Star. — London, England, 1821-03-22 00:00:00

\ • 4 \ 4\ .` PARI f IAMINTARi PROCEEDINGS. .004. Z, MARCH 21. In the Appeal u Knox o. Nesbit" from a decision of the Irish Court of &chequer, Messrs. Haat. and J. P. Gamer yrere beard for the a On account of some irregularity ik the proceedings, the LoanOnaacn.wapostponedthefurtherbearing. The Mary.la-Bomse•Citurch Brtilding Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. bar. Ewe brought op the Irish Attorneys Fees Bill from the Hosteetif Commons, wills* was read a first time. ihtene Pritate Bills were brought up from the House of Com mons by fir. BLACtIVIN and Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Bascom brought up the Bill for the Dispatch of Busi ness in the Court of King's Bench, which was read a first time. Tke Earl of SIM FT RSBU Rlf presented a Petition from the Tenets of Bedminster, in the County of Somerset, against the , Catholic Claims. The Marquis of LANSDOWN presented a Petition from the Town of Dureley, in Gloucestershire, praying that some measure might be adopted for the cheap and speedy recovery of Debts under ,fig. The Flax and Cotton Encouragement Bill was read a third _ time, and passed. The Motley Bißs were read a second time. The Marquis of LA NSIJOW N said he bad intended, and it was his wish, to put some questions tespecting the present trans %them es tbe Cominest of Europe; but as the Noble earl at the head of the Treasury was not then present, he should not miter ea the subject; and as it was not likely that my business wail be done to-morrow, es account of the Drawing-Boom, 'be gave notice that on Friday nest ke should put those ques. tiems:—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Petitions were pre tited from the County of Nairn, praying a repeal of the Mak Tat; front the Ship-owners of Sunderland, on she subject of the Duty oa Coals ; from the Queen's County, praying the House to take into consideration the present state of the Distillery Laws in Ireland; from Strathmore, in Forfar, praying a repeal of the Malt Duties; from Fife, praying a repeal 'of the Mak Duties ; and from Canada, praying the House to take late consideration the present state of the Timber Trade. Mr. CALVERT moved for as Account of the Wharfs be longing to the Corporation of London, between London Bridge and the Temp:e.—Ordered. Mr. LUSHINGTON presented Accounts of the Expendi ture in detail of 415,400, charged in the Civil Contingencies, for lulls drawn by Governor Macartky, and others. Mr. LUSIIINGTON brought% the Ale and Beer Duties Ell, which was reul a brat time, and ordered to he read a se cond time to-morrow. PURCHASES OF SILVER. Mr. GRENFELL referred to a Paper which had been lately laid on the table of that Hotise; containing a Return of all the Purchases of Silver which had been made by the Mint since 1816, up to 1821, and admitted that it appeared from this paper, that, during the three first years of the period, the prices were in general conformable to the market prices.— But he observed, during 1820, that a variation had Liken place between the prices which the Mint paid and the prices in the market, for which he was at a loss to account. • In that year it appeared that the Mint had purchased silver at a price which was be tween four and five per cent. above the market price. Now he wished to ask the Right lion. Gentleman opp , site, who were the parties from whom the silver had been so purchased ?—(Hear, hear)—and why it was that a price so greatly exceeding that of the market had been given to them ?—(Hear, hear). The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, t l iat at a former period the Bank consented to receive from the Mint a large amount of silver at .ss. 2d. per ounce, on which occasion it was stipulated, that at a subsequent period the Mint should take back from the Bank an equal amount of silver at the same price, no matter what the price in the market should be.— The silver alluded to was taken at the price men tioned in consequence of that stipulation. Mr. GRENFELL said, he looked upon the whole of that contract as one of a very suspicious nature— (Hear, hear).—He gave notice, therefore, that on an early day he would move for a Return, stating the l terms of the contract, and the circumstances which gave rise to it. SCOTCH BURGH OF INVERARY. Mr. UU\IE moved the Order of the Day for re suming the debate on the Petition from the Royal Burgh of Inverary.—The Order being read— The SPEAKER said, the question was, that this Petition be referred to the Committee on Scotch Burghs. Mr. ABERCROIBIE said, that this Petition turned not on a question of fact, but of law, upon which there could not be two opinions. The princi pal complaint was, that the Magistrates of the Ilo tough had received a great deal of money for the sale of corporate property, of which they had given no account to the Burgesses. The Petitioners could get no redress in the Courts of Law in Scotland, and in his view it was peculiarly incumbent on that House to pass a Bill for the remedy of this evil. He saw no use in having this Petition referred to the Committee. The LORD ADVOCATE admitted that the Courts in Scotland had no jurisdiction in the case. Several Members rose to address the Speaker. Mr. %V. COURTENAY said, that he had given precedence to this motion .upon the supposition that. it would not take up more than a few minutes. As he saw several Members anxious to address the House, he feared that he must insist on having his own motion first disposed of. The question was then pat, and the Petition was referred to the Committee on Scotch Burghs. NEWINGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL. Mr. H. SUMNER ntoved the further considera tion of the Report of the Committee on the Newing ton Select Vestry Bill. The Order of the Day having'' been read, the Honourable Member stated, that the Committee had, without going into the merits of the Bill, on the first question put, decided that the Stand. ing Orders of the House had not been complied with. Be must confess that this Resolution surprised him. The irregularity complained of was as follows : The Standing Order required, that notice should be stuck on the Church-door three days. The notice was put up, but when it had been up two days, it was discovered that the word " - increased" was wanting: and the word was then added to the notice for the third day and it was contended, that this Was such an alteration, as 'destroyed the notice altogether, by rendering it irregular. The Hots. Member now con tended, that this Was not such an irregularity as wou ld destroy the notice; and, therefore, the deci sion ofshe Committee was erroneous. He concluded by moving that the Bill be re-committed. Mr. S. C. WHITBREAD was sorry the 'Honour able Gentleman had thought fit to bring this Bill for ward again. Ire considered it as a Bat unjust in its principle ; and one which, if carried, must prove dis ,istitt to the great majority of the Parish ; and lithe ~shoeld consider irright to per sist ha is *Odom for re-committing the Bill, he should consider it the do r of those who opposed elle Bill, to take the sense of the House: Mr. DENISON also opposed the motion, aid re peated his former arguments against the Bill. Mr. C. CALVERT also opposed the Bill on prin ciple. The rental of the Parish of Newington was £184,000, of which Abe - supporters of the Bill paid only about 0400. Mr. ELLIS was in favour of the Bill being recom mitted. The irregularity was a mere technical one, and therefore the House were called on to overlook it, and to suffer the Bill to go to a Committee, to have its merits inquired into. Sir J. NEWPORT thought the irregularity one which must prove fatal to the Bill. Mr. E. PRICE supported the going back to a Com mittee, and was proceeding to discuss the merits of the Bill, when he was called to order by Mr. , BENNETT, who submitted the merits were not now before the House. The SPEAKER said, as this was a question for the re-commitment of a Bill, it was difficult to say I that, strictly speaking, the merits were not open to discussion ; bat as the question now regarded a point of form, it would be obvious to the House, that the convenient course would be to confine the discussion to the point of order. Mr. C. WYNN wished to know from the Chair, what had been the practice of the House on this point? The SPEAKER said, many things were done in transacting private business, by consent sof parties, which could not be reconciled with the Standing Or ders of the House. if the House was of opinion the irregularity now complained of should be fatal, it was time they should declare it, since it occurred in innumerable instances. If, however, there was any doubt, he thought the preferable way would be to refer the Report to a Select Committee, to inquire into, and report to the House on the subject. Mr. S. WORTLEY was of opinion, that the Com mittee were bound to see the Standing Order com plied with. Mr. ABERCROMBIE thought the stlgiestion thrown out by the Chair should be adopted, and he would move, as an Amendment, that the Report be referred to a Select Committee. After a few words froth Mr. 11. Suss NER, the Amend ment was agreed to, and the Report referred to a Se lect Committee accordingly. CLAIMs OF AMERICAN LOYALISTS. • I Mr. COURTENAY, in rising to bring forward the subject of the American Loyalists' claims, was aware that in doing this it would be necessary for .him to go into detail, to slew the House the founda. Lion of claims arising in 1783, and contirrued up to the present time. The Americans used every effort to induce all to join in what was then called the Standard of Rebellion. On the other hand, the Bri tish Government made similar efforts to induce a junction with the Royal Standard. The different States had attainted all who had joined the British Standard. At the peace, two Articles were intro duced ; one that regarded persons living in England, who had sustained commercial losses, and it was sti pulated that the claims of creditors should be at tended to. That formed the second Article. The fifth was a clause, by which Congress was to re commend the restitution cf the prcperty of persons attainted, &c. for their conduct during the war. It was at the conclusion of the war, that the House was of opinion that the Loyalists should not be left wholly to the mercy of the American Government. He contended that it was the opinion of the Parliament of that day, that full compensation should be given to the American Loyalists. '1•o that effect he quoted the opinion of Lord Thuilow, in the House of Lords; and of Mr. Townsend, in the House of commons ; and also of the late Lord Chief Baron Macdonald, then Solicitor-General. A full compensation had not been made by the American Government. The House, by the vote of 1783, was bound to make good the deficiency. A Commission was subsequently ap pointed to inquire into the losses of the Loyalist., of whatever kind they might be. The Commissioners of 1783 admitted the'claims of those who had lost their lands and, possessions; but would not admit the claims of those who had vested their money in mortgages and securities, and referred them to the American Government. In 1789, Mr. Hammond was sent out to America on the subject of the claims of British creditors ; and, in 1794, the American GQ-, vernment allowed the claims of the British creditors. But the American Government never recognized the claims of the American Loyalists. The first demand made by a Loyalist was opposed by the Attorney- General of the United States, on the ground that the claimant had been attainted before the peace, and had no claim on the American Government. In 1797. Mr. Pitt contended that all classes of American Loyalists were entitled to compensation, and urged that claim on the American Government. In 1802, the subject came under the review of the Govern ment of that day, and the amount was fixed at 4:600,000 by the American Government. In 1811, the last report had been made ; and as the former lapses of time had not been allowed to operate against the claim, so neither should the time that had elapsed from" 1811 to the present period. The Honourable Gentleman proceeded to read the opi nions of the American Courts of Law, all of which held that compensation was only due to the British subject claiming a real debt from an American l i debtor; but the restoration of landed property, even to a real British subject, much less an American Loyalist, who had been attainted, had never been in the contemplation of the Treaty of 1783. He must make a motion that would bring the whole case be- 1 fore the House, as it had never been decided upon byl Parliament. A dangerous precedent might be drawn,l not from the application, but the refusal of it. He should move for copies of all communications be tween the British Government , and the American Loyalists since the 4th of April, 1812, to this time. Mr. DICKINSON knew that the AmeriCan Lop alists had made the greatest sacrifices on account of their attachment to the British Government, and were well entitled to have their claims considered. Mr. WM. SMITH would postpone most part of what he had to say till the papers moved for should 'be laid before the House. The time that had elapsast was . one of the greatest hardships of the else. Had the money been paid when due, forty years ago, it would have been trebled by the operation of interest. Compensations" had often been made for no claims, and no* was refused to tbc.justest claints. He was. the more iodated to say this, as he had'been most. decidedly hostile to the principles of those men. He *as one of the Committee of 18111 and could state that the sum of £6004100 had. never been accepted as an equivalent for heir claims. He had stated to one of the.claimants, that he bad been itirprised at their patience; and the answer was, a Sir, there have been several suicides among us already. Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that the American Loyalists had tasted the very dregs of hope deferred He would recommend the case earnestly to the con sideration of the House. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it was a painful duty that a servant of the Public was compelled to look at many things with a stricter eye than he would do in his private and individual capa city. From the communication he had had with the Loyalists, he at some times had entertained a more favourable opinion of their claims than upon recon sidOration they appeared to him to deserve. The length of time, he admitted, formed no bar to these claims, and it was rather an argument in their fa vour. Though a partial compensation had been made, he admitted that it had not been accepted by them in bar of future claims. But a much larger deduction had been made from the compensation which had been awarded to the families of Penn and Hartford than had been taken from the Loyalists.— The breach of faith on the part of the American Go vernment had not been confined to•the Loyalists, but had extended to the British Creditors. The total claim admitted by the American Government' amounted to £1,450,000, of which £2.50,000 had been paid to the Loyalists. In consequence of the conduct of the American Government, a portion of territory ceded to that country had been withheld; and' it was not restored till the American Govern ment agreed that all the claims should be fairly ar ranged. At Philadelphia, in 1794, a Commission had been appointed, and the Loyalists had preferred their claims there, as well as the British Creditors.— ' That was an important fact, and seemed to have been unknown to his Honourable Friend. By the joint Commission at Philadelphia, the claims of the Loyalists %vete admitted. He should not then enter into the causes that rendered that concession una vailing, as be did not intend to oppose the produc tion of the Papers ; reserving to himself the right to oppose any future motion. By the Convention of 1802, the sum ,of £600,000 was accepted by the Bri tish Government in lieu of the claims that were settled by the Commission of 1794 ; neither the ' Loyalists nor the Merchant Creditors accepted of their sham of that sum as a full compensation for their claims. It was a most painful duty to be com pelled to refuse the claims of an unfortunate and meritorious class of men ; but they must be regarded as suffering from the. fate of war ; and to such a class of sufferers it had not been the practice to allow compensations. He was anxious that the case should he brought fairly before the House, though he could nut hold out the hope of complete relief. Dr. PHILLIMOHE thought that the present was one of the stionost cases of strict justice that had ever been brought before the House. There was a wide distinction between the Amer ican Loyalist, who had sacrificed all for his attachment to the British Government, an'il the Merchant, who had merely carried on his trade. Mr,LOCKII ART concurred with the last speaker, that the claim of the Loyalist was tar paramount to that of the Merchant. He understood that the Loy alists who now claimed compensation, did so in con sequence of mortgages or bends on American pro perty ; but those ►ndividuals might have all the time resided in this country. If that was the case, they were not to be placed in a better situation than the British Merchant. He wished for information. Mr. COURTENAY felt the distinction made by the last sperker ; but the class of men whose claims he advocated, was that of men who had ranged them selves under the standard of their King, and had sacrificed all for their loyalty.—The motion was then' put and carried. li. MALT DUTY. Mr. WESTERN rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the repeal of the last duty of ls.2d. per bushel on Malt. If the question was looked to in relation to the agriculture, the morals of the people, and the collection of the revenue, he thought he could Prove that sound policy demanded the repeal of the tax. In 1816 the representation lie had made had induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off 2s. per bushel from the tax on barley. He did not admit that the Member who proposed to take off a tax was bound to substitute another in its room—that was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for which he alone was responsible. If be could propose a new tax he should not do so, as his prin cipal object was to diminish the aggregate of taz ation. He did not wish to shift the burthen on any other class of the community. He did not wish to tax the fundholder, nor oblige him to contribute to the Poor Rates. If other classes should be made to pay to the Poor Rates, it would only tend to increase the number of applicants, and not to lighten the pressure on the agriculturists. In the shape of malt, grain, and spirits, the tax on barley for the last year amounted to £10,000,000. Malt and beer were at per boll, and the duty on spirits came to £lO per boll. On barley made into beer and malt; the duty amounted to I.:12 per acre, and to 010 on all barley made into spirits. So heavy a duty necessarily caused a reduction in the growth of the article. The duty of 10s. 6d. per quarter on barley had never. amidst all the difficulties of the war, been increased by Mr. Pitt, with the exception of a temporary duty of Sd. per quartet imposed in 1791, and repealed in 1792., In 1802, in the administration of Lord Sid mouth, the duty had been. increased to 181. and ic 1803 to S4s. per quarter. The Hon. Gentleman then proieeded to take the average quantities of barley grown in Great 13sitain and Ireland for three periods; from 1791, from 1804, and for the last four years ; and proceeded to thew that there had been a gradual and increasing diminution, insomuch, that in Great Britain and Ireland, for the year 1818, there bad been a diminution :of 1,824,000 quarters below the quantity grown in 1791. "From such a diminution in the quantity, and consequently in the consumption, there must have been a great diminution in the reve nue ; the interests of which necessarily demanded a diminution of the tax.' The true source of taxation was consumption, and when this consumption failed, it was a proof that the taxation had been carried too far. Prom these accounts he reasoned ,that the high duty on malt was the came of the decrease in th., consumption of that article. There was, tind ou t t edly, a duty imposed on the House to relieve the agricultural distress of this country. The Corn Bill did not give that aid to agriculture which was taM templated by die Legislature at that time. In on . sequenke of this inadequate protection, there h a d been an inundation of foreign corn imported. Ti,e had been stith an increase of importation of Irish and other foreign wheat in the last year, as had b een unprecedented: They tOuld no more reason on the abstract principles of free trade, 'than they could argue on the abstfatt rights of man. It was the aga gregate amount of the tate; which weighed on one growers and manufacturets, so that dray could nee' compete with foreign Powers end foreign Maiiutec: tuners. He then moved for leave to bung in a Bill to reduce the Duty on Malts Mr. MACKENZIE seconded the motiott; t h. grounitthat it would be beneficial to th e Dittillifeiee of Sc and, as well as to those of England. int person purchasing illegally-distilled s p ir i ts in Scec; , might buy it at 15s. less for ten gallons than the bare duty on ten gallons of legally-distilled spi-; , tits. In the last year, there had been a deficien c y i n the produce ofapirits in Scotland, to the amount 100,000 gallons; and the deficiency in the duty was ab0ve.1:20,0013. He believed that he spoke the unani mous opinion of all the Atigistrates in the North Scotland, that the additional duty on Malt had no creased smuggling, and all the evils which would' have induced them to have quitted their public du. ties, if an imperious sense of those duties had not compelled them to continue in the dischargeofthein, Mr. ELLICE could not consent to the repe A i any Tax at present, until they had firSt relieved die distress of the country, so far as to enable us to e s t e . blish an efficient Sinking Fund. Why should not the debt be stated to the Public what it was ieala ?—. why not state fairly what part of the debt hadbeea redeemed? lie wished to know why, in 1807, the collection of the ExCise cost £1,100,000, 'and last year it . cost above 1:2.000,000? The consumption of barley and spirits had falleii short in consequence of the excessive taxation on these articles. Ile feared that if Gentlemen expected any permanent harem in the price of Corn for some years, they would b e much deceived. If the farmer were i o look for any comfort, be most have a seduction in his rents and his other expenses. The land-owner must reducebit rents, and must pay for the support he has given to Ministers in carrying on an . unjust war, and in extra vagant taxation. The only remedy was to be found in reduced exsenses, and a decreased taxation. Ifhe could procure similar reductions in other taxes, be would cordially' support the present motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he wished to recal the attention of the Htsuse to the question immediately before them—View, heeri.-. The Honourable Member for Essex could not .eny that which was proved by the accounts on the table, that the produce of the tax of 1819 had fully answered the expectation, and risen to the amount which the country had been led to expect. The Honourable Member had contended that the consumption of bar ley had been reduced by taxation; but he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) denied that the Honourable Member had accurately exhibited the accounts which' were before the House, or stated a fair view of the subject. The inference from these accounts was, that the repeal of the war duty in 1818 dii not af ford relief to the agriculture of the country. It did not increase the consumption during the succeeding year, although not only was the duty then withdrawn, but that which had been advanced for the stock on hand had been repaid. The Right lion. Gentleman thought the Norse would do well to be guarded as to the reduction of the system of taxation at Ile. sent. The consequence of contrary policy must be, to oblige us to borrow money to pay the hue ea of the National Debt. He drew the conclusion tom comparative accounts of the consumption of beer and spirits, that the amount of the duties on Malt fell equally and fairly on the whole mass of the comm. nity, and not on the farmer alone. He could not consent to the partial reduction in Malt Duties Ida your of Scotland. She had only a right to her share in a diminution in common with England; and that could not be done at present, without materially in juring the public service. For these, and other rea sons, he could not consent to the motion of the Be. no u r able Gentleman. Mr. MACKENZIE-explained." No Scotch!" (said the Hon. Gentleman) but one in the pay of Go vernment,. would object to the motion." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in explanation, supported his former statement. Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON observed, that he was anxious to express his opinion on this subject, with reference to the operation of the last Malt Duty onScotland. He would endeavour to make outs sung case, in the hope, feeble as it was, that his country men would be able to get something back. The Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellnrof the Exchequer) had stated, that the taking of the del in 1816 'was not met by an adequate consumption , He had urged, that that measure did not augment the consumption. Now he (Lord Archibald Ilya. ton) thought that it would be conceded on all haadsi that the abandonment of the tax then existing could not operate on the crep ; and any person who wo aware what the crop was in 1817 must know that it did not amount to more than half the ordinal' average t therefore the Right Honourable Gentleman could not fairly expect an increased consumption. —. What followed? The first operation of she n" measure must have taken place under these circunto stances in the year 1818, when the crop ORS ' tn. proved, at which time the new measure was rm ked ` I What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? Wl* that promptitude which perhaps belonged to, or di Ilnherent In the nature of his office, b ec au.sethealtelv non did not operate in three or four months, rece nt to the original tax; oxclaimiag ds There is no Inorior a repeal ; you see it' has produced no augmentali° ll of consumption." But a.fair trial we" not &ye" to chi measure ; in -fact, there was no trial at all. did it happen that, supported as the Right Hood" able-Gintleman was, by the landed interest, in that House, not one individual connected with dud jaw' rest got up and said that the taking of of this dal would have no effect in improving the state d is t ° culture? No person ventured to advance tha t y r' nion, even amongst those who, on other neca i 4 were extretnely Willing to give their vote in ga'""... of the measures of the Right Honourable Gentlureasso Phis organic:lt he . would press Mt* ilagsgaia" it rP %ad 1 p~o pu .ca tbi (bi 1:0 1 'ssj of IN arl Al Der t own( talke !lift' able press at ha the a Hong the E cessii butt] ♦eras srr a gc be pr -to th i pari-