Star. — London, England, 1822-04-18 00:00:00

1.• ten ded that thevphs ll / 4 entAt4ss, if it arosefroM over production, did nflt wleliy arise from excessive pro-' ductioa in4orintry % nul--from the influx of foreign produce, niTipgite not of corn, but he alluded to t he h extensistempVfaations of flax, tallow, and other %Mirk% whkftild taken place. Looking at these, he was decidedly of opinion that further protection for the agricultural interest was absolutely necessary, and that protection against the importation of foreign wheat would not by itself prove sufficient. Mr. PHILLIPS had one observation to offer on the remark contained in the Petition, that an advance of one shilling per bushel on corn would be equal to the whole rental of the land. Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE said, to the rental of arable land. Mr. PHILLIPS begged to say, if the Honourable Baronet referred to the last Report he would find the tithes and poors' rates were she wn to amount to ' something less than half the rent. Compared with the rent. I heir amount was as 9to 20. If, then, ls. per bushel would be equal to the rent, it followed that less than 61. would be equal to the charge created by tithes and poors' rates, as these it should seem were only about per bushel. He did not wish to go into the subject now, but when it came to be. fully dicussed, ha trusted it would be clearly proved' that we had gone too far with the system of protect ing dudes already.—The Petition was then read and ordered to lie on the table. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition from the Ilouseholders of Waterford, praying for the total re peal of the Window Tax in Ireland. The Right Ho nourable Baronet briefly set forth the important be nefits which would be derived from a repeal of that duty to the sister kingdom, and pressed the Petition on the attention of the House..--The Petition was or dered to lie on the table. PUBLIC-HOUSE LICENSES. !i4 Mr. TIERNEY held in his hand a Petition from the Landholders of Maidenhead, in Berkshire, and its vicinity, con:plaining of Agricultural Distress. This they traced, in their particular case, to the absence of a free trade in beer. The Petitioners were barley growers, and had formerly an adequate demand for their produce. This had now failed them, in conse quen-e of all the public-houscs in their neighbour hood having been bought up by certain great brewers. The Petitioners, ascribing the falling off in the demand for barley to the cause he had men tioned, seemed to have taken up the idea that malt had but little to do with the making of the beer fur nished by the !newels of %, horn they complained.— The beer, they contended, was very bad in quality, but the publicans could not help themselves, as from the license being granted not to the seder of the beer, but to the boils,. in which it was sold, they could not go to brewers who were not their landlords. The Pe titioners were of opinion that much good would re sult from granticg the iicen-e to the publican instead of giving it to the house he inhabited, so that, if fur nished with a bad commodity, he might shift his house and carry his license with him. The subject, the Right Hon. Gentleman said, appeared to him well entitled to the attention of the House. Mr. C. W. WYNN said some inconvenience would be occasioned by making licenses merely personal, as it was the duty of the Magistrates to regulate the number of public-houses according to the wants of the neighbourhood. If a public-house were wanted in one place, it by no means followed that one was wanted in another part of the same district ; but by making the license personal, the publican if he pleased could remove it from the place where he was wanted, and establish himself where there was one public house already, and where two was not necessary. Mr. GRENFELL remarked, the Petitioners did not wish t, interfere with the authority of the Magis trates. What they desired was, that the license should be granted in the name of the publican, rather than to the house in which he lived. They wished for this, that if the brewer sent him bad beer, he might right himself by carrying his license to another house. Mr. C. W W YNN explained, and repeated in sub stance what lie had before stated, but added, that per haps the difficulty might be met by enabling the Ma- Fistrates :o grant a license to an individual, restrict ing the use of it to certain limits. Sir R. WILSON suggested that it might be well to grant no licenses to houses that were in the occu pation of brewers. Mr. BENNET earnestly begged that Gentlemen would not run away with an idea that this subject was one which could easily be disposed of. There was great difficulty in it. He proposed shortly to bring in, with some alterations, a Bill which had for merly been before Parliament,' but which had been lost in another place, to re-cast the whole of the exist ing laws with respect to licenses and public-houses. Mr. BROUGHAM could not but rejoice to learn that it was the intention of his Hon. Friend to bring forward that Bill which he had stated to have been formerly lost in another place. lie did not recollect the provisions contained in the Bill to which allusion had been made, but he was sure the law with respect to licenses required revision. The objections urged against the present system, were not confined to per sons who were not Magistrates. He knew that many of that most respectable body were anxious that the system should be changed. Some mention had been made of the great discretionary power granted to the licensing Justices. That power was not only liable to abuse, and was abused, but it was further to be complained of on account of the mistakes—of the errors in . judgment which accompanied its exercise. The wilful abuse of the discretionary power might be rare, but the mi ,takes were frequent. He believed the Magistrates, with a view of preventing disorder, were too pone to restrict the number of licenses granted in one neighbourhood. By confining them to a few, they produced the evils usually occasioned by monopoly, which were in many instances worse than those against which it was their object to guard. The brewer sent bad beer to the Publican, and in con sequence of this, the labourer, from the badness of the beer, was led to the use of pernicious spirits.— The princi i le to which he had alluded was too much acted upon by the Magistrates, and the tendency of it was that which he had described. in was ordered to be printed. CA THOLIC PEERS. presented a Petition from the Synod of Ayr, against the propo,ition for admit- Peer) to sit in Pad iieunent, involved in which his Right lion. Ft iend (Mr. Can- - Pnin4) had given notice, for admitting . Catholic Peers to sot in the House of Lord& While on his legs, he 'thought it right to state that the sense of the House - *mold certainly be taken on the first proposition, in connection with that subject, when it came before them. Mr. TIERNEY thought it premature in the Peti tiotters to come forward on the present occasion to lecture that House on the course which they ought to Pursue on a question that was not yet before them. No measure like that intended to be introduced could be passed without being a considerable time before the House, and it was rather too much that these Glas gow Gentlemen should thus step forward to oppose such a measure merely on notice of a motion. Mr. PEEL could not help remarking, that when a Petition came before the Howe which was not pre sented from the other side of it, a vast deal of acute ness was manifesed by the Gentlemen opposite in dis covering objectionable points. The present Petitioners had addressed the House in very respectful terms. — They had forwarded it to him with a wish that he should present it, and as it was notorious that a motion of the nature described in it was to be submitted to the House, he could not think it was at all imperti nent in them to exercise the right of petitioning Par liansent, ,as they had done on this occasion. Mr. HUME denied that those who sat on the Op position benches were in the habit of objecting to Petitions introduced on the other side of the House, and challenged the Right Hon. Gentleman to state in what instances this had been done. He regretted that such a Petition should have been forwarded from Scotland—that those who enjoyed so much religious freedom themselves should oppose the extension of this blessing to others.. Re could not but think that a Petition like this, dictated by gross bigotry, and evincing as much bad taste as bad feeling and intole rance, was disgraceful to those who had framed it. Sir T. LETHBIUDGE was only surprised that more Petitions had not been presented against that measure, which was shortly to be submitted to their consideration. He thought it was desirable that the most serious attention should be paid to it. He would venture to say, that if the motion of which notice had been given were carried, and in consequence Catholic Peers admitted to sit in the other House of' Parliament, the result would be, the whole of that question would be carried by a side wind, and in that case he, for one, was of opinion that the whole Bri tish Constitution would be changed. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. The retina .11 • Glas r. go P w E a E nti L , ting Catholic the motion of UNITARIAN MARRIAGES. Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from the Unitarian Dissenters of Kendall, in Westmoreland, complaining of the inconveniencies they sustained trom being obliged to use certain parts of the mar tiage ceremony which was not in conformity with their opinions. The Petitioners prayed to be placed 6n the same footing with Jews and Quakers in this country, and Dissenters in Scotland. He thought on this subject but one opinion could prevail among impartial men—that some modification ought at least to take place. Mr. BANKES thought this Petition, founded on a proposition not ?et before the House, was as open to objection liont tLe Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Timmy). as that touching the admission of Catholic Feels to Parliament, on which he had thought it ne cessat y to rise. Mr. BROUGHAM could not see that there were any grounds for reading the lecture which they had heard to his Right lion. Friend the Member for Knaresborough. This Petition, unlike the t,,inier, was not founded on a notice given. It did not touch on the motion intended to be made by his thr.oto able Friend (Mr. W. Smith) ; but leaving that alto ge,her, it merely petitioned for a measure l►ke that which he desired to introduce. Mr. TIERNEY thought a Petition calling on the House to overthrow such or such a propo•ition then brought forward, notice having been given of a mo tion on a particular subject, and a Petition praying the House to take this or that question into its seri ous consideration, as different from each other as light from darkness.—The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. W. SMITH had brought forward his present measure in consequence of various Petitions presented on the subject ; bur before he opened his proposition to the House, he would beg to put in two Petitions similar to that presented by the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Brougham)—the one from Sheffield, in Yorkshire, the other from Stopford, in the County of Durham. The Petitions being read, and ordered to be printed, l Mr. W. SMITH proceeded. In bringing forward the present motion, he s'Aould begin by stating, as briefly as possible, the grievances of which the Peti- tioners complained. Their complaint was, that by the regulations of the Act of the 26th George H. commonly called the Marriage Act, they were placed in a situation painful to themselves, and different from that in which, previous to the passing of that' Act, they had been accustomed and permitted to stand. It would scarcely be denied by any one that marriage was a civil ceremony. It was so considered not only by the common law, but by the canon law; ' and from the period of the year 1753, up to the pass. ing of the Act now complained of, marriages so; lernnized by the Dissenters, in their own places of worship, had been held good and valid. The Act of the 26th George IL however, enacting that every marriage, to be held legal, must be solemnized in the Church, by the Ministers of the Church, and ac cording to the ritual of the Church, completely de. prived the Dissenters of their before enjoyed privi leges. He (Mr. %V. Smith) was one of the class of ! persons now praying to be relieved from the prevaire! of that Act, and it was important to those persons as' a class, that, coming before Parliament, they should stand rectus in curia. He begged then to aver, that the Dissenters were unarraigned of any crime, and that they had as good a title to worship GOD in their own way as any members of the Church of England. Marriage was the natural right of the human species, and neither man nor woman, without the grossest injustice, could be deprived of its benefits. Yet the Act of the 26th George H. said t. Dissenters, " You shall comply with terms which are contrary to the dictates of your consciences, or you shall forego the advantage of that natural right." S uc h a holding was most unjust. It was not without precedent, be cause the same course had been per s ued under Louis XLV. towards the Protestants of France. The mea sure in France, however, though unjust, was not so; inconsistent as the law in England; because the Go- In Eng' gross inconsistency about the arrangement. At the very time when the Act of George the Second passed, the Dissenters had the benefit of the Act of Toleration. At that time it so happened that the Unitarian Dis senters were in small numbers, so small, indeed, that they had not a place of worship, so called, belonging to them ; but the Jews and the Quakers were espe cially exempted from the provisions of the Act. The Jews could scarcely, perhaps, be called Dissenters from the Church of England—(the Church of Eng land might, indeed, more properly be called Dis senters from them, for they were the more ancient)-- but the Quakers were, to all intents and purposes, a sect dissenting from the Church of England, and they could have no right to any exemptions in which the Unitarians were not entitled to participate. By the Canon Law, marriage was nothing else but a civil contract. This was stated by high authority in this country, when, in 1813, a question respecting the validity of a Scottish marriage was discussed. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor was, that the Scottish Law was founded on the Canon Law, which was the foundation of the laws respecting marriage throughout Europe, and which regarded marriage as a contract. There was no doubt whatever but the 'Scottish Law.considered a marriage by consent of parties, and in presence of witnesses, to be as valid as if it were by any clergyman. The Marriage Act had for its object the prevention of clandestine mar riages. With that object he wished not to interfere, and he would therefore only propose the alteration of the religious part. Some religious ceremonies were common to all nations, and were highly proper, but they were not necessary. As a proof of that, he might refer to the Decree of Pope Innocent 111. in Council, which declared the religious solemnity not to be necessary to the validity of marriages. But the religious ceremony ought to be in unison with the feelings of the parties. The ritual of the Church of England was derived from the Romish Church. Now to make that ritual a necessary part of the mar riage, where religious objections existed to it, was a positive absurdity. He proposed leaving out the whole of that part of the t itual which stated opinions on which the petitioners dissented from the Church of England. As he understood from the Noble Lord that his motion would not be opposed, he thought it, unnecessary to go into further discussion of the subject now. He might, however, mention, that the wisdom of our ancestors had enacted burning alive as the pu nishment for Christians marrying Jews. When that law was repealed, and some time previously, more persons were found to contend for its justice, and even humanity, than could now be found to advocate the part of the present law which he wished to alter. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill altering certain points in the 26th Geo.ll. commonly called the Marriage Act. The Mai quis of LONDONDERRY wished not to be understood to pledge himself to the support of the measure. Mr. H. GURNEY did not see what possible ob jection there could be to Unitarians being married by their own clergymen. The whole service would then be suited to their own sentiments, and, banns being regularly proclaimed in the church, no incon venience could arise from it. On the other hand, ' there we e many objections to parties having the ser vice performed by a clergyman of a different persua sion. He wished, therefore, that, instead of such a measure as was now proposed, the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite would embrace the sub ject in his 13i11.—Mr. W. SNIITII explained. Leave was given to bling in the Bill. COMMERCIAL CREDIT BILL. The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the Report be brought up. Mr. W. SMITH wished to be informed by the Right Honourable Gentleman what the original ob ject of this Bill had been, and why that object had been alteied ? Why had there been an extension of the period of payments? Originally there were to have been eight instalments annually of twelve and a half per cent each ; now the money was to be re paid in two years. Originally it had not been in tended to give any of the money to bankers; now he was informed that the time was extended for the ac commodation of a banking-house in Dublin. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the House would recollect, that when the Bill was proposed to which the present measure had reference very great distress prevailed in Ireland. The failure of many of the banks in the south of Ireland pressed heavily on commerce; so much so as to put a stop in a considerable degree to commercial transactions, and to produce a most baneful effect on apiculture. Immediate relief was at that time given by the Bank of Ireland; that relief, though it did not prevent the stoppage of the banks in the south of Ireland, pre vented the evil from spreading to other parts of the' country. A Bill was then passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, granting relief to the extent of £500,000; and the object of the measure now un der the 'consideration of the House was to legalize certain proceedings which had taken place in conse quence of that grant: first, to legalize the proceedings to which he had alluded, and to which he would pre sently refer, and next to extend the period originally fixed for the repayment of the sums lent to different bodies and individuals. The Honourable Member had asked whether bankers belonged to that descrip tion of persons to whom, under the Act, part of the money granted might be legally lent. A question of the same kind had been started when the Bill was first introduced, and he had distinctly stated, in the Committee on the Bill, that though bankers were not included by name in its provisions, yet they were vir tually included under the head of " traders;" because though they weic not traders in the ordinary accepta tion of the word, he considered them traders in money. Money was, therefore, advanced to them under this interpretation of the meaning of the Legislature. It appeared, however, that an - Irish Act of Parliament was in existence, which had not been adverted to by this House. By that Act it was provided that a banker could not be looked upon as a trader. Legal opinions were taken on this point in Ireland ; and it was held that bankers were not included under the head of " traders" in Ireland, though the fact might . ~ . ~,, • otkorwintin England. One of the objects of th e Bill was to legalise the' granting of that po i . the vote of Parliament which had been ad ,to bankers. The sum granted by the former 'as not exhausted; perhaps it would be necessary Issue the surplus now, for certainly it could not h e that no country ever required more assistanc e than Ireland did at the present moment. The oth er object of the Bill was to extend the repayment of th e original advance from two years, which was at first stipulated, to eight years. Here it should be observ e d, that Commissioners were appointed to superintend the issue of money in the first instance. The ) had lent it on undeniable security; both landed and co inertial security had been given, under bond ot :rimy —her. Now, supposing those securities were of An unity. peachable description, he could see no reason tar deny an extended period for the repayme t of the lent, which would be a very great accommodation to those in whose hands they had been placvo Be,ldes, the Public were receiving 5 per cent. for their in-nney, which, at compound interest, would equal the capizai lent in 14 years, if the period of repayment wet e even extended to that term. After a few words from Mr. W. SMITH, who ex pressed himself sati fled with the explanation t•f the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Report Was agreed to, and the Bill ordered for a third reading to-morrow. Mr. LUSH INGTON brought up the Report of the Committee on the Stamp Duties Act. The Resolutions were read and agreed to. On the question, " That a Bill be brought in, in conformity with the said Resolutions," Mr. HUME rose and complained that no adequate provision appeared to have been made for reducing ti.e emoluments of distributors of stamps. He could not conceive why those individual, should receive em u . luments to the amount of £3 or £6 per cent. iiavi formerly brought this subject distinctly Uefo!e the House, he had hoped that a Bill would have beer. in troduced by the Right Honourable Gentleman tu rectify this abuse. There could be no ditretence oe opinion on the expediency and propriety of bringing forward a measure to alter the present system, tinder which those Gentlemen received from 122,009 to £5,000 a year, for which they did hats°. ever. It appeared from the Returns cn ‘ ;he table, that £BO,OOO w ere annually paid to :iistributors; and had the House gone into evidence on the subject laq Session, he was prepared to shew that the win,l; duty could be as well, nay better, perfoi toed for £40,000. He certainly would, in one of the stage, of the S amp Bill, call the attention of the House to this .object. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the allowances granted to the di.trihutot, ot stam p s had been for ..ome time under the considerat . o of t h e Treasury; and, in consequence of the inquiries which had taken place, great reductions would 1 )e made. Mr. HUNIE wished to know what would be the amount of reduction in Scotian,' and Leland, in con sequeime of the new regulations ? The C H A NCELLO It of the EXCH EQUER could not state positively what the am. , tint ot reductioa would be. A paper would, how eer, he shortly laid before the House, containing a scale )t the reductions which it was intended to carry into effect. It was impossible to state the average reduction, because the emoluments on different stamps varied so much. For instance, there was, comparatively, less profit on a stamp for £.50,000 than on one for R 20,000. A Bill was then ordered to he brought in, con formably with the ites , rlOLlOnS. DISMISSING OFFICERS WITHOUT TRIAL. Colonel DAVIES—As the Hon. Member for :ITan trose has given notice that he will bring iihtier the consideration of the House the system adopted by the Crown, of dismissing Officers v.ithout Court-Martial, and as he has named no particular day for that pur pose, I beg leave to ask what course he means to pur sue? Because, if the Hon. Member does not intend to introduce the subject, I shall feel it my duty to bring in a Bill to limit the discretion of the Croon on that point. Mr. HUME said he had intended long before tofu a day for his proposed motion, but he did not take that step because he was anxious that some Gentle man better calculated than he was to bring the sub ject forward should take it up. lie should thank 17's lion. Friend if he would undertake the duty; and knowing that he would do ample justice to it, he kit the question with pleasure in his hands. Colonel DAVIES then gave notice, that lie would on Tuesday, the 21st of May, move for leave to biirß in a Bill, to define, and, if necessary, limit the di .- cretion of the Crown, with reference to the dismissal of Officers without Court-Martial. Lord PALMERSTON brought up a Return of all OfFrrrs on the Foreign half-pay List : also a Return of all sums money issued on account of corps of Yeomanry Cavalry in Urea: Britain.—Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The Irish Malt Duties Repeal Bill, and the Countervailing Malt Duties Bills, were severally committed, and the Wpm!: ordered to be received to-morrow. 'rite further consideration of the Report of the Superannua tiou fill was postponed to Friday next.—Adjourned. A HINT.—MARTIN and Co. in a former Lottery, when there were only Two Prizes of £20,000, Soli them both in Shares.—Next TUESDAY is the Last Day of Drawing the present Lottery, when both the £20,000 Prizes now in the Wheel must be drawn.— Warranted undrawn Tickets and Shares are on Saie at MARTIN and Co.'s Offices, 8, Cornhill, and I`2o, Oxford -street; and by their Agents in the Country. A meeting, highly interesting to the inhabitants of County of Middlesex took place on Tuesday at the Queen's Head Tavern, Holborn, composed of Depu tations from the various Parishes in the County, con vened by the United Parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, to consider of the m2a sures necessary to be adopted in consequence of LI c resignation of Mr. MAINWARING, the late Treasurer of the County. The meeting was most numerously and respectably attended. Statements of censiderabte importance were made by Mr. TAYLOR, the Vestry Clerk of St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, relative to the arrangements hitherto ru:- sued in auditing and conducting the County account:. Resolutions were passed, by which the Chairman (Mr. MONTAGUE) and Mr. TAYLOR, were deputed to solicit from the Magistracy of the County some es planation relative to the state of the accounts, on the . iesignation of Mr. MAINWARING, and the extent t securities available for the liquidation of the ultimate balance. The meeting then adjourned for a tOrtitigbt, to afford time for the necessary communication With the Magistrates. The annual acc: unts during tt - ,e last four years averaged L'5O,COO. • 5 _ • • vernment of tbat costly ree at the gist Ike be 'the Religion but b Rosin CatholliL To presu . or evert\ Feint Frenchman-a Rom was frost unjust; but, dos of such being the prestujiption, there was nu incon- lanced sistency in saying, that members of the Romad Catbo- Bill wa lic Church should be married according to its rites. to issue In England, however, there was a gross and palpable denied , • ~j t .__.::_