Star. — London, England, 1820-07-06 00:00:00

HOUSE or CONI3IONS. The Earl of &oriel:, W I l'i.usista, and Mr. WETIIF-It EL L., rs on the Election Ballots, were ordered to be . elis .::l.:rged, on payment of their fees. the motion of Mr. WRODIESLIY, the second reading of the l'Atnti Specification Bill was postponed till that day six months. the Honourable. Gentleman said, 1w had been induced to ac cede to this course, in order that the subject might be referred t.• a Select Committee the next Sessioe._ Mr. M. A. TAYLOR brought up the Report of the Com mittee appointed to inquire into the possibility of making steam engines consume their own smoke.. The object of the inquiry has been completely answered ; and be gave notice, that early in she neat Session he would bring •in a Bill to declare the law on this subject, and to prevent persons erecting furnaces for steam engines, from lonvr creating those nuisances which every Gen tleman must be aware at present existed (springing from this source),in various parts of the Metropolis.—The Report was or •dersd to be printed. Mr. FREEMAN presented a Petition from St. George's in the West, praying for an inquiry into the past and present state ‘ ,f Water-works, and praying that some Parliamentary mea sssre might be founded thereupon. A similar Petition was presented by Mr. WILMOT, from I.!ary-la-bonne. .nnilar Petition was presented by Mr. li,OBHOUSEfrom sh.• Parish of St. James Westminster. Jr. DICSTT presented a similar Petition from St. Pancras. to Petitions were ordered to be printed. _ _ . KENNEDY presented aPeihion from the Proprietors i.tr.d in the County of Argyle, complaining of the present :ech of levying Malt Duties in Scistland ; and a similar Petition Ole borough of Campbell Town.—The Petitions were ur• t.,•:;d to to printed. . - .••,rWILLIAM CURTIS brought in the City of London Regulation Bill, which was read a first time. NORFOLK JAIL. Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a Petition from the She. rite's of Norfolk, complaining of the present regulations With re spect to the treatment of Prisoners confined in Norfolk Jail.— he Honourable and Learned Gentleman stated several cases of hardship where prisoners were left in jail, some for ten months, some for nine and eight months, charged with various offences, end without having the opportunity of being brought to trial, there being but an annual Assize held in that part of the country. Mr. 1-1.1.11.80 RD said, that the Norfolk Jail was not fit La. the habitation of human beings. ' The cells were narrow and /Loup, anti were three feet beluw the ground. At the time he the Prison tiizre were ten persons remaining untried, 11:e olde‘t of whom was nut more than eighteen years of age.— TaJse persons were in the day time divided from the convicted felons only by an open railing. The government of the Jail ...LS open to every objection. There was no classification of the rizaners--no species of employment—no inspection—no mural 4:struction. Sir G. COCKBURN roeommended that the Norfolk Ses :ions should be held for the trial of those prisoners who were Itow detained for trial at the General Assizts. Ile said a short Mit coved se brought in to remove the prisoners to Thetford, where the Sessions are held. The Mag istrates of Hull removed the iri , or.i.rs to the City of York. e saw no reason why.the sawn: might not b.. done in the present cast. Sir J. MACKINTOSH objected to both suggestions. The first w °LIM ito esbiblish a sort of jurisdiction not favourable to the prisoners. With respect to the removal of the prisoners, it welld be expensive to the county, and a hardship on them. The l'etiti.it was ordered to be printed. Ohslatle.S POEMS. Sir J. MACKINTOSH =idle had to present to the Howe, a l'etkion, coir.pl:aning of the conduct of a Literary .Body— h_ the Highland Society in London. The Petition was ircm a Mr. Hugh Campbell, a student at law. Mt. Campbell, it seemed, impelled by a laudable zeal to promote the ancient literature of his country, bad, at a very great expense and per:; hicuaver.ience, made different journies both to the Hebri-. drs and to the Province of Ulster, in Ireland, in order to awes.- .he topography of the scenes of the Poems of Ossian, par ticularly the epic poem of Fingal. Mr. Campbell complained that the Highland Society refused him compensation fur the trouble and expense he had gone to. The Hon. Gentleman said that he feared, however, that the House were sot sairsciently versed In Celtic Literature to decide exactly on the claim.— lie still felt it his duty to lay the Petition before them—The, Petition was ordered to lie on the table: COPY RIGUT.—THE MANUMISSION OF SLAVES. Sir J. NACKINTOSH said, be felt it his duty to state, hat it seas his intention, either at an early period of the nest Ses sion, nr (if circumstances admitted) at a subsequent period of the present, to bring forward two measures•of importance before Pariia-nent. The first would be a Bill to amend the law re- Uti-g to the Copyright of Printed Pocks. The next would be a- Address to his 3lajesty, relating to the Manumission of Slaves sr AL parts of the King's dominions where the unfortunate r.ren of slavery exists. GRANTHAM ELECTION. :\ Ir. WODEHOUSE brought up a Report from the Corn ruttee on the Grantham Election, stating, that Sir 'Wm. Man aus, Wm. Atter, Hugh Manners, and Richard Armstrong Jer roht, had been summoned as witnesses before the Committee, ard d'.l not attend. After some conversation between Mr. WODIUOCSI, Mr. V,. , Sir R. Ilettos, 51r. 'frsNrsoN, and SerjeantONsLow, as i to whether the above-named Gentlemen should be committed, i: was at length ordered that the short-hand writer who took tl , twn the evidence before the Committee, and the officers who went to serve the witnesses with the summonses to attend the CQun nittee. should attend this day at the Bar to be examined. LANCASTER JAIL. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from. Nathan P,rc daunt, a prisoner confined in Lancaster Jail, complAining of sev,.re treatment. The Petitioner stated, that he had been v:::t tJ th::t jail, having been convicted of a misdemeanour—that L_• was deprived in the first instance of the usual allowance to j..izoners, and was afterwards kept to hard labour for ten hours each day. Afters short conversation between Mr. W. Bourn, Mr. BEN ::, and Mr. Alderman Wouu, thy Petition was ordered to by !wird. 11013110 USE presented a Petition front Thomas Jones, a^o:her prisoner in the same jail, couiplaining that the Peti -.lo.ier had been confined below the ground—that the jailor had c :erhittcd personal violence on him, that the aid of a surgeon L..: been refused him, and that his earnings had been partially ?ptd from him by order of the Magistrates. The Honour- Aember said, that in presenting ae Petition, he felt it right 'o st.tte he had a contmunication with the jailor, who stated t'..At the charges were greatly exaggerated.—The Petition was 4,:dertd to be printed. STANDING ORDER RESPECTING TRADE. "Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW, after stating that ice should post prie the two other motions of which he had given notice, said, tbAt he had to propose to the House the adoption of a ltesola :lull, as a Standing Order of the House, to this effect, that r.o Hill, 'flaking any regulationr respecting the making of, any articles of manufacture, or altering the apprentice laws-of any particular trade, or directing marks to be af ilsed to any commodities, should be read a first time, without he'.ll:; fit-A submitted to a Select Committee. The expediency of adopting this Resolution had been examined by a Committee who had reported in its favour, and he believed much of the ob jection which had been made to it was now removed. lie con cluded b. itio% sing his Resolution.' Dlr. kl)lil Nst)N said, that as the Resolution was confined to the internal regulations of trade, he saw no particular objec tiln to it. The SPEAKER suggested, that the Resolution would be more conformable to other Standing Orders of the House, if it wyre made necessary that the Committee should report before .-..!re Rill was brought in, rather than before it was read a Lint time. Mr. Serk!ant W.CSLOF acceded to the sugliestion of the flab ; and after a few Observations from Mr. Ric.anoo, Mr. 'U r. rie.v, and Mr. Wessman, the Resolution was twice read, M W and adopted as a Standing Order. SCOTS HALT DUTY. Lord A.TIAMILTON having risen to make his motion for a Resolution resecting the Tax o's Malt in Scotland, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he should inform the Noble Lord what he intended to doohat the Noble Lord might know how far his motion was rendered unnecessary. He should pro pose a temporary allowance of sixpence per bushel on Malt male from big or beer, under certain regulations. . L.,rd A. HAMILTON said, this cos essiun was SOI inferior to what the people in Scotland expected and considered as due to them, that he shoeld &Mist in his motion, of which be. would willingly have averted the necessity. The grounds on which he objected to the Tax lately imposed on Sux&Malt, were three Ist. That it had been the practice for more than a century to impose on Scots Malt only half the duty that was imposed on Malt in England ; 2dly, that a leis Tax had been, generally imposed on Beer or Big than on Barley Malt ; and Sdly, that -the Tax was passed at an improper time and in an.unfair manner —in the last week of the last Session, when scarcely any Scots Members were present, or knew of the Bill. The effect of the increased duty had been such in Scotland, that the distilleries could no longer work except at a loss. The fact was, very few of the great distilleries had worked during the last twelve months, and those only were satisfied with the duty as it at, preseilt stood, who found means of defrauding the Revenue. It seemed probable, indeed, that • this in crease of duty on Scots Malt had originated in some. mistake, for a letter in Oitober from the Treasury, in answer to an application from Scotland, of the 23d of August last, stated that the increase of duty on ' Scots Malt was Is. 2d. per -bushel, whereas it turned out to be is. 91d. Petitions had poured in against this Tax from every part of . &Wand.— Upon the cultitators of interior soils, where the in ferior descriptions of Barley were grown, it was most oppressive. The small stills, which had been en couraged by Government for the counteraction of , lick distillation, were now obliged to cease working, and to give way to unlawful competition. The Noble Lord having urged his arguments against the tax, under the several heads we have mentioned, said, he .should propose certain Resolutions. The Resolutions ' stated, that in the Malt Duty Acts of 172.5, 1760, .1779. 1786, and 1755, the principle had been recog nized, that the rate of duty .on Malt in Scotland should be one-half of the rate of duty on Malt in England ; that by those and various -other Acts, smaller duties had been imposed on Beer or Big, than on Barley Malt ; that by the Act of the last Session, the duty on Malt had been increased 16 per cent. in Scotland and diminished per cent. in England.— The Resolution with which he intended to conclude the series was to this effect—" That the departure from the principle previously acted upon in the im position of the duties on Malt had been injurious to the agriculture and general interests of Scotland."— The Noble Lord moved his first Resolution. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the practice with respect to the. imposition of the duty on Malt had not been entirely uniform ; for in 1713, six years after the Union, 6d. per bushel duty was imposed on Scots and English Malt equally, though twelve years after it was reduced in the case of Scotland—(Hear, hear).---.There was obviously great inconvenience in the existence of unequal taxa tion in different parts of the Island. It was to be observed, that in 1802, a tax of Is.Oid. per bushel, and in the next Year 2s. more per bushel, had been imposed on Malt in Scotland as well as England ; a tax not much less than that which existed at present. Though on the whole the English might 5e some. what superior to the Scots Barley, yet much of the Barley of Scotland was quite equal to that of Eng land ; and in many of the Counties of England, espe cially the Northern Counties, the English Barley was inferior to the average of Scotland. He_ allowed that in the case of Beer or Big there was a claim for a reduction of the duty, • and he proposed to grant a temporary allowance of 6d. per bushel. If the duty in Scotland were less than in England, it would be necessary to prohibit the intercourse ingrain between the two countries, because '250,000 quarters of Bar ley had been imported into Leith from England, and would probably be sent back in the shape of malt or strong ales. He should, therefore, persevere in the principle which Parliament had adopted,'and would move the previous question. Mr. FERGUSON said, he could not agree that - there should be no deviation from the old proportion of the duties in the two countries, though he should have approved that the duty should be somewhat lower in Scoland than in England. Lord A. HAMILTON said he had never men tioned that the old proportion should be rigidly adhered to—(Hear). Sir J. MARJORIBANKS said the Members for Scotland had been placed in b most difficult situation, when after having left Parliament without any know ledge of such a tax being imposed, they had had to meet their constituents, who upbraided them with their burthen. Ireland had a Secretary to protect its interests, but poor Scotland was left without any. defender in the House. The tax was . one of the severest ever imposed on a country. Mr. KENNEDY-said, when it was known that ii Bill had passed respecting the Malt Tax on the 4d of July of the last Session, no one imagined that subject would be again touched in the Session ; yeti on the 13th of the same month another Bill was' -passed, not to explain, but entirely to overturn itt He supported the Resolution. After some observations from Mr. Ma RJORIBANNis Mr. WILMOT, the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. W. SMITH, and Mr. DOUGLAS, Lord A. HAMILTON replied. Sir G. CLERK supported the motion. The first two Resolutions were negatived without a division.—The House divided upon the third Re solution. For the Resolution - Against it - 43 .. 53 -....•....10 Majority against the Resolution GRANTHAM ELECTION. On the motion of Mr. WYNN, the Short-hand Writer who took the minutes of evidence before the Grantham Election Committee, was called to the Bar ; where he read that part of the evidence which related to serving the Speaker's warrant on Sir W. Manners, and the three other individuals before named. It appeared that the person employed to serve the warrant had made several ineffectual attempts to see Sir W. Manners, and that eventually he throw the warrants over the pee of the court yard. Alter the Short-hand Writer bad withdrawn, Sir R. HERON moved, that Sir W. Manners, Bart. be taken into the custody 4 as Serjeant at Arms attending that Hops,. Mr. TEN NYSON, on the ground that the circumstances stated in the Report did not warsarat so severe a ptoecedkig, moved, as an Amendment that kir W. Manners be endued to attend that House on Illaday nut. Br..P MOAK warmly defended the Caundttee. ems evident that the persons in quesitioalmid4saw to evade dim Order of the House. Mr. W Mtenipt to resist their authority, r it wad aa;s!t4. Mr. F. TPALltiklit supported the The Amendment was then misdeed -without a division, and the original Motion carded. her R. HERON proceeded to move that R. Armoring Jerrie - • • • . . shook be forthwith eonunited to the custody al . the rjeant at Arms. , ... . . • Se. I . Lard N UGRNT ivieked it to be considered, that, as a earvant, _ . . . .. . . *iv might he some defence for the conduct of this individual. ;Dr. PHIL LI MORE maintained the necessity for-support- Ina the authority or the house. Sir 3. MAgNINTOBIII considered the Present as a most se • rice* instance of contempt of the inahority of the House of commons; and he considered it necessary, in order to teach all persons in future that such conduct could not be pursued with Impunity, not to allow it to pass unnoticed. The Motion was then agreed to. .Sir R. HERON then moved that Mr. Hugh Manners be ,lialteir into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. . Mr. S. BOURNE considered it as doubtful whether or not 4 the summons had been properly served on this Individual. After a short conversation, in which Sir R. Helton, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Gom.auax, and Mr. S. Boca se participated, Sir It. Heim; agreed to withdraw the motion, and Mr. .Uanners was ordered to attend that Muse on Monday. Sir R. HERON lastly moved, that William Atter be taken into the custody of thelerjeant at Arms. • • '••• • Mr. TENN YSON, on the ground that it did vat appear cer tain that Atter was aware that he was disobeying the orders of the House, moved, as an Amendment, that he beArdereel to at tend cn Monday. A discussion ensued, in which Mr. Wrxit, Sir J. NEWPORT, Mr. S. Bogen& Mr. Serjeant OwsLow • Dr. LUSIIINOTON, Mr. R. Slum, Sir J. Macanrrosii, and Sir R. Haws participated. Eventually the Gallery was cleared, but there was no division, and the original motion was agreed to. ISLAND TOBAGO. Lord NUGENT rose to move for an humble Address to his Majesty, for Copies of Correspondence between the Secretat y of State for the Colonial Department, and the Governor and . Chicf Justice of the Island of Tobago, relating to certain charges preferred by the late Attorney-General of that Island. The Noble Lord said, if the correspondence were produced, he would submit a motion to the House respecting the jurisprudence of that Island. lie regretted to say, that charges of cruelty and oppression had been made, though he did not Charge the Go vernor of the Island with any abuse of power. Whatever of abuse or of oppression might have occurred, proceeded from causes over which he had no controuL After a few observations from Mr. Gortsuax, the motion was agreed to. TITHES IN IRELAND. Sir H. PARNELL rose to make his promised , motion relative to Tithes in Ireland. It was acknow- ledged on all hands, that the Bill which had been brought in'three years ago to enable Ecclesiastical persons in Ireland to make leases of Tithes, was a very advantageous measure, and he wished it to be revived. The Hon. Baronet, after entering into a detail of the inconveniences arising from the existing cistern in Ireland, said his intention was, that the Bill which he intended to introduce should be read a first time and printed, in order to give Members an opportunity of discussing the subject next Session. .He then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the existing mode of Letting Leases and of Collect ing Tithes in Ireland. Sir JOHN NEWPORT seconded the motion. Lord CASTLEREA - GH did not abject to the Bill being printed, but he 'wished it to be understood as not affecting a commutation of Tithes. Mr. M. FITZGZILALD and Mr. LOCKHAZT supported the motion. Mr. C. GRANT supported the Bill, reserving to himself to suggest such alterations as he might think expedient. ' Mr. NEWMAN spoke in favour of the Bill, and Sir H. PAistrnt shortly replied, after which leave was granted to bring in the Bill. COMMITTig OF SUPPLY. On the motion of the Ciliti•lCELLOit of the Excess oust; the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. Lord CASTLEREAGH said he would shortly state the grounds of the • motion he now intended to bring fiirward. On the death of the Queen there was effected a general reduction of £lBO,OOO, saving a provision of £lB,OOO for her Majesty's servants. — On the-demise of his late Majesty, a saving arose of £160,000. Against this, however, as he had stated on a former occasion, there was a set-off of £21,000 as a provision for the household servants. The provision made in former cases for the servants of former Queens was much greater than in the instance of her late Ma. jesty. The reason of that was, that no provision what eier was intended to be made for the State Officers of her Majesty. The menial servants were alone in tended to he provided for. Government thought it their duty to follow this principle under the pre sent circumstances of the country—( Near, hear). — With respect to his Majesty's servants, these were of far different description; which he intended to pro pose ; the first for a sum of 9000 and odd hundred pounds provision for the servants who were in the immediate employment of the late King at the time of his decease; 4000 and odd hundred pounds for those servants who hoe been in his Majesty s family at the breaking up of the Windsor Establishment about a year ago, and who had been then thrown upon his Majesty's Privy Purse, and ten thousand pounds fat a class of clainiants, who had received provision out of his Majesty's Yrivy Purse, and who for loug and faithful services were objects of his grace and fa vour—of those his Majesty had himself placed on the Privy Purse claims to the amount of £tsooo. He would only say, that the same principle of economy pursued o with respect to her Majesty, was adopted with respect to the servants of the late King. . No State Officers, none but menials were to receive any provision. It was by no - means the intention of Go vernment to submit the claims of all those who had received pensions from his Majesty, but those per sons alone of the description he bad already men tioned. There was another class of persons, namely, servants who had been but a short time in the Royal Service ; to those it was intended to give one year wages. Mr. BANKES opposed the Grant as intendint put a permanent burthen on the country. • Mr. HUME observed, that although the Ncible Lord professed to proceed in this cases upon the pre, cedent of the provision made in 1819 for the Queen's servants, there war this remarkable discrepancy, that in the -precedent quoted the servants were ehly al lowed about three-fourths of their salary, while, in the present case, it was proposed to grant the ser vants of his late Majesty the whole of their salary.— 'there was also another discrepancy, that while in the grant of 1819 those servants only who had served eight years were provided for, those who had only been one year in the King's wete to have their whole salary for life. The Ho;ourabbrillitab bee quoted several instances do sustain biOaistleti t and after animadverting upon the prodigality of I),* *sisters, in. applying ,to the public purse for these grants, instead ofroviding for them from the Pen .sion Lists of En gland, Ireland,`nnd Scotland, -ex prelsed his intention mania a unseen upon theattb ject; with a view-to mitee sae psopoted alkwaaos w the goatdard of the pr at Obidecl to by * Noble Lord. Mr. W. SMITH thought Oldie who Wire called ...theereat giacers of State, and whim ate-cowsidered ~~: • . as amt or half menial servants, should have no pe cuniary allowance whatever, and that as they deemed it an boomer and dignity to serve the Crown in this capacity, they should do it without any salary, money certainly contributing to advance the dignity of thuir station.. Here the Hon. Gentleman tea a review of the Pensions granted from the Privy Purse of the -late King, expressing his astonishment to find, that while only £4OO a-year were allowed t o the justly celebrated Sir William Herichell, above EV/Oa:yeas WAS granted to several musicians. He was also sur prised' to hear, that the Pension granted by his late Majesty to that distinguished painter Mr. Weit was withdrawn some time before the demise of the Crown, and at a time when he understood that great artist was much in want of money. The-CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER yin- dicated the arrangement proposed, stating that every practicable reduction was made, and that this provi sion arose out of the uncommon circumstance of two Royal Households having existed at the same peiiod. It was known that the Prince Regent's establishment was complete long before' the death of the late King, and that therefore the servants of his Majesty. could not, as was the case heretofore, be transferred to his successor. Hence the neces i lity of making the pre sent appeal to the liberality of Parliament. flut . that appeal .referring to met itoriou s servants, would not, he thought, be made in vain. He instanced particu larly the merit of the Pages, who had closely attended his Majesty throughout his lamented illness, without having ever divulged any of thCse anecdotes which were too often propagated on such melancholy occa sions —Wain hear !)--W a regard to Mr. West, the fact was, that his salary, which .was not- paid horn the Privy Purse, but from the Lord Chamberlain's Department, for taking care of his Ylajesty'syictures, was never withdrawn front that eminent artist. Mr. WILLIAMS enforced Mr. Hume's.xtiew of theliroposed grants, thinking that, according to the precedent referred to by the Noble Lord, they ought to be reduced at least one-fifth. Mr. HUSKISSON stated, that according to the recommendation of a Committee upon the subject, there was a compensation granted to the Queen's servants in lieu of perquisites, in addition to the vote _ _ _ _ . . alluded to by the Honourable Member for Aberdeen, and therefore that Honourable Member's comparison was erroneous. • With regard to Mr. West, he was enabled to say, that not only the allowance from the Lord Chamberlain's Department was continued to that illustrious artist to the end of his life, bat to add, that to his knowledge Mr. West received one thousand pounds a-year from the privy purse of his Majesty, with a view to encourage the Arts, and tliat the whole of the sum thus granted. >ry his Majesty, whose patronage of the Arts was proverbial, amount ed to no less than £40,000. Mr. W SMITH expressed himself peculiarly glad to learn that he was misinformed with respecNo the treatment of Mr. West, adding, that he never doubted the late King's munificence towards that eminent in dividual, or towards the Fine Arts in general. Mr. HUME moved - an Amendment, that instead of £9,000, the sum of £7,600 should be voted for the purpose referred to, but this Amendment was negatived. Certain sums were re-voted which were granted for the use of the King's Houiehold ; 1:60,000 for the *use of the Veteran Battalions in Great Britain, and . £20,000 for the Veteran Battalions in Ireland, were ' also voted on the motion of Lord PaLsimisrori. The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. " THE QUEEN. Lord CASTLEREAGH moved for the appoint ment of a Committee to exatnine the Journals of the House of Lords, in order to ascertain whether any, and what proceedings had taken plate in that House with respect to her Majesty, rind to report their *pinion thereupon to the House.—The motion was agreed to, and the Committee was appointed accordingly. The Noble Lord then said,. that he bad submitted this motion with the view which Sit implied ; and if, from the Report of the Committee, it should appear that the other House had instituted any proceeding; . he should then consider whether, pending that pro- ceeding, the notice of a motion which he had given for to-morrow should not be dropped ; and also whe ther he should not to-morrow move the reading.. of * the Order for taking his Majesty's Message into con sideration on Friday, with a .view of moving the. postponement of.that Order until sortie future day.-- This postponement he should • feel to be proper, in order that the House might wait the result of. the pro, ceedings in the House of• Lords, still reserving to itself the right of taking his Majesty's Message into consi-. deration, if that should be thought aecessar.y. But until the result of the proceedings of the Lords should be made known, he submitted that it would be Zery inconvenient for that. House to adopt any measure. . Sir JOHN. NEWPORT asked, whether it was the intention of the Noble Lord to keep the order. which was fired for Friday in abeyance, until the Lou* should pr Inouncetheir decision upon. the subject ?." Observing, that if such were the Noble Lord's inten tion, it would be a eery uncommon ,course pf pro ceeding —(1 - tear). . Lord 'CASTLEREAGH observed, that the pro.. seeding instituted by the 'Lords might 'never be brought in . any legislative way befote tha.t.Htinqei aucl, therefore, he proposed only that the - Order fi:s eqesitleriug his - Majesty's Message shoul 4 be,delayed; but that the House should by no meins . abarido . p'iti rigitt:of inquiry upon the subject. • ' . - Sir M. W. RIDLEY expressed his hope that the House would not agree to the - course proposed by the .Noble Lord, declaring, that if no Other Menibef would take the sense of the House upon the subject, he should himself feel it his duty to do, so—i'lfear', • -•. • •,. • hear, bear). . . THE LOTTERY. , ' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER inoved 'this postponement of the third reading of the Lottery Monti! to. wormy (this dal). hlr„ HUME asked, whether it was not the intrados of tie Right Jiorgterable Gentleman to withdraw all the new *tip ments proposed In this measure? - . -• :- . The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he baloney ousted the postponement of the Order of the Day. Air. HUAI °barred, that it was understood from tike,*: ovary of the Treasury, that all the new clans& were to ho withdrawn, and as 'several Monti*, intended to tow e l, the discussion, k would be-enswesient to boarermbetiverr tie ender, serr ai llo ionby thr tiecrecorf of the Treasurywas L The CHAN CEipatt pe LLOR of tate *XCHEQUEIRreput. m at 1 his lintiotitible• n sierasiy lit the l'Amwoy) *as Am . ,~