Star. — London, England, 1821-07-03 00:00:00

ti l e he had found it necessary to go to - the British m a mma and enter into various other researches for that purpose. And here he begged leave to remark, that although the Hon. and Learned . Gentlemen felt that they could not present the Memorial from her Majesty until after the Proclamation for the Corona- tion had issued, it by no means followed that they should not in the interim have been collecting mate rials for it. After all, therefore, they need not have• been taken so unawares as they professed to have been. He repeated, that, tinder all these circumstances, it was very hard that Ministers should have been re prOuched, almost, indeed, as if they bad been guilty of a denial of justice. The manner of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman on a recent occasion had, indeed, been so significant and criminatory towards himself (Lord Londonderry), that he had abstained from. par ticular details in his reply, and bad felt himself in a situation to give only a general answer to questions ful . of Insinuations and charges. When it was•con sidered that the Proclamation for the Coronation was issued on the 9th of June, and that sixteen days elapsed before her Majesty's Memorial was prepared and delivered in, it was really hard that Ministers `should be eharged with neglect, because on the 30th of June they had not given a formal answer to a formal claim of right, made only on the '2sth. It was, in fact, only on the morning of the present day, that the first application to his Majesty in Council had been made by her Majesty, to be heard by her Counsel in support of her claim. The House woul perceive that there had been three Memorials. The first was on the 25th of May ; but it was addressed to his Majesty as Sovereign, and not to the King in Council. it was, however, referred to the consideration of the Crown Lawyers.— On the 25th of June, another application, that which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had advised, was made by her Majesty, praying to be heard by Counsel. This was equally as informal as the first ; for it was an application to his Majesty, not in Coun cil, but in his character as Sovereign. Being a re gular claim of right, however, Ministers would have conceived themselves guilty of a great want of re spect, if they had advised his Majesty to reply to that Memorial. without a renewed reference to the Crown Lass; cis. It was referred to them on the 27th, and it could be no imputation on their attention or dili gence, if, on the 30th, or, in other words, in three da)s, they did not answer a document, to the pre paration of which, according to the Honourable and Learned a entleman's own statement, he had found it necessary to devote sixteen days. The answer which hal been returned, both to the first and the seco.ad Memorial, which, he repeated, were equally infroal, was, that his Majesty had been advised that her Majesty had no right to the claim which she advanced, and consequently that no directions had been given for a compliance with it. That had led, to the third Memorial, the first ist which the proper formalities bad been observed. That Memorial had been received only this evening. It had been sub mitted to his Majesty without delay, and it was now his duty to state to the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman and to the House, that his Majesty had been advised that the application must be considered as refem rina, not to a matter of right, but to a matter of grace and favour; and that his Majesty had in consequence given orders that her Majesty should be heard by her Counsel. Before he sat down, he must repeat that the intended Coronation had been a topic of public notoriety for many months, and, therefore, that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, and his Honourable and Learned Colleague, had had abundant time to prepare their assertion of what they conceived to he her Majesty's claim, without the interposition of any delay whatever. Mr. DENMAN, after the declaration of the Noble Marquis, that the application of her Majesty to be heard by her Counsel was to be complied with, was not anxious to detain the House on the subject, or to :hew the difference between some of the remarks which the Noble Marquis had just made, and those which bad fallen from him on the last meeting of the House. If on that occasion there had been any im proper violence in his (Mr. Denman s) manner, he was sorry for it. It probably originated from his conviction of her Majesty's right to the claim which she made, and to his opinion that the delay from Monday to Saturday ought not to have taken place before his Majesty's Ministers returned an answer to her Majesty's application, since they must have fully considered the subject before they determined on her Majesty's exclusion. That was the subject of the complaint which he now made. How far the Noble Marquis would be considered by the House and the country to have answered that complaint, by saying that his Honourable and Learned Colleague and himself had not attended to the Noble Mar quis's observations on the subject, he knew not.— Undoubtedly he did not conceive that iris Hon. and Learned Friend and himself were bound to put for ward—he did not conceive that they would havebeen justified in putting forward her Majesty's legal claim to participate in the ceremony of the Coronation, un til, morally speaking, no doubt could exist that the Coronation would actually take place. The mere preparations for the Coronation were not a sufficient ground for their moving; for last year even a Pro clamation was issued, appointing the period of the Coronation, which was nevertheless revoked. Nor could be conceive that her Majesty, or those by whom her Majesty was advised, had been bound to pay the slightest attention to what the Noble Marquis had said in that House. On the contrary, in his opinion, his Hon. and Learned Friend and himself would have acted most improperly had they done so; or had they taken any step until they could entertain no doubt that the Coronation was fully and finally determined on. He was aware that there had been an applica tion from her Majesty to Lord Liverpool, to which the Noble Marquis had alluded. That application was made by her Majesty herself, while his Honour able and Learned Friend and himself were absent from Loan, on the Cirfuits. Her Majesty had not made a legal applicatiOn to his Majesty in Council, until so advked by her Legal Advisers—(Hear). — His Hon. and Learned Friend and himself had moved as soon as they thought they ought to move, and not before. He (Mr. Denman) had no wish like that imputed to him by the Noble Marquis, of crimi naung the Noble Marquis, except in self-defence— tHeer).—But, undoubtedly, whether his Hon. and Learned Friend and himself could be justly consi dered as having been tardy or not, he must still think that the delay from Monday to Saturday,which had taken place in returning , an anwer to her Ma jesty's Memorial, was not justifiable, when the near approach of the plriod fixed for the Coronation, and the conviction that, on such a subject, the minds of his Majesty's Ministers must have been previously made up, were considered. It had been imputed to him by mistake, that he said on Saturday that the exclusion of her Majesty's name from the Liturgy was a warning that it was not intended that her Ma jesty should be crowned. He had not said anything of the kind. He believed that he had not mentioned . the exclusion from the Litnigy ; but at any rate he could not have mentioned it as having any bearing on the question of the right of her Majesty to be crowned. Understanding now, from the Noble Mar quis, that the question would be put in a course of judicial discussion, he would not say a single word on the right of her Majesty to be crowned; but would merely observe, that if her Majesty's Law Advisers had conceived that her Majesty's exclusion from the Liturgy implied her exclusion from the right of being crowned, it would certainly have been their duty to move sooner than they did. Not so conceiving, he thought they had moved as soon as they ought, and he thought her Majesty had a right to complain that the opinion which must of necessity have been long ago formed on her claim, had not been sooner communicated to her. _ Mr. BROUGHAM confirmed the statement of his Honourable and Learned Friend, that the first Me morial on the part of her Majesty was made without any communication with her Legal Advisers. The first time at which his Honourable and Learned Friend felt themselves called upon to consider of the advice which they should give her Majesty on the subject was when the Proclamation was issued, fixing the period for the Coronation ; and they met for that purpose the day after. The Bill was then read a third- time. _ Mr. BERNAL proceeded to move his Amend ment, namely, to substitute the year 1821 for the year 1818, as the period from which the grant•was to commence.—On this the House divided— For the Amendment - - - 33 Against it Majority in favour of the original Motion —6l Lord A. HAMILTON moved a Resolution (to be entered on the journals), expressive of his dissent from the late proceedings with respect to the grant to the Duke of Clarence as irregular, and declaring that any provision for the junior branches . of the Royal Family ought to be preceded either by a Mes sage from the King to Parliament, or an Address from Parliament to the King. Atter a few words from the Marquis of LONDON DERRY, the Resolution was put, and negatived with out a division.—The Bill was then passed. PREVENTIVE SERVICE. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY rose to bring under the notice of the House a subject to which he considered some attention was due—he alluded to the manner in which General Warrants were issued from the Ex chequer in aid of the Preventive Service. He apo logized for bringing on a matter of this sort so late in the Session, but he was unable to bring it on sooner, as it was only on Saturday last that the ne cessary documents were put into his hands. The Hon. Baronet then went on to state his reasons for calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. He named the cases wherein the execution of General Warrants had been attended with the most serious inconvenience. One of these cases was that of a Clergy man in the Isle of Portland, who, upon going to church, was assaulted in the rudest way by some seamen of the Preventive Service, and though he made strong complaints of this treatment in the pro per quarter, no redress was given. The other case was that of a respectable married woman, at Wey mouth, of the name of Gibbs, who was so brutally treated , by the same seamen, hat her life was put in danger. These seamen were licensed, it would seem by their warrant, in thus insulting indivi duals, under pretence of searching for smuggled. goods. It appeared to him that if such things were suffered to go by with impunity, no man's wife or, daughter was safe from insult. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving for a copy of the warrant issued to a man named Brooks, engaged in the Preventive, Service at Weymouth or the Isle of Portland ; as also . for information upon the steps which had been taken , to redress the Rev. Mr. Madden for the insults which had been offered him. The C H ANC ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he knew nothing of the cases alluded to, but he thought the Honourable Baronet might have taken, some other mode of getting information and redress,' by applying at the proper offices, than by thus , bringing the matter under the consideration of Par liament. He considered this an improper place for calling for such information, and he therefore moved the previous question. Mr. BENNETT recommended the Hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that if application was made at the Treasury, he would do all in his power to procure the most satis factory information. Sir J. SEBRIGHT agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that inquiries had been more properly made elsewhere than in this House. He himself had , often heard complaints made of the same nature as this, but he had invariably received the most satis factory answers at the Public Offices, or from the Commanding Officers. Being upon his legs, he could not help saying that he thought the service in gene ral, but more particularly the Army, was greatly prejudiced by this sort of appeal to Parliament oa every occasion. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY said, he had brought the matter forward, upon an understanding that re dress had been asked, but reliased at the Treasury.— He had no objection, however, to withdraw his Mo tion, and be directed by the Right Hon. Gentleman as to the course by which redress was.to be obtained. The Motion was then withdrawn. NAVY hiALI•PAY. Mr. F. BUXTON held in his hand a Petition from two individuals, which stated cases of great distress. It related to the conduct which the Gentlemen en trusted with the direction of the Admiralty had adopted towaxdsthe Petitioners ; and though he (Mr. Buxton) was always ready to do these Gentlemen credit for their exertions, he could not help saying that their conduct in this instance. was marked by groat harshness. The Petition came from two La dies, Mrs. Bevan and Mrs. Harrison, the former of, whom was-the wife of an Officer that had been con-1 tinuallt engaged in the service since 1780. In 1781 he was sent to the West Indies, returned in 1784, and was sent again in 1786. He was engaged in the subsequent French war for sixteen years, and he then fell a victim to that-greatest of visitations—insanity. His wife received his half-pay, and Government sup ported him in his illness until 1818. In that year, applying for the half-pay, his wife was told that an order of the Admiralty had been made, by which one-half of his half-pay was to go to the support of her husband. This was the greater hardship, as the Lady had had no previous notice, and had besides, counting upon receiving this money, contracted debts which now pressed heavily upon her— (Hear, hear). The effect of the order, therefore, was of a retrospec-, tive nature. It was a case of great hardship, and the only answer given to the representations of these Ladies was, that they might have the entire of the half-pay if they would maintain their husbands.— With regard to one of the Petitioners,_ she was in great distress indeed ; her furniture and effects having been seized, and herself actually turned out. The other had been for some time attached to the service of a Lady who was now dead, and her distress was also very great. The rule of the Admiralty was attended with great hardship ; and, indeed, supposing the prac tice to have existed fur more than a century, the de privation of these women of their husbands half-pay was a great injustice, for they had, in fact, a right to it. These Ladies had been receiving the half-pay for fourteen years, and it was very bard that they should now be deprived of it. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the Petition be brought up. The SPEAKER asked, of what nature was the prayer of the Petition—whether it was for pecuniary relief or not? Mr. BUXTON said, it was in some measure for the restoration of their salaries. _ _ Mr. BANKES thought the Petition could not be received consistently with the forms of the House. The SPEAKER said, that if the Petition sought pecuniary relief alone, it could not be received in its present shape. This House could not grant money without a recommendation from the Crown; not that because this recommendation was wanting to carry the grant through the House, but in order to check applications which would, if this form was not ne cessary, be made without number to the House. He observed, however, that if there was any doubt on the subject, it would be well to read the Petition, and the House might then judge what steps it was pro per to take upon it. Sir JOSEPH YORKE said the half-pay had been already granted. Mr. BANKES said, that however painful it was to their feelings to refuse the Petition of an indivi dual, yet the Standing Order of the House could not be transgressed. Mr. W. WYNN was of the same opinion. Sir G. COCKBURN said, that as an objection arose to the Petition of a formal nature, it might be irregular to go into the merits of the case; he could, however, shew that the Petitioners had no claim at all upon Government. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that that was not ground enough for receiving this Petition. By this argument, the rules of every department of the State might be constantly brought before the House. It was said pecuniary relief was not the prayer of the Petition, but he was not quite sure that to obtain money, the Petitioner would begin by breaking the rule. The arrangement of all these mat ters belonged properly to the Executive Government. Mr. BENNETT recommended his Hon. Friend to withdraw the Petition for the present. Mr. BROGDEN stated that the Orders of the House would not admit a claim for pecuniary relief, without a recommendation from the Crown. Mr. BUXTON consented to withdraw the Peti- non for the present, and bring it forward to-morrow, in a less objectionable form.—Petition withdrawn. DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. Mr. BENNETT presented a Petition from Jane Dawson Doubleday, complaining of delay in the Court of Chancery ; Petitioner stated that she had a suit in that Court since 1807, and was most anxious that it should be determined..—The Petition was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. EXTRA POST. The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report on the Extra Post Bill. Mr. CALCRAFT rose to oppose the Motion, and stated all the objections which he had to the measure. He dwelt on the unjust advantages which an early delivery of letters would give some individuals over others, and the inconvenience which this double deli very would produce. He contended that no change in the mode of carrying letters was necessary in this country. Mr. N. CALVERT hoped the individual who had been at the expense of making the experiment would not be a loser by it. A conversation then took place between Sir JOSEPH YORKE, Mr. MABERLEY, Mr. PETER MOORE, and Mr. FRANELAND LEWIS, after which the House di vided, when there appeared— For the BM - - - Against it - - - Majority against the Bill TIIE APPROPRIATION BILL. - 39 The Report on this Bill was brought up, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time this day. POOR RELIEF BILL. Mr. SCARLETT rose, not, he said, at the close of the Session, to press any discussion on the Bill ; in deed, from the outset, he did not express a hope that the Bill would be carried through the House , that Session. He would not enter at present into any dis cussion whatever, but would reserve himself for a further opportunity to answer the arguments that had been urged against the Bill. It would, in particular, be necessary tor him to brush up his law, in order to meet the opposition of his Hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Wilson). Whether they should meet in pri vate contest or otherwise, he hoped his Hon. and gal lant Friend would not prove more fortunate than he ought to be. He (Mr. Scarlett) was aware that much had been written in order to inflame the public mind on this subject; for himself, he would say, that his attention had been directed to the state of the Poor Laws for the last thirty years, and he always was of opinion that they were laws most injurious to the community, and most oppressive to the poor. fie thought they were laws which went to degrade the lower classes. He withdrew the Bill for the present, but he proposed next Session to renew the measure. He would not pledge himself to words, hut, in prin. ciple, it would be substantially the same. If he should meet the same sot t of support which be had received, he would propose another Bill for greater discrimi nation between the moral claims of persons seeking for relief, and for the purpose of checking the expen diture, which was now a subject of general complaint. He should also propose, that the fathers of families should be no longer balloted for the Militia, but that single men should be compelled to serve. Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that when the mea sure should be brought forward he would oppose it every inch. In order to qualify himself to meet the threatened contest with his Honourable and Learned Friend, he would sit down to study black letter during the summer—(A /nue). Mr. H. GURNEY said, he hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would duly consider the state•of the Poor Laws before he attempted to interfere with them. He could not help thinking that the principle of the BM was absurd and injurious. The object of the Bill was to prevent marriages, it went on the vicious principle laid down by Mr. Malthus, ayrin ciple which was against the laws of nature, and which, if acted on, would not leave an Englishman to tin the ground which maintained his forefathers. He hoped that the House would not be insulted by any of Mr. Malthus's friends attempting to force upon them the adoption of his system. A violent attempt to subvert the .Poor Laws was more worthy a raving madman than a Legislator ! Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that if he thought the Bill went to interfere with the real comforts of the poor, he would not give it his support, but he looked upon the Bill as a measure likely to remove the causes of their degradation, and to promote their real inde. pendence. The Hon. Member had said that the Bill was a measure to prevent marriages ; it was no such thing, it was a Bill to take away undue encourage. ment to improvident marriages. Mr. F. PALMER rose; when Mr. SCARLETT said, that he had avoided all ar gument on the measure, and he thought it unfair, after he had waived his right, for Hon. Gentlemen to open a debate and- to misrepresent the principles and objects of the Bill. He might be assimilated to a madman, but the Hon. Gentleman himself was an abhorrer, and an abhorrer could not reason. Mr. GURNEY assured the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he did not mean to betr'ay, even in appearance, a want of courtesy to him. Mr. T. COURTENAY said, he had been amongst the opponents of the Bill, but if anything would have induced him to be ashamed of his conviction, it would be the praises which had been bestowed on those who had taken the same course as himself. He hoped the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would bring in a Bill, next Session, on the principle of modification and limitation, instead of abolition. Mr. HA RBORD said, the House seemed too much disposed to hear everything on one side, viz. in praise of the Bill. Though he was not disposed to urge arguments against a measure which had been with drawn, he should say, that he disapproved of the principle of it, though he was disposed to thank the Honourable and Learned Gentleman for having called their attention to what was certainly a subject of great importance. Mr. F. PALMER considered the Poor Laws as the chartered rights of the Poor, and hoped the House would pause before it consented to touch them, and inquire seriously into the condition of the labouring classes. He was persuaded there was not a single Member who was acquainted with the wages and outgoings of a labouring man, so as to be able to know whether, if in full work, he would be able to support a family. At the end of the last Session he had obtained an account of SW poor families from a friend of his, who had employed himself in obtaining them, and the wages were then not enough to mi. port a family. He had himself laboured during the last six weeks to obtain information on the same sub ject, and he hoped the House would take no step without the fullest inquiry. Mr. MONCK said he felt it was necessary to take some step on the subject of the Poor Laws; and he would go so far as to say, that he should be satisfied with nothing but their total, though gradual, aboli tion. But before he consented to such a measure, he should deem it necessary to demand, in the name of the People, the redress of several grievances, which it was not necessary for him now to detail, but he particularly alluded to the Corn Law. Mr. SCARLETT said, it was necessary to state that he had never proposed to go so far as to deny. provision to the infirm and aged poor. His feel ings were in favour of such a provision, though there were strong authorities, and he would mention one of a person who would not be considered by the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. H. Gurney) a raving madman—a term which he supposed the Honourable Gentleman had applied, not to him (Mr. Scarlett) per sonally, but to all who differed from the Hon. cientle man in opinion on the subject of the Poor Laws,. The authority to which he referred was that of Dr. Franklin, who said, that in those countries in which the greatest public provision was made for the poor they were in the worst condition, and in those coon tries where least provision was made fdr them, they were in the best condition. In reply to the observa tion of the Honourable Member for Reading (Mr. F. Palmer), he observed, that the Poor itate.s kept down the wages of labour, and that at the present moment, in many of the agricultural counties, when horn the rise in the value of money, the wages heretofore paid would have been sufficient to support a family, in. stead of the Poor Rates having been reduced, wages had been reduced, the subsistence of the labourer being still supplied in the degrading shape of arms. Thi s system would go on till it was checked by some such measure as he had proposed. As to popularity, though he wished to obtain it, he would not pur chase it by sacrificing the interests of the country, and he hoped it would not be said of any Legislator as of a comic Poet— sibi tatted crediderit esse soli, • " Ut papule #accrent quasfecissetfabulas The Order was dischargeu. The Tobacco Dudes Bill Report was agretd to. The Metropolis Police Bill was read a trtir d time. Mr. R. MARTIN rose to propose a clause. Ile said, *hat in their neighbourhood the most cruet sports were car: ied on alma,' daily—he meant dog-fights, cock. lights, bull baiting, monkey lights, badger-baiting. The places where these barbarous a nose meets were carried on, issued bills regularly like Covent-C4rdea 1.~