Mr. ATKYNS WRIGHT wished to know how 1' pauper forfeited his settlement? Mr. STURGES BOURNE stated, that the time of absence during the three years was not to exceed 60 days, else the right.of settlement would be forfeited; nor was the pauper to be removed, unless his removal was wished for by the parish. He also begged leave to state, on the subject of hired servants, that, in the event of a servant having resided the time necessary to gain a settlement in more than one parish, he was to be regarded as belonging to that parish in which he had resided the last two months of the time neces sary for gaining a settlement. Sir CHARLES MONCK thotight it would be an act of gross injustice to sweep away a whole system of Laws, even though at the fi rst they might have been bad or defective. The Law of Settlement, as it at present stood, had for its object to decide betwixt the Parishes upon whom the expense of maintaining the pauper should fall. It was admitted that the present law of settlement was bact. .11e thought one of the provisions intended to be introduced into the Bill was objectionable ; by which a.right of: settle ment would be vitiated in consequence of the party having been guilty of a crime. By the old law, the parish in which a man lived was held to be resp ,n- Bible for his conduct, as they had, in some.degree, the means of prevention ; and an injustice would be done to another parish, should it be compelled to afford him a maintenance. Lord CASTLEREAGH thought it would be better if the House would wait till the Bill should be printed, than in the present stage to anticipate the discussion. Sir SAMUEL IIOMILLY was of opinion thatflie proposed Bill would effect a most important improve ; meat upon the law relative to the settlement of the poor. It was not indifferent to the pauper by what parish he was to be maintained. A man might be sent to a distance from all his friends and acquain tances, and have no means of earning a livelihood. He knew an instance of a journeyman printer being sent to a place where he had no means of working at his trade, and, of course, was reduced to absolute beg gary. There was a similar case of a fisherman hav trig been sent to a place wholly inland, and the con sequence had been the same. When a man was thns sent to a place where there was no demand for his labour, -he could not get away from it without com mitting an act of vagrancy. • Mr. LOCKHART stated, that there had been lately a great increase of litigation at the Quarter Sessions. He was apprehensive lest, by the proposed Bill, a greater proportion of paupers might be thrown upon_ the Cities than ought to fall to their share.— That difficulty, however, might perhaps be overcome. Leave was then given to loring in the Bill. LOAN BILL. Mr: BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Loau Bill. , . Lord Lieutenants palace, but tigf *ere clereilech they were not frequented as formerly by the Genttt and Nobility, because their Parliament was taken away from them. In the part cf the Country with Which he was acquainted, he often saw people leaving the churches for want of room. He hoped, therefore, the benefit of this Measure would be extended there: Thy CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER be hived he could remove the difficulties and satisfy the objections of the Hon. Baronet. This measure would not be attended with any injustice to Ireland. Of that he hoped they would never be guilty towards her, for they were fully sensible of the merits of their Irish fellow-subjects. The HOn. Baronet *as mis; taken in all the points to which he had alluded. In the first place, this was not to be a grant from the Cnnecilidated Fund: In the second place, the pro: portion of two-seventeenths, established at the Un ion; did not now exist. It was done away two years hack, when the Exchequers of both countries were coma'. liciated. As to the grant of fifty thousand pounds alluded to, a similar one was voted every year since 1810, nix for the repair of Churches, but for the com mission of First Fruits. Last year it was only thirty thirty thousand pounds. If more accommodation Was necessary for the congregations in Ireland, which he Was happy to learn were upon the increase, the House, he had no doubt, would provide it cheerfully: Sir WILLIAM SCOTT opposed the clause which provides that twelve substantial housekeepers, to gether with other ttell-digposed persons, might erect a Church, the Bishop,of the Diocese giving his appro bation. This clause tended, in Lis opinion, to pro duce injury as well - to the Established Church as to the rights of patron% The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he considered rhis clause of vital importance. Upon this occa , ion it was necessary to call in not only pub lic-hut private contribution. The Bill, as it stood at present, witti this clause, had received the deliberate concurrence of - the Committee. No danger could arise from it. If they hooked round them, they would see in every pact of the country Churches erected by private contribution without having done any injury to the Established Church. The measure of private liberality was so vital a part of the Bill, that the whole shoul.d, in his judment, either stand or fall with it. Mr. wfforrt.sLEy opposed the clause. It would be better, in his opinion, to introduce- it in a sera. rate Bill. '. • ' - ' • • Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST took the great jection to be, the gking such a power to strangers to the plan. Before the disposition now sheWn by Par.. liament,'tbe public had taken up the subject. But if the inhabitants at such places as Liverpool, Man. :hester, &c. chose to come forward to the nnmberof twelve, it was a different case. Ile regretted that no power was given for the enlargement of churches and chapels. The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER des fended the clause. A•laTe prOportion•of the subsiz diary fund would be raised. within the parish ; buu it was difficult to determine it. Ole was. willing to as- idnt , - - • tuld dude the sent to any amensinn.nt thit WVI principle of the clan c. •• Mr. MARTIN wished to be informed by the Right Honourable - Gentleman (the Chancellor of the tx chequer), whether the subscribers to the new Loan might pay up in full at any time previous to the pe riod appointed for the last instalment? whether they, there to receive discotint upon Exchequer Bills so' ,paid? and, thirdly, at what time subscribers would have their stock delivered to them ? • • The CHANCELLOR of the.EXCHEQUER said, that subscribers to this Loan might, as usual, pay up . in full, before the period mentioned, but they were . not to receive discount upon Exchequer Bills so paid. To the third question, he would answer, that subscri bers would have their stock delivered to them as soon as the usual forms of the Bank-permitted. • . Mr. MARTIN wished to know, whetHer.subscri- not precl Mr: PEEL expressed his entire concurrence Wiqt every obserbation which fell from hisilight•llonour. able and Learned Friend. (Sir William Scott). Tire objectiqnahle clauses did not seem necessarilF.Q?nr. .nected• with the rest of the sill , and might easily he -- diltieled from it, to be Made the subject of a setak rate discussion.--They, therefore, ought to Ise in , troduced in. a *separate Bill, and determined •on their own grolinds. - If .right, .they -might, be-voted by themselves; if, Wrong, ;hey ought to be rejected without injury to whAt was right. The conscritd the House ought ' not to - be purchased to an objec tionable nieastrrehrits union with whit was .tiesiht qa ble, nor ought the re tion of the latter to be h;:- ;arded by being c-ottp with the former. The Bigh t p was not allowed to ju ge by the Bill of the ' source __ - - ids - - - - bees would be allowed interest upon Exchequer . Bills frond whence the fund — s .— arosi. If twelve wet . sed up to August ? persons agreed to' raise, thcifecessary funds, they The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said might apply to him anl have his consent to the they should receive interest upon. thorn up to August, erection of a place of worship, to.which the trustees but no longer. elected by the majority of. subscribers wherever they After a few words from Sir M. WHITE lIIDLEY, resided, would have the right of presenting twice. the Bill was ordered to be read a thir.l time to-morrow. This description of persons appeared to him to be PORTER BREWERS. as indefinite as the result of their operations might Mr. BARCLAY wished to know at what time the be injurious •to the rights 6f the Church. What Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lockhart) in- was meant by well-disposed persons, when the tended to bring on his motion relative to the Porter term was introduced itito an Act of Parliament ? Brewers of London? or whether he meant to propose Crime was defined by law, but he never yet heard of any measure grounded upon the petition which he a definition of morality in a statute. Ho* were we had presented some time back relative to this subject? to measure good dispositions, or ascertain the charac- Mr. LOCKHART could not say when he would ter of well disposed* persons, by an Act of Parlia bring on a motion upon the subject alluded to. It ment ? He was confirmed in his objections to this would be necessary for him first to ascertain whether clause of the Bill by the very concessions that had the petitioners could prove their case. already been made, and the amendments introduced. NEW CHVRCHES. In the original proposal of the measure, die substri- The House having gone into a Committee upon bens were to have the right of•nominating thrice. the New Churches Building Bill, . His Right Honourable Friend, the Chancellor of the . Sir FREDERICK FLOOD said he had heard that, Exchequer, had now reduced this right to two turns for the purpose of Building the New Churches, the of nomination, and smother Right Honourable Friend sum of one million was to be raised from the Con- (Mr. B. Bathurst) spoke of one. Why was the origi solidated Fund of England and Ireland. This, ac- nal proposition abandoned, if it . were right? In the cprding to the proportion settled at the Union, being Bill there was no description of the kind. of fabrics two seventeenths for Ireland, would throw upon that to be raised, and no provision made for their repairs. country a part of this expense amounting to 120,0001. They might only be of a kind to last so long as the If such was the case, he hoped that Ireland would original subscribers had an interest in the nomination partake of the advantage. Hewas as desirous as, of the clergyman; and might devolve to the patrOn any man to see new Churches built for the accom- ur the inciinibent when unfit for use. He opposed modation of the Established Church. Ireland re- the clause, and wished it separated from the Bill. quired such accommodation as much as England, for Dr. PHILLIMORE said, it became the Hance to the population had greatly increased there, and was consider the want of Churches, and whether the Les becoming more numerous every day. There was not gislature would not .relax in certain rights to enable a country in the world more productive of popula- the zeal of individuals to concur with -the wishes cf tion—(a laugh).--The Protestant religion too, was Parliament., It was true, indeed, that law was un advancing as fast as any other description of religion. bending, but this was not the case with legisltition.—. It could not be denied that Ireland was very much If there was a real want of Churches, he had rather indebted to England, but it should be remembered that Churches were erected by secrarists, than 'not also, that England was very much indebted to Ire. built at all. Ile was not.fOr separating the measure land, and it was the interest of Britain to support her. from the Bill. Notwithstanding -the anxiety he felt Her Otfrcers and soldiers always fought gallantly. to -maintain the ascendancy of the Church, he ronfes- Not one of them deserted their standard. In the time scd that he wished to see the present clause carried. of Mr. Perceval 50,0001. was granted for repairing It would, however, be recollected, that the Midst?, Churches in Ireland, and the same for First Fruits in • still retained the power to repel all abuses of the last Session. They were not able to bear this. The I Sir M. RIDLEY felt it his duty to obj ec t to t h e Right lion. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex- clause, and doubted touch ifthe Bishops had a power chequer) could not but see the distress of •the .country to prevent the abuses.of it. Jim hoped it -7.'7.dd &sally when he was last there. It was apparent, particu- form a separate Bill.. • lady in Dublin, the finest. metropolis in the whole Lord CASTLEREAGH would shortly state Abe world. lie must have observed the wretchedness of , grounds upon which he should support the -clause. the place, some of the houses deserted, and a great He much doubted, inthe pratent :stase of the rowing part of the windovis stopped up to avoid the tax. I poptilatioo of the country, whether the arnArtug void i There were palaces there nu doubt ; there was the *,iA religion could be supplied without wx.o sooatetal 4 ! 4 4 i 1 ' ' I : I r I ;4 4. 1 I ; i ' 1 . , i t 1 . : °. l t i 1 i 4 i . t"L .1. I 1 ( i' : 1:. . i. , 1,1 i' I t • 'P . ' 1. 1 ', t i -I T • , .- MI 1 . I : j 111 Ii . I, , • i, s • t .. ) "j it k 1 t « , .) i . 1 . 'I , e 4 ; . ' : f ) . 7 1 t .; 1 . 4 ti I'- 1 i 1 . ' . • 41 t 1 . A . ' . ' , 1 f • .1/ : . - J ' ' I 1 i. 1 • i • , . ' I i 1 . ,Ir I (4 it . . .f. ..I i