Star. — London, England, 1823-07-15 00:00:00

- P4RLIAME,NTARY RROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 14. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he bad prepared a paper, in furtherance of the intimation he had thrown out last Friday, which contained certain findings, or declarations of the law. in relation to the Fife Cause; which, therefore, he should now deliver in at the table. to be communicated to the parties (Sit James Duff and the Earl of Fife) for their consideration, between the present time and Wednesday morning neat —The I substance of the paper was, that the cause should be remitted back to Scotland, with instructions, and a new trial take place before the Jury Court. The proper question in issue to battled being, whether the deeds, though apparently probative Loma silents, and as such to be received as the deeds of the Earl of Fife, were respectively the deeds of the Earl of Fife? and after the trial the Court is to proceed in the Cause as shall be meet. His Lordship observed, that both the parties had justifiable • grounds for bringing the important question to the issue it had attained; that no mural blame could attach to either of them; they did their duty. The Noble and Learned Lord next mentioned the appe o al f " Sir John D. Fowler and an other v. Doe." He added, that if be were called upon to give his judgment now, as to whether there should, or not, be a venire de now, be could feel no hesita tion in declaring on the affirmative side. But it ought to be re collected that this appeal came by a Bill of Exceptions in a cause tried upon the Circuit; and, as such appeals were eattemely rare, he would propose that the present cause should be post along U the next Session s oft liament, thee to he taken up a with the appeal of on the demise of Beach v. the Earl of Jersey."—Ordered. Counsel were called in upon the appeal of " Douglas v. Col quhoun," when Mr. Sugden was heard in conclusion for the re spondent, and the Attorney-General in reply.—Adjourned at four o'clock, during pleasure; and at five the House resumed. The Bari GROSVENOR was nut satisfied with the ex planation he received on a former night, with regard to certain otters which appeared to be reserved in fee. He alluded more particularly to the situation of Clerk of the Parliament in Ire lands and, again, to the office of Lord Justice General in Scot land. He knew it was rather too lateen the- Session to institute proper inquiries, but he wished some distinct pledge that re trenchment would be completed neat Session. Tile Earl of LIVERPOOL here remarked, that all he could say upon these topics was, nearly what he bad found occuion to sta te before. Whenever ie office of Clerk of Parliament should become fairly vacant, or when the freehold interest of the pre sent holder should expire, it was not the intention of his Ma jesty's Government to renew this office till its propriety had been submitted to the consideration of Parliament. With re spect to the other officer mentioned by the Noble Lord opposite, th r duties and requirements of that officer ware already in a due course of investigation, and the result would come before their, Lordships in the ordinary way. Lord HOLLAND had a Petition to present, which he held in his hand, but which, he was aware, was somewhat irregular. It referred to a particular Bill, no longer upon the table of the House; and, although he had no ambition to appear in the cha racter of a resurrectionist, he hoped to be indulged so far as to he enabled to revive the feeling that prevailed in favour of one rejected hill. The Petition he nosy tendered was to have come before their Lordships on a former MLitt, but having gone out for two minutes, he found, upon his return, that this very Bill (Scottish Juries) had been lost. Ile now begged to present a Petition from the Burgh of Invernees, in favour of the rejected measure, which, be was assured, the Judges of Scotland could' have wished to see pass into a law.—The Petition was shortly read, and laid upon the table of this I louse. TUB LIMERICK. TAXATION BILL. The E ill of LIVERPOOL now moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the City of Li merick Taxation and Regulation Bill. The Earl of CLARE spoke in favour of the Bill. The Lola) CHANCELLOR felt it his duty to h:tee interposed at an earlier stage of the present Bill, and_peihaps he owed an apology to their Lordships for not having sooner noticed this Bill, till it had at tained its pte.ent growth. *With respect to many of the enactments it contained, when their Lordships were told that they were enacted to correct and coon-. to act the abuses of the body corporate, it should be remembered that peccadilloes of this complexion ozvglit always, in the very first instance, to be sub. mined to the Courts below ; then, if such abuses could not be so remeeied, there was a fair pretence for applying to Parliament ; but it appeared that their Lordllips were now called upon to legislate for the avoidance of abuses which might be remedied by the subordinate Courts, and therefore ought not at present to have come before the highest Court. It w as useless to ask, because it was impossible to know, where this species of legislative interference would end. Non-resident freemen wet e, it seemed, no longer to be made by the Corporation. Now, by a decision of the other House, such freemen we r e p rohibited from voting at elections for Members of it, but the right of making them was reserved; and, he would ask, what right had Parliament to take away that privilege from the Corporation? He apprehended, too, that whatever was proposed by the p resent Bill could be much better done, bekause more legally, by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council, as the sworn r epresentative of the King. While upon this subject he would call ;.heir attention tow age 12 of the Bill, which enacted a jurisdiction he elieved to be perfectly_ new to this country, and riven to Ireland; and here, it the complaints of the goad people of Limerick were well founded, with respect to the ex haustion of their Corporate funds, he could give his Limerick friends much joy,. as there was, prospec tively, no reasonable end to the litigations which might embarrass them. How was it possible, for instance, that any Act of Parliament should hereafter say that no Mayor of Limerick should have more than 000 a year? For if this estimate were admitted in part, then some other Mayors might be considered not entitled to one half they had. lie would not, if their Lordships came to any vote, oppose the passing of the Bat remedially, but he trusted that it never would be considered as a precedent for similar Bills. Lord REDESDALE went over the clauses of the Bill, and deprecated all such summary proceedings with regard to Corporations as it provided for; for such proceedings ought never to be had where the subject in litigation might become the matter of a suit. He could assure their Lordships that his ob jections to the Bill were wholly of a public nature ; for, if he felt otherwise on the subject, his wish to assist its progress would, from recollections of the family of the Noble Mover (Clare), and from friend• ship to some Noble Lords who. supported the Bill, overpower all resistance on his part. If, abiding by the Charter of die Corporation of Limerick, there was no necessity for the Bill, the result was clear; ; and even if it were otherwise, he would protest to the: interference of Parliament as it respected that Char ter. The present Bill made the Mayor and Alder-', ' men and Common-Councilmen of the city of Lintesl rick just nothing at all. trenacted, fog example, that about 2000 persons, and those aniong the lowest classes in society, should meet, debate questions, and t hus, at their pleasure, be compe tent to controul the C orpor ation. Now, let it be here inquired, if such were r eally the Constitution provided by the Charter, of Limerick? If it really were so, he would respond well but if this representation did not answer to that specific Constitution, then, by the present I Bill, their Lordships were creating a new Constitu- . 1 lion for Limericks and if their Lordships did pro ceed to create .such a Corporate Constitution, not under the Great Seal, but merely by Act of Parlia ment, what remedy then remained for such abuses as might take place ander that Act, except by passing an additional Act to redress them? .He was pleased that the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Wool sack had aUuded to that portion of the Bill limiting and specifying the salaries of the officers who might happen to belong to the Corporation of Limerick ; it was possible that the citizens might become more af fluent, so as to look down with disdain on the im portance of a Mayor, who was stinted to a salary of £500; and, in this exigency or dilemma, what must be done? Another Act of Parliament would be re quired in order to provide for an additional salary. His sense of duty to their Lordships had prompted him to address them upon this subject; and if they should think proper to pass the Bill, he could only say that it would certainly be no fault of his. The Marquis of LANSDOWN, in reply, felt satis fied of the expediency, legality, and justice of the Bill ; and, therefore, he trusted that their Lordships would not refuse to sanction it. Earl MANVERS spoke a few sentences in favour of the Bill. The question was then put from the Woolsack, when the Noble and Learned Lord declared that the Contents had it; upon. which the Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be sent to the other House. IRELAND TITHES COMPOSITION BILL. The Earl of LIVERPOOL now moved the Order of the Day upon which their Lordships had been summoned, for consideting the Amendments made in the Tithes (Ireland) Composition Bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWN (the Order of the Day being read) observed, that he wished to obtain the omission of a certain clause in the Bill which ren dered the proprietors of agistment lands liable to compulsory compositions for tithes. The Earl of WESTMORLAND could perceive no valid objection to this particular clause. Lord LIVERPOOL said, that looking to the value of agistment property, and the number of votes which the holder had, he was not sure that a fair option was given to the holder of agistment land. At the pre sent moment agistment land was only relieved from tithe under certain conditions ; for if that land were mown or broken up, it would immediately be sub ject to tithe. The composition, therefore, would, in a great measure, relieve the owner of agistment land, as it would enable him to mow or break up his land, or use it in any manner that he pleased. He would maintain, then, that this being optional, and the pro perty being of the nature which he had described, there would be no injustice done by this measure to the bolder of agistment land. . The Marquis of LANSDOWN explained. Lord MARYBOROUGH thought that the great recommendation of the Bill was, that it brought for ward the agistment lands of Ireland in aid of those poor persons who were paying tithe, without doing any injustice to the owners of agistment land. He thought that the measure would be imperfect, and not likely to afford that relief which he expected it would, if this clause should be emitted. lie admitted that in one point of view this clause might appear a compulsory clause tit on the owners of agistment land, but he felt that this would afford great relief to Ireland ; and their Lordships might form some idea of the extent of agistment land, when lie informed them that about ten years ago that land comprised one-half of Ireland. This clause would give the most general satisfaction in Ireland; and he there fore hoped that the Noble Marquis would withdraw his opposition to it. • The Earl of I3LESSINGTON opposed the clause. The Earl of BELNIORE said, that however expe dient the clause might be, it certainly was not just. If it were conceded that agistment land was liable to tithe, it might next be contended that every descrip tion of property in Ireland was equally" liable: But there were other parts of the Bill which, Vile did not take an incorrect view of them, were very objec tionable. There was the oath of the Commissioners, in which the words" adequate compensation" occurred. What lie wanted to know was, what would be termed an adequate compensation? The Noble Lord oppo site had said that the Clergy did not 'receive one-half of their tithes, and a Reverend Bishop had stated their receipts at oise.tsventieth. If this were so, what ought to be the rule by which the COmmissioners were to direct an adequate compensation? He con fessed that he could consider this Bill in no other view - than as a Bill intended to give to the Irish Clergy rights which have never yet been insisted on. The Noble Earl noticed some other objectionable parts of the Bill. 1 " The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed that there was nothirig imposed upon the Commissioners, except the . duty of executing their charge without favour to any party. The one-fifth which the Commissioners were empowered to give over the average value of the last seven years, was intended. only to apply to • those cases in which the last seven years would furnish a very unfair valuation, because, in some parts of Ire land, no tithes whatever had been paid during the last seven years. - The Earl of BLESSINGTONsaid, that if the inten tion of this Bill was, as his N Friend near him had stated, to put the Clergy land into a better o a r situation—(No! front Lord pool)—he could assure their Lordships that the Clergy were in no want of such a measure. At the period of the Union, the Bock of the Irish Clergy amounted to one million; and according to the last cittr, they did not exceed 400,000. He did not etc see why, with a charge'sci considerably reduced, they should receive an increased stipend. Lord MARTIOROUGH and the Earl of BILMORE itaverally explained. The Bishop of DOWN said, that though this Bill might not at first work as happily as they could wish, yet he believed that if there was a disposition on both sides to conciliate, it would at last be a beneficial measure for Ireland. Lord DARNLEY concurred in the wishes of the Rev. Prelate, although he confessed that be was not very sanguine in his expectation. If the operation of the Bill were to take the burthen from the poor, and place it uponthe shoulders of the rich, be should be most anxious, in common with- all other Irish landed proprietors, to support the Bill ; but it was in many respects imperfect, and if he suffered let, Pass without opposition it was not from. approbation of its enactments, but that he hailed it as a first step towards ameliorating the condition of.the people of that unfortunate country. Lord CLIFDEN, alluding to the difficulty of col lecting tithe, and the outrages that originated in the present system, referred to the late transact i o n at Skibbereen, in Ire county of Cork, and to a similat outrage committed in the county of Armagh, - in each of which a number of lives had been lost, thus prov ing that similar evils grew out of the system in the opposite extremities of that country. Nothing could, in his opinion, produce tranquillity in Ireland, unless the seven millions of its inhabitants at present suffer ing under disabilities were restored to their rights. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said he would not press the clause to a division. The Bishop of DOWN and Lord CLIFDEN explained. The Bill was then ordered to be read a third to-morrow. IRISH MUMMA DILL. The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the third read ing of the Churches (Ireland) Bill, which he contended would have one desirable effect at least, that of re diming the rate from six to four per cent. Lord HOLLAND opposed the Bill, which he con-' sidered a very extraordinary one, contending that it was pot calculated to be a measure of relief; and re marked upon the extraordinary circumstance of there being no less than eight preambles to it. The Noble Lord then proceeded to state variety of circum stances, under which the Bill would be a measure of oppression, particularly upon the Catholic portion of the parishioners, who would be called upon to build church, which not only they, but no other inhabi tant of the parish would ever eater. It was notori ous, that there were many parishes in Ireland which did not contain a single Protestant. There was an in stance mentioned to him by a Noble Friend of a Rec tor receiving on a Sunday morning a note from the Parish Clerk to the following purport—" She is un well—therefore you need not come to-day."—Who was " she ?" Was it the Church ? No. It was the con gregation—the sexton's mother (loud lan fhter)--she being the sole Protestant in the parish. Tile Bill was artfully constructed ; ittontained a clause of appa• rent wisdom and justice, empowering those who should pay the rate to vote at vestries; but a little farther on there was another clause, which excluded persons, who were declared to be at present incompe tent by the general law of Ireland. By this hypocri tical clause was Catholics disabled to vcte, although the preceding one affected to render them eligible. He would now ask, was Ireland at the present mo ment in a situation which rendered new measures of penalty or insult either politic or just?—(Hear, hear.) Was it even decent, he would ask, for that House at the close of a Session, anti when so few of its Mem bers were present, to press the third reading of such a Bill ? Had that Bill come before the House at an earlier period of the Session, he would at that stage have moved its recommittal : at present, however, he should only move such an amendment as would produce a little delay, and thereby enable Noble Lords to attend to its enactments, and come fully prepared to discuss it. The Noble Lord moved, as an amend ment, That the Bill be read that day three weeks. The Bishop of DOWN supported the Bill. Lord CLIFDEN opposed the Bill, and entreated of their Lordships not to pass it in the then state of the House, and at that advanced period of the Ses sion. He considered as absurd one argument used in favour of the Bill, namely, that building churches would tiling flocks; and he again pressed upon their Lordships the necessity for their proving the quo aniato by which they meant to act towards Ireland, by emancipating the Catholics of that country. The Earl of LIVERPOOL denied that the Bill, as asserted by the Noble Lord (Holland), went to entail a new obligation upon the Catholics of Ireland. He was not then discussing whether or not it was just that the Catholics should at all contribute towards the building of churches ; but so long as the law re mained in force as applying to parishioners in general, it was proper that it should be enforced, and must not be considered as a hardship upon any particular class. Lord HOLLAND and the Bishop of Down explained. Lord DARNLEY protested against the doctrine laid down by the Right Rev. Prelate (Down), and supported the proposition of his Noble Friend / The Bill was then read a third time, and passed without a division. The House then adjourned. The apprehension that the Silk Manufacturers' Bill, to repeal the " Spitalfields Regulations," would be read a third time yesterday, again drew considerable numbers of the weavers about the entrances to the House of Lords. They again conducted themselves in the most orderly manner, carefully avoiding any obstruction about the entrances to their Lordships' House. Soon after five o'clock they began to disperse, having ascertained that the third reading would not be moved till a subsequent day.—The evidence was not generally delivered till yesterday ; and as the lat ter portions of it are deemed of great importance, being mainly occupied with demonstrating the dis advantages of the existing "Regulations," controlling the trade, it was considered advisable not to press the third reading till the whole of the evidence, filling nearly 900 folio pages, might have been duly ex amined by their Lordships. To afford such oppor tanity-, the third reading is made an Order of the Day for to-morrow. In the event of the Bill re ceiving the sanction of the Lords on Wednesday, of which no doubts are entertained, the Bill, it is at pre sent expected, will not receive the Royal Assent b l Commission, but it will be given to it by his Majesty in person, on the prorogation of Parliament, on Fri day or S aturday next. Fonantr Eoca.—The following is an account of the number of Foreign Eggs imported into Great Britain in the year ending .sth January, 1823 (at a duty of 1041.-per 120), distinguishing the countries from which the same were imported, with the amount of duty received thereon; Denmark - - - Holland Flanders France Guernsey and Jersey - - Total quantity imported 50,644,025 Amount of Duty received £17,167 16s. STRAW Hars.—lt appears, by a Return made to Parliament, that in the year ending the sth of April, 1823, there were 176,045 straw bats or bonnets im ported from America into Britain, and 3512 pounds of straw platting. . 240 120 - .949,263 - 49,425,124 - 2e9,278 - THE EVENING STAR. LONDON. TUESDAY, JULY 15, 18'23. THE FUNDS. STOCK EXCHANGE, TWELVE O'CLOCK. Consols opened this morning at 831, I, and have risen at this hour to 83k, a, with a brisk Market ; for the next Accoun t 831 to 84. -.14r FOREIGN FUNDS. Spanish Bonds opened this morning at .321, and French Scrip at 2*, with little doing. Current Prices :—New Spanish 321, New Prussims 9.5, Ras. elan 931 j, Danish 171, olitan ?5, Colombian .561 to , French Scrip 21 to /. PRICE OF STOCKS AT ONE.O'CLOCE. Bank Ftock 224% 224 1 / 2 • 3 per Cent - . Reti - s iced 8`27 4 . 3 per Ct. Cons. U 2 Sis 82% ex. div. 3 1 / 2 per Cts. y,. Cts. Old 99 5 /s 100,99:i " 4 per Cents. New 100 3 , - ; 3 •101 100% n ex. air. Illnk Long Annuit . es 21 1-16 lndia Eonds 49.3.505. 021,000)24.5. 275. prem. Ditto Small 245. ( 28s.—India for Acct. 200 Cons. for Acct. tz.Pr, • In the STAR of yesterday, we gave a copious eh. street of the demi-official article from St. refers N a g% which may be considered as mach a vindication all the Powers of tie Holy Afliance its of the Ernpe. ror of ItuestA in particular. The Viy i'e reaVnliitg on which the attack on Spain is attemptei to be tified, and the imperfect data on witic:, the triumph of the policy is inferred, we sufficientli exposed ; but there is one part of this Manifesto which gill requires notice: it is that portion of it which relates to the British Cabinet. We stated yesterday, that the wilt? " did not seem very well acquainted e:r:.tr. wit:: th. liberal views of our Ministers, or the manner in hicli they were directed towards preserving peace:" indcei, we might have said that the conduct of our Govers ment has been either pet': erted or misunderstood,• " Lord LIVERPOOL," says this Manifesto," has blamed FERDINAND for not having fulfilled the promises re specting the organization of the State, which was made in 1814. But we apprehend that his Lord ship did not weigh the difficulty of introducing into a country like Spain new and extensive changes, after it had just been making every sacrifice for its old in. stitutions." This construction of the opinion of Loid Lyra. POOL is by no means a fair one. His Lord-hip did not blame the King of SPAIN because he refused to make new and extensive changes, but because he did not adhere to the declaration he issued ; nor as,errNe the Cortes as he promised. His Lordship, in the de bate in the House of Lords on the 14th April, to %lia the Manifesto alludes, observed, that although oil the King of SPAIN'S restoration in 1814, our Ambassa dor at Madrid recommended his MAJESTY to accclt the Constitution of the Cortes subject to modifica tions, yet " he would say that he would not regret that the King of SPAIN had taken si different course from that which our Minister recommended, had Li MAJESTY only adhered to the promises he made when he refused to accept the Constitution, on Oa ground that it was not conforniable to the wishes of the people. But at the same time that he rejected the Constitution which was offered to him, he issued a Declaration" in which he recognised the principles of a limited Monarchy, and promised to assemble the Cortes." " Had this course been adopted," conti• nued his Lordship, " he was far from thinking that either Spain or Europe would have had any reason to regret his Catholic MAJESTY'S determination. But, notwithstanding this strong and voluntary declass tion, no Cortes were assembled. Not only were they not assembled, but a courie of misgovernment was pursued, which made the events of 1820, however unexpected, be viewed without regret by any one." Such being the opinion of his Lordship, and 011 which the British Cabinet acted, it must excite some surprise to find this Manifesto declaring a belief that di no difference respecting the cause of the war rear exists" between Lord LIVERPOOL and his Colleague; and that of the other Ministers at Verona. But dm point will be best settled by a reference to the di* matic documents. The Petersburgb Manifesto says id the Allied.Som reigns not only approved the interference of Franco in the affairs of Spain, but even invited the King of France to employ it. The only difference with the English Cabinet was about the mode of interference• It merely objected to the entrance of French troops into Spain L this was all."—And again, a England did not fear anything from the war, but from its pot sible consequences, it apprehended that the new policy which disinterestedly seeks the repose of Ea rope, might degenerate into the old policy, where iir terest predominated—it feared nothing else. This was the sole ground on which England refused ke assent to the war—for, in the principles which led to the war, it agreed with the other Powers." A more erroneous view of the policy of the Bridge Cabinet could not h ire been taken. It is not only unser ported by any official or unofficial declaration, but k is contradicted by the positive evidence of facts—b/ our Protests and Remonstrances at Verona, by do declarations ef the Ministers in Pakiarnent—by oar attempting to renew the negociations at Path es dissuade France from the war, anti by our continuing our Ambassador accredited, to the Spanish Gome• ~; Orel vial oar mai 41 a o►~ uUi tesi mu me Bri cat circ dan terf aSt4 rl of