Star. — London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

' • - . half hour they had been dscussing without any ques tion beke the House. If the Noble and Learned Lord, whawas vidocious to save the time of the House, would propose something in the shape of an amendment, that object would be more easily attained. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—If the Noble Lord says that I wish to save time,, I shall tell him in the most civil manner that he is mistaken, and that I am as little anxious to save time as himself. If there is no question before the House, my observations have only gone before it. I maintain that the retrospective clause ought not to be discussed until all the other clauses of the Bill should be gone *through ; and in order to place a question, before the House, I move that the consideration of that clause be postponed. The question having been put, The Earl of 611 A FTESBU.RY, as Chairman of the Committee, declared that the Not Contents had it.. The LORD CHANCELLOR demanded a divi sion, when there appeared—. Contents - - - r 40 Nut Contents Majority against the Amendment,- Lord ELLENBOROUGH expressed his intention to carry back the retrospective clause to the marriages which had taken place since the passing of the Mar riage Act in Mt. It would do no more than what was done by the clause in that Act relative to Banns, which confirmed all clandestine marriages in which Banns had been proclaimed. He allowed that it might diminish the happiness of a few, but it would be that of the libertine husband, who was desirous of getting rid of a wife of whose person he was satiated, and of children whom he no longer wished to sup port—it was that of the heir at law who had enjoyed { in anticipation that property to which justice gave him no claim. But, on the other hand, it would in crease the happiness of the good and the virtuous, and would make those who married certain that their children would be legitimate and would inherit their honours and their fortunes. He then proposed, in order to preserve property in the hands into which it had devolved, so that nothing should be affected by the Bill save reversionary interests, that the following exceptionary provisoes be added to the clause: " Ist. Provided it he not construed to extend to marriages declated invalid by judgments in the Ecclesiastical Court, or to any marriages, when one of the parties, during the life of the ocher party, has intermarried with other persons. " .lily. Provided that if any property. real or personal, or any title of honour be possessed or enjoyed before the passing of this Act, on the ground, pretence, or colour of the invalidity of any marriage by reason of such consent not being had before its Solemnization, although no judgment should have been pro nouncea in any Court of Law against the validity of such mar riage, such right and interest in such property or title shall in no ma:.:its• be affected by this Act, but shall remain as if this Act had never passed." The LORD CHANCELLOR declared, that after what had passed, he should take no part on the Amendment proposed by the Noble Earl, but should reserve to himself the privilege of debating on the last stage of the Bill, when he should know what its clauses were.—On the question that the clause, as amended, do pass, being put, The Earl of LIVERPOOL expressed his intention to move the following additional proviso :•. 46 Pro vided the said clause be not construed to extend to any suit now instituted, or to be instituted within twelve months from the passing of this Act." Lord HOLLAND contended that such a proviso would defeat the whole object of the clause. He called upon the Committee to consider duly the mag nitude of the evil against which the clause was di rected, and that the existing law had proved more unjust and injurious, and had produced more immo rality and unhappiness than any other law which had ever been enacted. The question was, whether their Lordships would make any atonement and repara tion for the injury inflicted by that law as it stood ? It said to the virtuous matron surrounded with chil dren, because when you were a minor 15, 16, or 17 years of age, you did not institute an inquiry into the conduct of your mother and your grandmother, you shall be visited by the most- terrible of all penal ties, your honour shall be taken from you, and your . children shall be declared illegitimate. Was it such a law which ought to be supported, or the repeal of which ought to be delayed? The Noble Lord argued strongly 'against the existing law, and asked whe ther their Lordships would require that a girl of 15 should understand the law, when even those who were educated for the legal profession were allowed to be ignorant of it, or at least to differ in opinion upon its construction? He trusted their Lot dships would not suffer the Bill to pass without the retro spective clause. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that with the feel ings which he entertained of the sacredness of the marriage contract, he could not consent to the pro- position of the Noble Earl. The two first Amendments of Lord ELLENBOROUGH were then put and carried. Upon the third clause being read, upon the subjectof property, The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he must beg to state his opinion that this clause meant much mote than the Noble Lord intended it should. Lord HOLLAND suggested that, with the Noble Lord's critical accuracy of language, he might supply an Amendment which would only bear the intended meaning. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained, and said, the object of the Noble Lord (Ellenborough) could be defeated in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred un der the terms of his clause. After a few observations from Lord REDESDALE, the clause was put and carried. The proviso proposed by the Earl of LIVERPOOL was then put. The Earl of HARROW BY objected to such a course, upon the ground that it would give rise to many suits that never would otherwise have been in stituted. Ile moved as an amendment that the words " to be instituted within twelve months," be left out. After a few words from Lords ELLENROROOGII and KING, the Amendment was put and carried. Upon the motion that the clause, as amended, do stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided, when time appeared— For thc Clause - - - - 42 Against it Majnri:y - - - - —l6 - discussion then took place upon the clause relative to •of banns. Lord nEDIUDALS having some clauses was agreed, upon the understaatlint that his Lord. should be ready to-ntorrow, to adjourn the Coln. that accordingly. HOMO! OF COIEWONt -, ‘ Sir W. LEMON pr7t a T Petiden friss certain Coyly of Thb, in the County of I, prayer's de whole of the Salt Tax may be repel' .—Ordered to be printed. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition front John Knight, of Manchester, late a prisoner it Lancaster fail, for a political offence, complaining of ill-treatment.—'lle Petition being reed, Mr. B. V ILBRAH A M stated, that many of the allegations of the Petitioner were fallacious. Nit . . Alderman WOOD could not be in possendon of the real facts of the case, but the Petitioner appeared to have been put to hard labour, which, by his sentence, by was not liable to. — Ordered to be printed. Sir R. SHAW moved for a Return of the net amount of . Win dow and Hearth Tax, paid in Ireland within the last seven y ea rs, distinguishing the amount for each year.—Orderod. Sir It. SHAW presented a Petition from the Parish of St. Mary's Dublin, praying a repeal of certain Assessed Taxes.— Ordered to be printed. Mr. WESTERN gave notice, that on some day during the Session be would submit to the House some Resolutions decla ratory of the general distress of the country, and particularly of the Agricultural Classes, and also descriptive of the extent to which the change in the currency bad operated the present Mate of the country. • Mr. Secretary PEEL postponed the Committee on the Alien Bill to the 24th instant; and gave notice of a motion on the sub ject of the Psdice of the Metropolis, for the sth of July. Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from the Tanners of Drog heda praying a repeal of the Reda Duties on Leather.—Or derect to be printed. Dr. LUSIIINGTON moved, that a new Writ be issued for a Member to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Camelford, in the room of the Earl of Yarmouth, now Marquis of Ilert ford.—Ordt red. On the motion of the Marquis of Tscurtxr.o, a new Writ was ordered to be issued for the return of a Member in the room of Lord Walpole now Earl of Orford. The Marquis of TICHFIELD presented a Petition from the Tradesmen of the town of Worksop, com plaining of the in , crease of the number of Hawkers and Pedlars. Mr. HUME thought that it would be extremely illiberal to adopt any restrictions against hawking and pedling. It was com petent to these shopkeepers to become hawkers and pedlars if they pleased.—The Petition was ordered to be printed. The Corn Importation Bill was read a third time and passed. Sir WILLIAM ROW LEY presented a Petition from the Parish of Milford, in Suffolk, complaining of Agricultural Dis tress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform. Mr. COKE seconded the prayer of the Petition, and spoke of the respectability of the Petitioners. They had met with every discouragement front the Magistrates of the County, who would not convene a Meeting according to their request, and they had long lost all confidence in the Honourable Member opposite for the County.—(Henn) Mr. GOOCH said that the Hon. Member opposite spoke as though be were the Emperor of the whole Landed Interest of the Country. He was convinced the Magistrates had acted jus tifiably; and as for the Petitioners having lost confidence in him, they never gave him any confidence, nor he them. Mr. WESTERN thought that Magistrates acting in this way, to the interdiction of petitioning ought to undergo to inquiry, in that House, and were deserving of the utmost reprobation. Mr. HUME said that was one of the many instances of the impropriety of putting Clergymen into the Commission of the Peace.—The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. LEATHER TAIL.—IRELAND. Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a Petition from the Tan ners of Waterford against the Leather Tax, and also against the mode of assessing it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had always thought the mode of assessing the duty on Leather in Ireland injudicious, and he was only waiting for the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry to introduce some measure to alter it. Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON said any alteration would be acceptable to the persons interested in this trade in Ireland. After a few words from Mr. V. FII247ZRALD, the Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' assent to the Goods Importation Repeal Bill, and certain private Bills. PUNISHMENT OF HARD LABOUR. Mr. COURTENAY rose, in pursuance to the no tice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the infliction of hard labour upon offences which were not now visited by that punishment. As many Honourable Members had spoken to him upon the subject, and entertained a favourable view of the Bill, he hoped there would be no objection to his mo tion. He would briefly state its object, which was to annex the punishment of hard labour to persons im prisoned for certain felonies and misdemeanours. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Hon. Member to leave this new power at the discretion of the Judges ? Mr. COURTENAY replied, that the punishment would be applied to specified cases.—Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. COUNTY COURT. Mr. LENNARDpresente4la Petition from certain Tradesmen and others in London and Middlesex, complaining of what they described to be malprac tices in the County Court. Mr. COURTENAY was convinced that this Peti tion did not proceed from any considerable body of the respectable Householders of Middlesex. The Ho nourable Member deprecated the means which had been adopted by the Petitioners before the presenta tion of the Petition. He contended, that if there was ground of complaint, a proper application to the Chief Justice would remedy it. As the law which established the Court provided a check over its Of ficers, he thought persons ought not to be allowed to come with es-pane statements, for the purpose of re cording malicious charges against the Judges of the Court, without giving them the means of repelling them. As this was his view of the case, he should move the rejection of the Petition. Dr. LUSHINGTON expressed his astonishment at the course adopted by his Honourable and Learned Friend, in charging the 4000 individuals who signed the Petition with malicious motives. They were called upon to reject the Petition, and to disbelieve its statements, upon the ipso disk of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He contended that the subject was one which demanded attention, and he could not help feeling some indignation at this attempt to abridge the right of Petition. Mr. H. SUMNER supported the Amendment. Mr. H. G. BENNET contended, that instead of rejecting the Petition, the House were bound to enter into an investigation of the complaint. He thought there was no confidence to be placed in the Court of King's Bench, as to the regulation► of offices, for that House was the only power which could keep the Courts of Law in order. The fees of all the Courts ought to be reduced. He supported the Petition: The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the Act of Parliament fixed a very summary punishment to the Officer who exacted more fees than were his due, namely, that of removing him from his office. If any of these 4000 Gentlemen could therefore prove the charge they had made, an application to the Court of King's Bench was all that was necessary to have the Act of Parliament enforced. If it was meant to say that such an application would be disregarded, ! he could only say that such an assertion would be the most extraordinary one he had ever heard. Mr. HUME supported the Petition, and contended that the House ought to go into an inquiry upon the `charges which it contained. He was surprised at the course pursued-if the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman, considering , that these Courts had been so frequently accused in that House. He should have thought that he had been anxious to uphold the cha racter of the Court, not only as free from blame, but above imputation. Mr. WYNN entirely concurred in the opposition of his Honourable and Learned Friend to this Peti tion. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, as to whether the complaint was well or ill founded; but so long as he knew that there were tiibunals ap pointed by Act of Parliiment, fur the hearing of these complaints, he would oppose their being brought be fore that House. Such conduct would be turning justice out of its course, and giving greater facility for the libelling of private character ; and were they ever to give way to such a precedent, instead of sit ting till July they would sit till Christmas. Mr. HOBHOUSE had often witnessed the rejec tion of petitions by that House, against his private judgment; but he must saj, that on the present oc casion he thought the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen opposite were carrying the joke too far. It WAS clear the petitioners thought they had a case of such abuse as called for a change of the law ; and how was that to be done if they were to be sent back to those sources for redress of which they complained, or if ' the House refused to entertain their statement of that abuse? Colonel WOOD could not admit that petitions should be laid upon the table of that house contain ing charges against individuals on which it was not intended to take any further steps. If there were any thing serious in the allegations of the petitioners, the proper way to deal with them would be to go into a Committee of Inquiry. That could not be done this Session, but rnitiht next, and a Bill to alter the law, if necessary, be brought in. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR confessed he did not like the conduct of Hon. Members who got up in that House to assist in stifling inquiry into abuses in Courts of Law. He thought the House could not with safety to their own characters, reject this Petition. Ac for that House taking care of the characters of the Judges, he should say, let them take care of themselves. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH thought the Petition ought not to be rejected. Mr. CURWEN said he was so satisfied from his knowledge of the individual complained of in the Pe•• titian, that he could satisfactorily answer that com plaint, that he hoped the Hon. Gentleman opposite would withdraw his opposition, and allow the Peti tion to lie on the table. It would not be half so satis factory to that individual, Mr. Heath, if the House were to reject the Petition, and thereby deprive him of all expectation of seeing the charges against him answered. He was the more induced to make this request, from understanding that it was the intention of the Hon. Member presenting the Petition, at some early period, to move the House to proceed to an investigation of the contents of it. Mr. COURTENAY said, that if the Hon. Mem ber who presented the Petition would give an as surance that he would take some steps to procure an investigation into the allegations of the Petition, he would give up his opposition to its being received ; but without that he could not consent to allow the Petition to lie on the table. Mr. LENNARD could not, at this late period of the Session, give any pledge of the nature required. Mr. CREEVEY said he thought the Right Hon. President of the Board of Controul, and the Hon. Commissioner behind him, seemed determined to establish the character of that House for insanity— (4 leugh).—He wanted to send those Petitions to the Court of King's Bench, the certain consequence of which would be, that the Chief Justice of that Court would send them back to Parliament. Mr. WYNN explained that his objection was not I to the prayer, but to the allegations of the Petition ; and from time immemorial it had been the practice 'to reject Petitions on objectionable allegations. Mr. ROBINSON hoped, that after what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Cut:- wen) his Hon. Friend (Mr. Courtenay) would feel I that his objection to the Petition being received was removed. He begged, however, to state, that I e did not, by admitting the Petition on the understanding that it was intended to promote inquiry upon it, pledge himself to support such inquiry. Mr. COURTENA Y consented to withdraw his op- position; but he put it to the candour of the Hon. I Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lennard) to endeavour to prove his charge. The Petition was then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table. LICENSING MAGISTRATES. Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from an indivi dual of the name of Briddle, residing in the neigh bourhood of Ilchester, complaining of his license as a publican being taken away on the false representa tion of a personal enemy, made to the Magistrates of the district. The Hon. Member observed that their conduct would not appear extraordinary when it was known that they were two of the notor►ous visiting Magistrates of Ilchester jail. The Petitioner stated, that he had been deprived of his license upon an in dividual stating that the parish in which he was did not require a public-house, whereas they suffered great inconvenience for want of one. He defied any one to state that he had ever been guilty of any dis orderly or improper conduct, or permitted such in his house, and the High Constable who had declared that to the Magistrates, had been the object of perse cution since. The Petitioner also hinted that it was in consequence of his having joined in the rejoicings which followed the termination of the proceedings against the late Queen, that hislicense had been taken from him. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that although the House might decide against rejecting a Petition on account of the charges it contained against private character, yet he was sure they were not disposed to refuse to hear the answer to charges against an indi vidual, having listened to those charges—(llcar). This he was sure would be the feelhig of the House, more particularly in cases where the conduct ofollicial persons, in the discharge of their public duty, Ras called in question. The Hon. Member, in the pre sent instance, had broughtforward a complaint against two Magistrates, one of whom he (Mr. Secretary Nei) knew to be most highly respectable, and of the other of whom he had no reason for suppoaing, the contrary. The names of those two Gentlemen wcie Woodford and Phillips, and the presenting of this Pe tition having been intimated to them he was prepared with the answer, to which he entreated the House to listen, and having done so, he would challenge any other conclusion from their statement than that they had acted with perfect integrity, and that the alleea. Lions of the Petition were false. The statemeni. of Mr. Woodford, in the letter which he held in his hand, waa, that Some time preceding the last general li censing day he received a complaint from one or t h e Churchwardens of the parish of the irregularities cif Wm. liriddle, and of the disorder and inconvenienee created in consequence of his improper. conduct in the regulatiOn of his house. . He Stated that persons were kept there in a state of intoxication for several successive days ; that the paupers were encouraged to spend their parish allowances there in drunkenness and idleness, and that the parish had been thrown i nto great confusion and disorder by these practices. M r Woodford's answer was, that although he was not bound to assign any reason for not renewing a license, he did not chuse to deprive a man of his means of livelihood without his being confronted by his accuser, and told the Churchwarden that he must appear on the licensing day to prefer his complaint. He also stated, that he received a complaint from a worries that her husband had been seduced to remain in this man's house for three days, which he had never done before, in a state of drunkenness. He desired her to go and demand him, upon which she received ill usage and blows from •the publican. This woman and the Churchwarden did appear on the licensing day, and preferred the charges in the man's presence, and upon their representation the license had been refused. Now he must say that it was a most shameful insi- , nuation that Mr. Woodford had been actuated by po litical motives in dischai ging the fuections of his of fice in this case; and in answer to that, that Gentle man candidly declared, that his opinion was well known to be adverse to the mode of proceedings pur sued towards the late Queen. How then was it pos sible that this insinuation could be otherwise than false? Mr. Phillips gave the same account, and said, that through the kindness of his solicitor this man was enabled, a few years ago, to obtain redress for some injustice he had suffered. It also appeared that he had been warned for the last three years ag ainst the course he had been pursuing, and told of t he con sequence of it. He asked then if it eas possible that individual Magistrates could make a better use of their discretionary power than these Gentlemen had done ?e--(Hear, /tear).—He asked too, what feeling of justice the Hon. Member himself could be actu ated by in raising an unfair prejudice from a false in ference as regarded this case, by connecting these Gentlemen with Ilchester jail ?—(Hear, heat). The Petitioner had received frequent warnings, and after all was only deprived of his license ueon charges pre ferred against him when he was present to answer thern—(Hear, hear). Mr. DICKENSON defended the conduct of the Magistrates, upon whom he thought there was net the slightest imputation. They had refused to act on an ex qfficia infot matron, and besides warning the Pe titioner before, hart given hie, every chance of ex culpating himself on the licensing day. Mr. BENNET admitted that the statement of the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) was most satisfeca tory, but he could not help obset ring, that it would be much better to put in practice the laws against such disorderly conduct, than take a course v. Itich deprived a man and his family of their livelihood. Mr. JAMES, in moving that the Petition be re ceived, observed that he never meant to vouch for the truth of.the allegations of the Petition, and wes net aware of any unworthy conduct on his part in pre senting the Petition. He was told that no coted be said against the conduct of the Petitioner, and that there was only one day in the year when his house was in a disorderly and tumultuous state, and that was when the Clergy held their meeting t'-ere. Mr. PEEL said, he had only accused the lion. Member of unfair conduct in endeavouring to create a prejudice against thee Magistrates, upon a subject apart from the merits of this particular case, in talk ing about their being the notorious visiting Magi strates of Ilchester jail—(Hear).—lle never meant to say that he was responsible for the truth of the alle gations of the Petition.—Petition laid on the table. IRISH TITHES. Mr. PEEL would put it to his Hon. Friee‘'. (Mr. Daly) whether, at the present period of the Session, it would not be better to postpone his motion on the sub ject of Tithes in Ireland ? Every purpose would be gained by a notice that, in the course of a week from the commencement of the next Session, he should bring the subject forward. Sir E. O'BRIEN sincerely hoped that the motion would be put off. Mr. J. RICE thought the motion should come on. Mr. D. BROWNE hoped the advice of the Right Hon. Secretary would be adopted. Sir J. NEWPORT would bring on the motion him self, if abandoned by the Hon. Gentleman. After some remarks on the point of order, Mr. 41 - BROWNE said, that the commutation of tithes should be made a fundamental measure of Government. Mr. DALY said, if he was sure he should not be opposed next year, he would withdraw the motion. Mr. GOULIJURN said, that he either should next Session bring forward a motion on the subject of corn mutation of tithes, or state his reasons for not doing s, . Mr. V. FITZGEItALD hoped that the motio:r would be postponed. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, that no pledge hal been given by Government that a specific measure would be brought forward. Sir 11. PARNELL stated the motion to be, that inquiry should take place on the subject. But after the late declarations of the Attorney-General for Ire land, some distinct pledge was necessary, and he hoped the motion would be proceeded in. Mr. CALCRAFT stated, that the same decleratiee made now hal beta m ide by p eceding Secretaries and Ministers. Mr. DALY had not the slightest idea of the pro position made to him by the Secretary for the Home 1 Department. The statement of the Irish Attorney ! Genet al was a drawback to the statement of the Riese ' Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). Mr. pLuNKETr had only said, that at present ' e did not see his way clearly. But he had never send that a commutation of tithes was impossible. It I measure should be introduced that sh ould reconcile the commutation of tithes with the rights of property, lthat r n . te c a i s t u E r . sh o uld lF, yr o h s z e i have his a rd s z i r t . p p i o .h t. Me t disc. ussioa was I.c Against • A long disc the question to propose, it aities clauses =kW( uutil tb