Star. — London, England, 1820-07-20 00:00:00

• 1110 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. • HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 19. Lord F.RSKINE.rose and said, that be had been entrusted: with a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Com mons, of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, which complained of the mode of proceeding that had been adopted against her Majesty. He presumed, that he had : been requested to present this Petition on account of the part which he had taken on this question, but be thought it due to him self to say, that there were parts of this Petition of which he could not approve.—The Petition was then read. The-LORD ('il ANCF.LLOR said, that there were allega tions in the Petition which, in his opinion, were disrespectful to the House, and he would, therefore, put it to their Lordships, whether they would receive such a Petition ? Lord ER SKIN F. had only further to express his hope, that he would not be considered as identified with any opinions in the Petition, and that his opinions would be taken only from the part which he acted in Parliament. Alter a' few observations from the Loan Orals-mem and I,nrd HOLLAND, it was agreed to defer the Petition until a later hour in the evening, when the attendance of their Lordships would he more numerous. The Carl of DONOrG HMORE said, that he had in his possession for some time Petitions from the City and County of Waterford, signed by ifoman Catholics, and complaining of the disabilities under which they laboured. He would have before now presented them to their Lordships, but be had wished to wit until the general l'etition of the Roman Catholics of Ire land was forwarded to him. From some circumstances, this ieneral Petition was so long delayed, that it was not placed in his heeds until a week. ago, when the Session was nearly at an end, and when no rational man could think of laying on their Lordships' table a Petition of so much importance—because it was impossible to expect that the tune would admit of giving it even a decent cOnsideratiun. Besides this, there was another cause of deferring it, derived from the circumstance that another subject of paramount importance engrossed the attention of their Lordships, and therefore re ndered the present time utile arourubk to the consideration of any other matter. Upon com municating' on this subject with a respectable and highly-tae lenteel individual (Mr. Plunket) he felt great satisfaction in Sude big the opinion of that individual entirely coincide with his own; and both agreed that it was better to reserve the Petitions with which they were entrusted until next Session, when they would take the earliest opportunity of 'calling the attention of Parlia ment to this subject, than which none other was of greater Importance. IMPROVED BANK NOTES. Lord LAUDERDALE presented a Petition from a person named John Lee Bradberry, complaining of the injuries which he should suffer in case the Bill now pending in their Lordships' House, for the im provement of Bank of England Notes should pass into a law. The Petitioner prayed to be heard at their Lordships' Bar by himself or Counsel against the Bill. The Petition was read and laid on the table. . The Earl of LIVERPOOL then moved the Order of the Day for their Lordships going into a Com mittee on the New Bank Notes Bill, when Lord LAUDERDALE expressed a hope that the Petitioners against the Bill should be heard by them selves or Counsel, as prayed for. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that if ever there was a 'case before their Lordships where not even the shadow of an excuse could be offered in behalf of the petitioning side, this was certainly one. It had been for some time strongly felt, that the crime of forgery, he meant forgery of Bank of England Notes, had be come unhappily too common, and a wish was uni versally expressed that something should be done which might tend to diminish the number of those offences. The difficulties of the question were felt to be great on both sides. If the offence was not pro perly checked, there was no security for property; on the other hand, the facilities to the commission of the - offence were so numerous, as to afford a kind of temptation to crime. In this state of things, general complaints were made against the Bank of England: the subject was taken up in another place, and a Committee was moved for in order to examine whe ther any means could be devised for making such an improvement in the execution of the Notes, as to ren der the imitation of them impossible, or at least more difficult than it then was. That motion had been opposed by some of the Members of his Majesty 's Government, not that they felt that such an inquiry .was not called for, but becatne they objected to the mode that was proposed. They offered an amend ment, which was ultimately carried, the object of which was to present an Address to the Crown, re . questing that A Commission might be issued to ascer tain the possibility of the improvement so much de sired. In consequence of, that Address, a Commis sion was issued, and he needed only to state the names of the individuals who were appointed mem bers of that Commission, to shew that not only no political object was in view in forming it, but that everything was done to render it as effectual as pos-, sible. At the head of that Commission was the late respectable and highly respected Sir Joseph Banks, whose fitness for the task would be universally ac knowledged. Among the members were Mr. Davies Gilbert, Dr. Woollaston, Mr. Hatchett, and Mr. Harman, whose general acquaintance with the Arts could not be disputed. There was Sir %Vm.Congreve, one of the first mechanists in the country, and Mr. Courtetray, the Master in Chancery, who was added, • because it was deemed desirable than an individual should be of the Commission, whose habits were connected with legal pursuits. When the Commis sion was named, it met with universal approbation, and it was admitted that no one Commission could be more likely to succeed in its object. When they were appointed, they devoted themselves incessantly to the investigation of the subject. They had exa mined 170 plans, and at length gave their opinion in favour of one plan. It certainly would not be un natural, that the remaining 169 individuals, whose plans were rejected, should complain; but when would their Lordships come to a conclusion if they, were to hear theta all ? Besides, even if they should • consent to hear them, did their Lordships think them selves competent to examine the subject? Undoubt edly the Petitioners had the right to complain if they chose to exercise it. But did any man believe that any good would arise out of such an inquiry ? They said they were aggrieved—he denied the fact. What ever inventions they were the authors of, they would have the full use of them in every other way, except in making Notes for the Bank of England. But if they did not conceive this a sufficient answer, if they still that they were aggrieved, why did they not to to the Courts. of Justice and claim redress ? The supposition, however, which they entertained, was no reason why the Bill beibre their Lordships should be delayed. If the plan which it sanctioned should proceed, that Bill would confer a mout important benefit on the country. He did not pledge himself to the success of the plan ; it was enough for him to state that it mas considered the best plan that had been proposed. All he asked of their Lordship was to allow it to be tried—rto 'see how far it might suc- ceed, and not to consign to death so many persons 'without making an effort to save these. the plan 'succeeded, it. would operate a great deal of good.— lithe Petitioners felt aggrieved,. they might seelere dress iss some other way, but fie " hoped that their Lordships would not suffer this night to pass . without doing their duty with respect to this tr • Lord LAUDERDALE. said, that he hAd not yet heard from the Noble Earl so much as one reason against the Petitioners beio eard at the Bar ac cording to the prayer of t etitions. They did not apply to this House- againsi the plan which the Commissioners had approved, they only said that this Bill deprived them of the.benefits of their own inventions. All he wanted was, that they might be heard. If they were allowed to be heard, and if they then proceeded to state reasons against the plan, it was competent to the Noble Earl to move that they should be stopped and prevented from proceed ing in that line of argument. But if they urged only their own peculiar grievances he knew not on what principle their prayer was to be refused. Lord REDESDALE conceived, that none of the allegations in the Petitions were sufficient to induce the House to stop the progress of the measure. The Earl of LAUDERDALE could not consent so entirely to break through their Lordships' forms of proceeding, as in the present case to shut their doors against those Petitioners who now requested to be heard, either by themselves or by Counsel, at the Bar. If it were merely a question of reward, he should consider the application in quite a different light. One of the Petitioners in particular (Mr. Til loc'h), had no complaint against the Report of the 'Commissioners, recommending the plan that' had been adopted : he did not complain of their taking a part only of his plan—the Bank had taken it entire— usurped it as their own,' and had never given him any remuneration. Nor was this all: by the Bill before the House he was to be shut out from the use of his own art—from the kie of that very_art, from the ap plication of which ''to the manufacture . of Bank Notes, so much benefit was promised to the Bank and the Public. The Noble Lord opposite had said, that the Bill as it now stood left to. the Petitioner full liberty to exercise his art for Country Bankers and others. He must suppose that his Lordship had read the Bill for which he argued so strenuously. Now, in this very Bill there was a clause which the Peti tioner contended went expressly to prohibit him from using his art for the prodUction of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange; and the assertion seemed-un deniable, for the clause not only prohibits any imita tion of a Bank Note (which would be quite reason able), but any Promissory Note 14 resembling the ground work of a Bank Note." Now, the Bank having adopted his very plan, it would be impos sible to produce anything in the shape of a Note which might not be said to resemble " the ground work of a Bank Note," executed on the same plan. This the Petitioner maintained would be the effect of the Bill, if passed into a law, and this certainly pre tented a fit ground on which he should be heard at the Bar. It he should fail to prove this fact, his opposition to the Bill would of course be unavailing; but it was too much even for that House to take upon itself to decide this point without evidence, when evidence was offered to be produced. " Were I ask ing (said his Lordship) for remuneration to the Peti tioners, I might refer to a vote of the other House, and which has also been sanctioned by your Lord ships, granting remuneration to a certain individual; not as a reward for discoveries, but for experiments to make Bank Notes, though they were unsuccessful. I say, were I asking for remuneration, it might be fit to tell me that. question could mot be entertained here—but must originate elsewhere; but I ask only for justice to the Petitioners—namely, that the ground of their objection to the Bill may be heard." His Lordship then moved, that the Petitioners should be allowed to be heard at the Bar by themselves or Counsel against the Bill. The question was then put and negatived without a division; and the New Bank Notes Bill was re ported without any Amendment. CITY OF LONDON PETITION. - _..... Lord ERSKINE rose to bring the City of London Petition again under their Lordship? consideration. As its reception had been objected to, he had wil lingly withdrawn it for a short time; but upon re examining it, he could not avoid thinking that, after the indulgence which had been shewn to Petitions of a different kind, the House might conceive itself jus tified in receiving the present. He was not arguing against the objections which had been urged, but merely suggesting, that as Petitions calling for a change in the frame and constitution of Parliament bad, at different times, been laid upon their table, they ought to be the less scrupulous on this occasion. Indeed, after what had passed in this respect, he thought it difficult for their Lordships to refuse any Petition, coming even from individuals; but he need not remind them that the one in question spoke the sen timents of a great Corporation. It had been put into his hands by the Sheriffs of London, and he must re peat, that he thought it his duty to present it, and he now moved—" That this Petition do lie on the table." The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was for the House to determine whether or not this Petition ought to be received. What they should do with re spect to it after it was received, was another question. As far as he understood it, it directly informed them that their proceedings were improper and unjustifiable. The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose as the question was about to be put, and observed, that he was only apprehensive lest, by remaining silent, he should be supposed to acquiesce in any of the statements of this Petition. • The truth was, that he did not agree with' any part of it, or give credit to any cne allegation which it contained. How the Corporation of Lon don should become possessed of this knowledge he could not readily conceive; but it would seem that they knew much more than bad come to the know ledle of the Secret Committee. He himself had been a Member of that Committee, and was never ac quainted with the contents of the Bill now pending,' until it was brought forward in that House. The. ' Citizens of London had inserted in their Petition rather what they conjectured thin what they knew; and could not be surprised if they met with the usual fate of those who guessed how facts stood, and thought those guesses worthy the attention of Parliament. The motion for the Petition lying on the table was then negatived.. 41 • The Lad of L AUDERD4ILE said, the usual course after such a vote appeared to be, on a reference to their Journals, that their. Lordships should go - one step further; and he now moved 4 -44 Tbac the Pe-, ;Won be rejected." The Doke of HAMILTON said, that he.had seen I a great variety of Petitions#eceived, and laid, witht: 'out objection, on their Lordships table. The present name from a most respectable body; and without going into its merits, or inquiring-whether its alle gations were true on false, he conceived it better, with the view of preserving to the People the right of making known to Parliament their opinions on all subjects, that the Petition should be received. Other Petitions, settinforth complaints which their Lord ships had consi dered to be equally ill-founded; .and containing statements deemed quite as incorrect, bad been received 'Without difficulty. He should be sorry if the House were to indicate anything like disrespect to the. City of London ; and as he conceived that the proposed vote would have that tendency, he would not support it. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if any person supposed that by opposing this Petition he had meant disrespect to the Corporation of London, he begged leave to protest against any such imputation. No man had a higher respect for the Corporation of the City of London than himself; but he did not think that it was competent to them to interfere with the judicial proceedings of this House. If their Lord ships allowed such interposition, they had much better not attempt any judicial proceedings at all.— In voting against this Petition, he felt that he was consulting the best interests of the Members of the Corporation bf London, and of 'every other man in the kingdom. The Duke of HAMILTON, in explanation, said, he did not impute any intention to the Noble and Learned. Lord of acting disrespectfully towards the City of London. He had only said, the rejection of this Petition would be a mai k of disrespect to that Body—( Hear, hear). Lord REDESDALE observed, that this Petition was against their Lordships proceeding by Secret Committee, not only on this occasion, but on any other which may hereafter arise. It was also against their proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, unless in such cases as the Corporation of London might wish. Lord HOLLAND should have preferred that this Petition had been received sub silentio, and if he had been in doubt upon that point, the Noble and Learned Lord, who had just sat down, would have almost convinced him—(Hear, and laughter).—The Peti tioners complained against certain judicial proceed ings; perhaps this was not strictly regular, but he was not sure that if they thought proceeding by Se cret Committee to be improper, it was not the right of the subject to come to the Bar and state that. If the Petitioners had confined themselves to those two points, he would not vote against the Petition; but they went further, they said also what the sealed papers contained, which it was impossible for theni to have known. He would not say that the incor rectness of a statement in a Petition was a sufficient ground for rejecting it ; but he could not think. that the Petitioners had a right to say what was contained in the sealed papers, unless they knew it from public notoriety, as from the votes of the House. Now, if their Lordships received this Petition, they would agree that all the papers referred to the Secret Com mittee had come horn the Milan Commission. Whts. ther that was or was not the fact he could not say. and for that reason, as well as on account of the ob jections taken to the words which hag been brought under their consideration, though he wished that the forms of the House had permitted the Petition to be otherwise disposed of, yet he feared it must be re jected in a parliamentary manner. Lord ERSKINE said, that he would not set him self up against the opinion of the House, and what ever was their Lordships' pleasure, he would not oppose it. The question was then put, that this Petition be rejected, which was carried in the affirmative. MARRIAGE JILL. Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved the recommit ment of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill. Lord REDESDALE observed, that the Bill, as now altered, bore hardly any resemblance to what it was before; and he really thought it infinitely more objectionable than it was in its original state. The Act of Parliament already in force had provided, that marriages contracted under certain circum stances should be null and void : but this Bill would render them only voidable upon suit instituted. It proceeded altogether upon a new ground—namely, that the former Act did not make such marriages void ; and itself enacted, that all such marriages should be good, notwithstanding any provisions of the existing law. It was, in effect, a total repeal of the former Act. Even' marriages, celebrated in the Fleet, which was one description of marriages ad verted to in that Act, would be now made good and binding. Then, win, by this Bill neither party was to be at liberty to institute any suit, but parents and guardians alone. Those, therefore, who had neither parents nor guardians must have their marriages rendered valid, whatever might have been the cir cumstances under which they took place. There was another clause, relative to the succession to dignities,' which was at utter variance with its proviso. When this happened, according to Lord Coke, 'the proviso must be regarded as foolish ; but the enactment was altogether at variance with a solemn resolution of that House, as to succeeding to dignities. He feared that those who framed this measure, though skilled in one branch of law, had not sufficiently turned their attention to other departments of it, not less import ant; and he should therefore move, as an Amend ment, " That the word now be left out, and that the words this day sir months be introduced in its stead." The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that there was hardly one word of the Bill, in its unamended state, to be found in the present. He wished, if possible, to avoid any objections to the recommitment, but after what had taken place, he must entreat their Lordships not to proceed further with so important a measure at this period of the Session. He mild assure the Noble Lord (Ellenborough), whom he should be proud to call his Noble Friend, that he was so oppressed with the weight of other matters to which he had been directing his attention, that he doubted his capacity to do justice to his own views upon this question. Ile thought, however, that very little would be sufficient to chew how necessary it I WAS for. the House to take more time wore they passed a measure of this description. He lad not the . , least doubt that the learned peroins who had patro nized the Bill had a much higher degree of learning *an he could pretend to, in one department f the ;law; but he must say, that the 'measure seemed to Levioce the utmost ignorance of the common law of ithe , land. It had been, indeed, so altered.from its idriginal shape and texture, that it reminded him of a case put in some essay on identity—whether writ ten by Locke or some other metaphysical writer, be knew not; but the question discussed was, ehether a silk stocking, which had been darned with worsted till no silk remained, was the same stocking?—(R laugh).—This Bill was altogether wrong in its prin ciple: it set out, in fact, with supposing, that in everY case which was to come under its provisions, a sine was nece , sary ; that a suit was either now pending, or about to be instituted ; butt this was a vie* , of things which vet y few of those cases would warrarl: It was, moreover, a monstrous principle, of this ilih; which went to require that he who. so instittmot * suit should prove more than the ordinary forms of the la(v demanded of him; and what, he would ask' agreedwotdd b t e o ? the N b o en n e e fi i t n -of t h is the c l ause, trori,i.ia rt ic iag it es sl ‘ o .o t u tl l d be d be id-t ais valid, so far as this clause could affect them, as if this new law had never been made. As to dia precautionary views of the Bill, the marriages it pro posed to annul were equally null and void under the existing Marriage Act. If it were the case of a mar riage by license, conttary," to use the words of the Bill, " to the said recited Act," it was void by the same Marriage Act; if a marriage by banns, contrary to the said Bill, it was valid tinder the former Sta tute, and valid even upon the declaration of thl, Bill itself. If the measure now before them did not amount to a total repeal of the old Marriage Act, he knew not what did. His Lordship went on to ari madvert upon the mischievous effects of a retrospec tive Bill like this, whose operation did not go back • ten nor twenty years ago, but to the year 17251 It made all marriages contracted since 172.3 (how ever invalid they might have been in point of law, brie-ever illegal they might have been in point of fact)- good and valid ones, unless the parents and guardians of the parties (although it might very well happen that many of them had no parents nor guardians at all) should have interfered, and pro ceeded to prevent them. In short, it went back so far, that this was the consequence ; the parents and guardians in question, as wed as the husbands and wives themselves, had many of them, long since, been enclosed and recumbent within the urns and .sepulchres of mortality. Yet every such marriage, however great had been the moral or legal objection to it, was to be considered valid. Then as to the oath taken preparatory to the obtaining of the licence, he must be allowed to remark on this point, that the ecclesiastical authority or his surrogate, either had or had not the right of administering that oath.— Now, if he had not the, right, he (the Lord Chancellor) must contend, that the serious , prosecutions and pe nalties incident upon the commission of perjury, by reason of false swearing, ought not to be instituted. This Bill, it appeared to him, went to take away the advantages of ,legitimacy from those who were legi timate issue, and to confer them upon the illegitimate. His Lordsip concluded by expressing his conviction that it was a measure calculated to affect the whole 'mass of private property in this kingdom, both as to • succession and possession ; and upon these grounds it was, that striving rather to revise it than to defeat its primary object, he most humbly, most earnestly, and most solemnly, entreated their Lordships gravely to ,consider the objects and nature of the Bill, and to allow it to be brought forward in an amended shape, at an early period of the ensuing Session. Lord ELLENBOROUGH regretted that his &bit and Learned Friend who had just sat down, and for vahose profound talents and knowledge of the law, displayed throughout The whole course of his long and useful life, he entertained the highest deference and•respect, should have expressed - himself so de cidedly against the present frame Of the Bill, or _should not have reserved the benefit of his import ant observations for the opportunity of a Committee, in which they might have been heard with so much effect. While he lamented that the Noble and Learned Lord would not allow the Bill to go into a Committee, he must say, that he was -not less sur prised at the course that had been taken by another Noble and Learned Lord who had spoken first upon the subject. The Noble Lord then proceeded to defend the ptinciple of the Bill, expressing his regret that it should have been so unfortunate as to excite the Noble and Learned Lord's (the Lord Chancellor's) !opposition after the mily improvements and ameud ments which he (Lord Ellenbormigh) had effected in it. He nest adverted to several cases, for the pur pose of shewing the very serious evils and incon veniences of the existing law. Any one of their Lordships, whose father and mother, or whose grand father and grandmother, might perhaps have been married in the year 1754. was liable by - possibility —was liable in one moment to be deprived of his fortune, and perhaps of his title, in consequence of the accidental omission of some minute form of law. —The principle of this Bill, so far as regarded the marriages of minors was this; that one moment of one moment of passion, should not be fatal and wholly irretrievable, as respected both the minor and the parent, but that they should still have time to recover it. His Lordship finally contended that it was hardly fair to argue against the principle of the measure by attacking the indirect wording a the clauses, rather than their spirit; and declared that he should reserve any further observations for the discussion which might occur in a Committee. The Earl of WESTMORELAND said he was dio tressed to hear it stated that this Bill might affect the property of every individual hi the land, frota the king to the peasant, and for so I )ag a period a from the year 1754 to the present time. fie defended the opinions which be had formerly stated iu support 'of the Bill, and instanced many cases of haldshis which ha 4• arisen under the Marriage Act. thought the present Bill would be one of the :two salutary tendency ; it would protect the property of unsuspecting persons from being plundered, and pct. vent the innocent from being entrapped and abused. The Etul of CARNARVON would not oppose the motion for the House going into a Committee again on this Bill, because there - were some parts (I it which he thought would she productive of gnat ad vantage. Ile apprehended, however, that the pre sent Bill attempted to embrace too much: it pr , - 1)6.-cd a it needy for the put, with provisions for we