The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1824-05-28 00:00:00

;r ~► ,~ it P-IRLIAMENTART INTELIGEXCE. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tiwa9DAY, MAY 27. THE LATE MR. SMITH. Mr. P. MOORE presented • petition from Coventry, praying f.'r an inquiry into the recent transactions at Demerara connected with the late Mr. Smith. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Herlihy, from Preston; by Mr. Windham, from Salisbury; by Mr. Davenport, from Stms ford ; by Mr. Sawley, from Birmtngham, Warwick, and Stratford upon-Avon; by Mr. Warre, from - Taunton ; by lewd Ebrington, from Tavistock by Mr. Corbel, from Shrewsbury ; by Mr. Downey, from Stirling; by Mr. Denison, front Kingston-upon- Thames, Thames Dimon and Tooting, in the county of Surrey, and another from Gains:borough ; by Mr. Sykes, from Barton. sipoo-Humber ; by Lord Milton, from Sheffield, another from Peekbeld, another from Utley, another from Burfield, another front thwitley, in the West Riding, and another from Heckem White; ty Mr. Kirwan, from Whitehaven, in Cumberland, and another train Workington by Mr. H. Davis, from Bristol ;by Lord Al thorp, from Kettering ; by Lord Stanley, from Bolton, and another from Blackburn ; by Mr. Denim,. from Nottingham, and another Eyrie Sutton-in-Ashby, and another from Braintree: by Mr. D. Hilbert, from Boddington ; by Mr. C. Pelham, from (Nwestry ; by Lord Clifden, from Gravesend ; and by Mr. Benett, front seve ral parishes in Wiltshire.—The petitions were laid on the table. The SPEAKER observed, that it might be desirable to know at what time the private business should terminate. In future the hour should be half-put four ; and it should be understood, that if any Member who had inserted his name were not prevent to answer when he was celled upon, the business for which he had been called was not to ensue on that day. NEGRO SLAVERY. Mr. BUTTERWORTH presented a petition from Gillingham, praying br the abolition of negro slavery. A similar petition was presented by Mr. M. DAWSON, from Uonnwl. Laid on the table. BEER BILL. Mr. WARRE presented a petition from the innkeepers and li tensed victuallers of Telford, in Somerset, against the Beer Bill. A similar petition was presented by Mr. I)ENISON from those of Arden. Laid on the table. HIDES AND SKINS. Sir E. KERRISON presented • petition from the corners and tanners of H peke. against the Hides acrd Skins Bin.. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. HUME from the tanners of Stonemarket. file HUME asked when the Hon. Gentleman opposite Uncoiled to bring forward his measure on this subject. Mr. LL'Sil I NGTON stated that the evidence taken before the tiorainittee was not yet ready. The petitions were laid on the table. Mr. CV RTEIS presented a petition from the butchers of Lew isham, in favour of the Hides and Skine Bill. Mr. P. GRENFELL presented • petition from the Royal Ex- ! changitCompany, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill ; fir 'preventing Companies from insuring ships.—Laid on the rabic. Mr. BL'XTON presented a petition from the operative silk weavers of the City of London, against the Spitallields Act.—Laid on the table. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from the tanners of Waterford, against the extension of the English Leather Duties to Ireland. Mr. F. LEWIS thought it would he reasonable to tlaceehe same duty on the leather of Ireland as the leather in England pays, and to collect it in the sine manner. Laid on the table. Sir M. RIDLEY presented a petition from Newcastle.on-'lame, against the Monopoly of the Sea Insurance Company.—Laid on the table. Lord NUGENT presented a petition from two parishes in Buck ingham, against the duties on lather .— Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. ANNING presented a petition from the underwriters at Voyd's„ praying to be heard by Counsel against the Marine In surance Bill. Mr. ELLIS would not oppose the prayer of the petition, but he thought it would be an endeavour to continue a most unconstitu liunal measure. Mr. MANNING made a few observations in support of the petition. Mr. GRENFELL said, that he did not think the charters which protected the underwriters at Lloyd's ought to be infringed upon without compensation. Alderman Tli Ohl PSON thought, that if the Marine Bill passed, It wmtld be creating a greater monopoly than any he knew. Laid on the table. Lord CLIFDEN, on the part of Mr. Brownlow, postponed his merlon flambe to the Catholic Association, to Monday next. Lord ALTHORP rose to present the following Petition : " 'Po the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. •• The humble Petition of Edward Blount, of Bella more, in the county of Stafford, and of Bryan stone-square, in the parish of St. Vary-la-bonne, in the County of Middlesex, Esq. a person professing ' the 'Roman Catholic Religion, Sheweih—That your Petitioner believes he is performing a duty he owes to society in general, and to the members of the Ito. mar Catholic religion, to which he belongs, in thusintlividually prvesinieg to approach your Honourable House, to pray tor protec tion against insult, calumny, and injustice. " lie begs humbly to 'ohm', to your Honourable House the following tarts, which he is prepared to verify on oath, or by in. disputable evidence if he be permitted to doso. That the Rev. John Ikll, late curate in the vicinity of your Petitioner's residence in Staffordshire, a Clergymen' of the estah fished church, has industriously circulated in considerable numbers, beyond the precincts of his own parish, and with verbal protesta tions of the truth of their contents,various small tracts, replete with the grossest untruths and misrepresentations of the tenets of that religion which your Petitioner professes, and that not content with calumniating his religious principles, he has proceeded to deny his loyalty to his country, by the circulation of a work intituled—.l Protestant Catechism. Amino the principal errors of the Chard, 4f Rome, in which are imputed to the members of that faith prin ciples subversive of all civil society, and wholly inconsistent with the allegiance which your Petitioner has sworn to his Sovereign, mid witltthe attachment he feels for the institutions of his country. " That the above publications, which your Petitioner resumes to lay at the bar of your Honourable House, after asserting that the Roman Catholics who were stigmatised as Papists, consider all Protestants as heretics (a brow untruth) proceeds to inquire—` In that manner do the Papists treat those whom they call heretics ? Answer—They hold that faith is not to be kept with heretics, but that they should be persecuted and destroyed, and that the Pope can absolve subjects from theft' oath of allegiance to Protestant Princes.' •• Your petitioner presumes particularly to call the attention of your Honourable Hearse to the fact, that the work he submits to your notice, end, he confidently anticipates, to your indh,mation, was tiro published by order of the incorporated society in Dublin for promoting English Protestant-schools in Ireland ; that it was with drawn from circidation there in 1308, as being liable to exception, as is in the knowledge of many members of your Honourable House ; that in 1030, that is, twelve years after its expulsion from Ireland, it has been again reprinted in London fur circulation here by the Society . for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and has been industriously circulated by the above described Rev. John Bell. " Your petitioner begs to assure your 'lmmutable House that it is with unfeigned regret he feels calledoo, in his oven defence, tmpoint to the attention of your Honourable House practice' scenes thine— practices discreditable to the Ministers of every faith, who, instead of labouring in the held of Christian charity to root out anelquated prejudice's from uncultivated minds, would sent as If they were mislesltsy fanaticism, or by . mistaken zeal, to cheKsb religious ani mosity and confirm tomistaitalde impressions. " 1 oar petitioner begs leave to add, that he has farther and pendia, grounds of personal complaint, those cruel charges aosinst his loyalty having been profusely circulated by the above. ranted Reverend 'John Bell, in the cottages and dwellings of the labouring poor in your petitioner's vicinity, thus tending to lower and degrade him in the eyes of his neighbours, and to destroy those feelings of good will, and that good opinion of him srhielt it has been the object of his life to deserve ; and your .petitioner feels not only justified, but loudly called on, to pour the expression of his insultad feelings into the bosom of the legialature Of his country, and to appeal to themforjustioe anti protection. He trusts it is oneseeesesty for him to amine your Honourable House, that in adhering to the faith of his fathers, he disclaims every precept, tenet, or practice, inconsistent with the purest at tachment to the laws and liberties of his country. He begs to 1 recal us the recollection of your Honourable House, that in the' year 1793, .lr. Pitt, to remove those prejudices from the public mind, a hich he himself was too enlightened to entertain, sent to tie principal Catholic Universities on the Continent, for answers to the quccits,—Whether or not these noxious tenets were held by Cad:Airs ? That each Cnitensity, six in number, namely, Paris, Douai, IAIIIIIIIIC, Aka's, Salamanca, and Valladolid, answered tkpanimously— " • I. That the Pore, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome. has not any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever, within the realm of England. " • L. That the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, cannot absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever. •• ' 3. That there is no principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions, either of a public or a private nature.' " That some of them express perfect astor,isinent that such goes &LAM should be proposed to them by a nation that glories in her learning and discernment. " That these answers were considered so satisfactory, that a Bill was in consequence be ght into your I lonourable I louse, and was passed into a law.. relieving your Roman Catholic fellow-subjects Isom manylgrievous and debasing penal statutes, in consideration of their taking a prescribed oath and declaration abjuring the tenets now.imputed to them by the Rev. John Bell, and by the Society for Promoting Christian knowleslg " That your p.itititror has taken, in his Majesty's Courts at Westminster, the Oath and Declaration prescribed by the British Parliament, of the 31st of his late Majesty, and which oath he begs to be permitted here to recite. " ' 1, E. B. do hereby declare that I mortis the Boman Cathohc •• • I, E. B. do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faith ful, and bear true alley:attire to his Ifajesty King lieurge the Third, and him will defend to the utmost of my power. against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever that shall le made against his person, crown, er dignity; and T will do 'my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and sue. tenors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them. And Ido faithfully promise to ;maintain, support and defend. to the utmost of my power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession. by an Art intituled— ' An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better Se curing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is, and stands limited to the Princess Sophia. Electrets and Duchess Dowager of Ilanover, ' and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, hereby utterly re nouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance mon any o th er person claiming or pretending . a right to the Crown of these realms. And I do swear, that I do reject and detest, as an unchristian and impious position, that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persona whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being heretics or Infidels ; and also, that unchristian and impious principle, that faith is not to be kept with heretics or infidels. And I further de clare, that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that Princes, excommunicated by the Pope and Council, or any authority of the See of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may he deposed or murdered by their sub . jects, or any person whatsoever ; and I do promise, that I will not hold, maintain, or abet any such opinion, or any other opinions, contrary to what is expressed in this declaration. And I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Home, or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate, bath. or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority. or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. And Ido solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion. equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation al ready granted by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, or any person whatever, and without thinking that I am, or can be, acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or anuul the same, or declare that It was null or void. ' So help me God.' " Your petitioner begs leave to assure your II onourable Heine, that he is influenced by no vindictive feelings, nor does he ask for pendl enactments to restrain his calumniators ; that he respects the freedom of opinion too sincerely to desire it; that he merely Tepee . } onus to your Honourable House, that the obnoxious opinions im. Muted to him he has publicly disavowed; that the disavowal has been ratified by the solemn sanction of an oath, and accepted by the Legislature of his country ; suit that he hopes he does not pre sume too far on the indulgence of your Honourable House, in praying that you will, in your justice, protect him, by the expres. stun of your strong displeasure, from the consequences of the con duct of persons who have so tar forgotten what they owe to Chris tian charity, to truth, and to justice, as in no measured terms to impute disloyal and anti-social principles to those who, by majo rities of your Honourable (louse, have been declared worthy of being reinstated in the full enjoyment of their constitutional rights." The Noble Lord hoped that the Members of the House of Com mons would express the strongest feelings of disapprobation against , iurh attempts as those to which he had alluded in the case of the petitioser. Neither Mr. Blount. nor any other Catholic, would have any reason to complain of a Protestant clergyman who sought to convince the people of the truth of his religion ; but a clergyman had no right to impute to any Catholics those sentiments which he did not feel, or those charges which he did not deserve. The act was much worse, when sanctioned by a Society in this metropolis *hid. ought toliave known better. Under such circumstances, he (bord Althorp) thought there were just grounds of complaint, and that the Hostile would do well to prevent such acts, which could not fail to excite animosities. Mr. PEEL, said, that as the petition related to a publication he had never seen. and to an individual of whom he had never heard, lie could of course say but little on the subject. But he would say, that any publication tending to excite animosity. would meet with his decided disapprobation. Ile certainly recollected, that about twenty years ago, the Society alluded to did make use of souse Ca techism to which there were strong obj ections, i and that they were afterwards wisely and properly wi th . rawn front circulation. If they had been since republished by another Society, he must con. demo the publication of any work which had been abandonttl by the former ; and if by a clergyman it had been distributed, it was impossible that the act could meet with his approbation. Mr. PHILLIPS said, that he could not suffer the petition to be laid on the table without addressing a few words to the House on the subjeet of it. He knew the petitioner to be a most amiable man in private life, and he thought it a scandal that he should be made the object of calumny and slander, by disseminating in his own neighbourhood, that he was the possessor of the principles and tenets ascribed to him in those tracts, after his having denied them on oath It tended to keep alive a moat unchristian spirit, and he believed that it might be attributed to a society to which, he re gretted to say, many members who then' heard hint were sub scribers. Hut if any body of men continued - the circulation of such slanders, he hoped they would be made to feel the consequences of them. . _ . ... .. .. . 31r. CI'RWEN begged, as a member of the Guardian Society, to disclaim all knowledge of the offensive publication complained of. He did not think it possible that they could have emanated from that Society. Sir J. NEWPORT remarked, that the tracts bore evident marks of the authority of the Society alluded to, and he thought i: quite clear that they issued under its direction. The revival of these publications was certainly extraordinary. because in 184)8 they were withdrawn from circulation in Ireland, at the recommendation of the tint Protestant Church authorities in that country, headed by the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin. This was a fact with which this English Society ought to hare made itself acquainted before it ventured on their republication. Sir Y . BURDETT observed, that there could he no doubt as to the quarter whence these tracts proceeded. He knew that a Ca. tholte Society had sent to this Society some papers of their own, evincing liberal feelings, and a desire of friendly communications. The Catholic Society received in return a whole heap of virulent publications, similar in their nature to the tracts complained of. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. ELl.l('E having risen, pursuant to his notice, to move for papers relative to the conduct of Sir W. Lumley as Governor of Ilermudv, Mr. W. HORTON rose for the purpose of requesting the Hon. Metaber to postpone his motion, as he was not in possession of the documents that would enable him to meet it. Mr. HUAI: said, that he was not disposed to give the House the trouble to wade through the mass of papers relative to the con duct of Sir Wm. Lumley then, but he felt that the question ought to have come on last Session, and he took blame to himself for not bringing it forward, as in the mean time Sir Wm. Lumley had gone out to his Government. Now if the facts that he had to state were correct, there was no posible way of qualifying Sir Wm. Lunt ley's conduct : if they were false they were easily denied. Ile would not object, however, to postpone his motion.on an understanding that the Right lion. Gentleman would be prepared with his information so that he might be enabled to bring the subject forward before the Whitsun holidays. Mr. W. HORTON consented to this, and the motion was post poned. RUTTER TRADE IN IRELAND. Mr. T. WILSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the bet ter regulation of the Butter Trade in Ireland. After a few words from Mr. C. HUTCHINSON, Sir 11. PAU. NELL, Sit J. NEWPORT, Mr. S. RICE, Mr. M. FITZGERALD, and Mr. IlusalatiON, leave was given. COMBINATION LAB'S. H1.731E brought in a Bill for the repeal of the Combination Laws.—ltoul a that time. LICENSING SYSTEM. ..... —..-- , Mr. HUAIE said that he had a petition to present from a person of the name of George Seymour, of the parish of St. l'eter.the.l.m, in tha borough of Chichester, complaining of the conduct of three of the Chichester Magistrates. The CHANCELIA)R of the EXCHEQUER rose to order, - observing that as the public business of the day had commenced it could not be broken in upon by petitions. Mr. 111.`31E observed that he had withheld this petition for four days, at the request of the Right Ron. the flee-President of the Board of 'trade, who had promised to be in his place when it should come on ; as he, however, had forgotten that promise, he trusted that he should nut now be prevented from presenting it. (Cries of "go on.") Mr. Hume then stated that the Magi strates bad refused the petiti , mer a licence, without/assigning ally reason. There were, it was true, 34 public-houses in Chichester, not ewe of which was a free house, but they were all of them in the hands of the brewers. His object was to estabEsh a free house and to sell beer brewed by himself. Ile therefore prayed that an inves tigation might be made into the conduct of the Slagistrates. The Ilem.tientleman stated further that he had written to the Magi strates, apprising them of his intention to present this retition. Sir C. BURRELL defended the conduct of the Magistrates • he remarked that he knew them personally, and that they were inde pendent of the influence of corrupt motives. Mr. II I'ItiISSON and Mr. 3lonca made a few observations, after which the petition WAS ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. COMMITMENTS 1W THE MAGISTRATES. _ Mr. lii;Mirfrose pursuant to his notice:;;;;eiiw - ; return of the committals by the Magistrate% of the several police offices; he had before stated the reasons why he thought thw the names of thcl Magistrates should be included in the return, and he confessed that ' he saw very little weight in the arguments that had been used as', to the impropriety of chewing up Magistrates who had devoted their services gratuitously to the public. lie had heard that there were gentlemen in different counties, denominated commit ting Magistrates, The meaning of which was, that if a person were charged with an offence before any one of them, he was sure to be committed for trial, owing to the very little attcn tkin bestowed on their cases by these gentlemen; mid he thought that this was an abuse that required correction. His abject was to obtain a correct return, and even the Right Hon. Secretary himself had doubted the accuracy of the Newgate Ca lendar. Why he was particularly anxiousto call the attention of the !louse to this circumstance was, that I 11l persons were committed, bills wire found but for 611, anti of these all only were convicted. Ily one Magistrate in Surrey it appeared in from Union Ball were committed, and bills flaind against 39. Mr. Secretary PEEL —Committed in execution? Mr. HUM I..—Perhaps so. Hut they heard so much of prison discipline in these times, that they ought not to neglect the mischief which ensued from such inconsiderate convictions. They had heard that crime was on the decrease; but taking two periods of seven years, from 1000 to 11194, there were committed for trial 47,101 persons ; and in the year ending 11123, for that seven years, 9:1,000 were committed ; and when they looked at the number acquitted, it became a question of the utmost importance whether some other mode could not be devised to prevent such numbers frofn the con tamination of a prison. In London and Middlesex the proportion was nearly the same. The number was about 39 per cent. between tho numbers sent to prison and that tried. Looking to the te sults of these trials, it was impossible not to regard the numbers of persons sentential to death, of which number 12 in every 100 were executed. lie thought they were called on in a special man. '1 ner to produce the names of Magistrates committing,. re. gar.' to the number, they had the number already but the names of the Magistrates they ought to have. lie understood, that in Scotland the number corvicted came much nearer to the num ber imprisoned than in this city, which arose from the peculiar care and watchfulness of the Magistrates. lie should wish in this case to have the investigation extended to Ireland and Scotland. lie should thereinto move for the number of persons committed for trial in England and Wales, for the years 11122 and 111 - 23, distinguishing thoss committed by summary process. and those for trial at the i , Andrea, sliewing the name of the Magistrate signing the L in t" Mr. Secretary PEEL said he was not prepared for so enlarged a • motion as the present. The returns the Ilion. Gentleman had pro- I cured were perfectly fallacious. Some of the prisons retired to contained only those committed by summary process. alr. HUME—That is not my fault. Mr. Secretary PEEL—No; no suds distinction was made, and therefor. un conclusion could be drawn from such erroneous re• turns. ? e return was now merely calculated to mislead. The lionouraale dumber, when he moved this subject, stated, that between London and Middlesex the proportion or committals was quite obvious, and this seemed to him a pinta jiwie for inquiry. lie had no objection to his amending that return, but before any other step could be taken, his motion ought to be for the amend- , ment of his return. lie could not consent on any terms to the motion of the Honourable Gentleman, for it was clearly a eri- , urinating motion. (Hear.) The Horourable Member had stated, that in every county there were men called " committing Magis trate.." He denied the fact. But it; while some Magistrates were absent from the county, the other Magistrate!. neglected their duty, by refused to commit, then indeed they were cri minal. The Honourable Member hail referred, on a former occa sion, to three respectable Magistrates of Police, Mr. Allen, Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Swabey ; he had seen Mr. Allen on the subject, and he *hewed him, upon the clearest evidence, that in many cases where the Magistrate committed, the Grand Jury afterwards could not act otherwise than ignore the bill. In many cases it happened that compromise took place when passion cooled. Unless every case was accompanied with a detail of facts, it was impossible to judge of the conduct of the Magistrate. It was on these grounds he should resist the present motion. Alt. DENMAN admitted that the returns were not satisfactory. In order to come at any conclusion the returns should have been made in the way stated by the Secretary of State. Ile confessed he thought that the motion should embrace the number committed on summary process. He agreed with the Right lion. Secretary that the Magistracy were entitled to the gratitude of the country. They sometimes abused these powers, and therefore they ought to be liable to the opinion of the House. The proportion between the number committed and convicted was, he admitted, vague, and proved 'rattling against the Magistrate. He must say that his Honourable Friend had stated a moat appalling tact as to the num bers convicted for the last and the preceeding five years. The question requiring the name of the Magistrate was one that deserved to be deeply considered before he insisted on putting it forwari. Sir E. is NATt'HBULL said, that generally there was no mis conduct attributable to the Magistracy of England; where there was No great a number it was quite clear that some must err through ignorance and some through inefficiency. Mr. H. SUMNER said, unless the commitment could be ac companied by the circumstances in which the committal originated' he could not agree to the motion. Mr. CI7RII EN did not conceive that the object of the present motion was to cast any stigma on Magistrates. Lord STANLEY conceived, that when a charge of " commit. ting Magistrates" was mule by the Hon. Mover, he ought to go further, and name the counties in which they were to be found. Ile differed therefore from the Honourable Member for Cumber land, and conceived that the motion had a tendency to reflect on the Magistracy. Mr. DENMAN explained. After a few words from Sir C. BURRELL, Mr. DICKENSON, Mr. LocellAßT, and Mr. Alderman WOOD, . . Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that if the lion. Mover would select one case in which a person had been committed without subse quent prosecution, he would not object to the productian of the documents. Mr. HC.IIE said, that his object WAS to avoid individual charges. As to the objection that his motion was an imputation on the Ma. gistracy generally, he would answer it only by observing, that the House passel laws against robbery, and no one opposed them on the ground that they were libels on the population generally. He hoped, therefore, the House would not resist his motion, for laying on the table a statement of the commitments by Magistrates, dis tinguishing those by summary proems in execution, and those for trial. If, however, the Hight lion. Secretary (Mr. Peel) would pro duce the return he had promised, he (Mr. Hume) would not press his motion. DAIVSON made sonic observations, which were, to us, in audible. 3lr. 111'31E said, he would then withdraw his motion. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that after what had taken place, he felt that the House ought to negative the motion. The House then divided. For the Motion, 8 . 1 Against it, 81 I Majority, 73. On our return to the IIUSIE was addressing the House. He said, the whole conduct of the 31agistrates created a suspicion as to the discharge of their duties. No sooner was a return moved for than all the country Gentlemen were in arms; and, without regard to distinc tions of party, the esprit de corps stilled all inquiry into their ma gisterial conduct. Such a victory as they had now gained he had no objection to their enjoying. He moved, in conclusion, that there he laid before the House a return of the number of persons com mitted in Ireland, during the year 1823; distinguishing those on summary process in execution, and those for trial, excepting such as had been committed under the Insurrection Act. 31r. Secretary PEEL denied that he had asked the Hon. Gen tleman to withdraw his motion. Every argument he had used was in opposition to it; but when the Hon. Gentleman stater: that he would withdraw it to bring . it forward again, be (Mr. Peel) telt it his duty at once to negative it. 11r. CI'HAVEN said, he had 'coed against the motion, because no thundation had been laid for it. He denied that the country Gentlemen in that House acted in a body. Such an assertion was a caluently on the 3lagistracy of England. Mr. h. PALAIEH chimed, that if all the Magistrates dis charged their duty impartially they must be desirous of inquiry. He was sorry for the decision of the House on the last motion. lie had certainly understood that the Hight Honourable Secretary had promised, if the motion was withdrawn, to bring forward an amendment. . .... Mr. Secretary PEEL said it would require some time to suggest an amendment to the motion of the lion. Member for Aberdeen. Mr. PENMAN took the liberty of remarking that the refusals to suffer inquiry into the conduct of the magistracy seemed too sys tematic to advance that body much in public opinion. He had not understood that permission was refused to withdraw his Honourable Friend's motion, and he had left the House without the slightest idea that a division would take place. Many lion. Members, he knew, had been detained up stairs. He thought the soreness shown by the magistracy was by no means likely to conciliate public opinion in their layout. This triumph by a stolen march was not calculated to raise them. It was said that no case was made out. No cane could be made out against the whole body of the magistracy. All his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) wanted the magis tracy to admit was, that they were human, and therefore liable to do what they might afterwards repent of. In his opinion, if the House wished to retain the confidence of the people, it was essen tial they should agree to this motion. He hoped his Hon. Friend would not desist till he obtained an annual return of every commit ment iu every pert of the country, accompanied by the name of the committing Magistrate, a general statement of the offence, and ' the nature of the commitment, whether for trial or on summary process. It wan necessary to keep the magistracy in order. They had been guilty of many acts of oppression, and in that House alone they =old be brought to account. Mr. 'IIVISS said the returns were moved for avowedly only to lay a foundation the some possible contingent inquiry. The Ma gistrates shrunk from no proper investigation of their conduct, but they dreaded to be exposed to the judgment of those not competent to form an accurate opinion. Sir W. 1)E CRKSPIONY said tke motion was a slur on the Magistrates generally. Alr. T. w lININ was of opinion that the motion was of a miss chievous tendency. He protested against it, in the name of the absent Magistrates. Mr. 11011110 USE said, that Government never refused an in quiry as to their commitments and prosecutions. Why were the ' Magistrates assured of the return of their official labours? On what principle could they refuse it° The object of his lion. Friend was to ascertain the proportion between the commitments and pro secutions. If the Magistrates were now under a slur, the best mode of 'coloring it would be by chewing they did not deserve it. Ile did not think highly of the unpaid Magistracy. He would rather there were more stipendiary Magistrates, who could be called to se count when they toi,eontlucted themselves. The present Magill. trans were a sort of nondescript power. Whenever any clinic was imputed to them, and an investigation called for. they manifested too much of the nun me iangen disposition. Vet there had been instances before the House in which arts of umpiestionaltle wrong, had been proved. He wondered vity the lion. Member for the city of London (Mr. T. 'Wilson) had volunteered his defence of the country gentionen, for he considered that that lion. Gentleman had as little to do with them as himself. (A laugh.) Ile certainly had undermost the night lion. Secretary to state, that if the mo. tion watt withdrawn he would give the papers required. Mr. MONCK considered that inquiry was necessary. Mr. C. PELHAM staid a few words, inaudible in the gallery. •Mr. HUME replied. lie was surprised to see lion. lientlemen running wild shout the character of the Magistracy of England. If is present motion was respecting the Magistrates of Ireland. He had never before heard of the doctrine that it was necessary to lay a ground for the production of papers of this description. A Unit lar return had always been granted before, and he hoped the house would agree to it now, as on all former occasions. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a division took place. For the motion, 34—Against it, 71—Majority, 37. On our return to the gallery the rush of strangers was to great that we were for mine minutes unable to hear a single syllable dis tinctly. During our abreact we understood that a second division took place. Ayes, 33—Noce, 75-3lajarity, 42. PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. 111711 E rose pursuant to notice, to submit a motion, having for its object to prevent all persons having any direct pecuniary intetest in Private Bills to be excluded from Committees upon them. l'rivate Bills had of late years much increased, and he thought, that in place of considering the matter of such Bills in 'nnimittees up stairs, they should be examined before the House. Committees up.i.tairs were now matters of contract, and not of justice. Members of Committees on l'rivate Bills, at least many of them, only came in to vote, and that often without any know.' leit o ge of the subject. Until lately he had not attended Private Committees, and therefore did rot mow the abuse& which pre vailed. 3lenihtrs of Committees should in some degree cni sider themselves as judges, not to be biassed the one way or the other. What was the fact ? Why, that solicitors sent letters to Members of Committees not to conie down and attend the proceedings, but to come down at three o'clock and give his vote as a matter of peraonal favour. If Members of Committees could not be likened to Judges, they were like jurors; and in many cases of ptivate Bills. many Alembers had often a direct personal interest. In fact, a solicitor was heard to say, that give him money, and he would defeat any Bill. If this occurred in any one case, it was enough to justify him in bringing this sub. ject before the notice of the House. The character of the Com mittens up stairs were very low indeed, and ought to be retrieved. Few persons defended the system, and every one remarked upon the difficulty attending any useful change. He himself thought there was not so flinch difficulty in the matter; and he said, if the whole system could not be imomved.a part of it might. In fact,reforro should not be confined to Members of this House; the conduct of the clerks —die amount of the fees---every branch of the system, required amendment. Those abuses he knew were not sanctioned by the House, for abuses he must call them. When Cominittees up stairs were appointed, they were to act as a Committee of the whole House would act; but it so happened that s very different system , prevailed. In 1 laser s l'recedents he found many useful remarks on , the subject and lie was very sorry to say they had too long re. , maned a dead letter. In 104 there were precedents to show, that persons having an interest in Private Bills were not allowed to attend Committees upon them. 3lr. Seymour wan the ,!!ember to whom he alluded, and all the officers of the Lord of Hertford, were also ordered to go mit of the doors and not t vote. (Hear. hear.) The Honourable Member proceeded to cite Kemal cases from the Journals, for the purpose of .hewing that interested per sons were excluded from Committees on Private Bills. In 1j97, the Speaker had decides!, in the Loyalty Loan case, that interested persons should not be allowed a vote, An objection was taken to the decision of the Speaker ; but it was ultimately admitted to be founded in justice, and according to the rules and precedents to be found in the Journals of the House. With respect to the individuals compos.ng Private Committees, he did not so much attach blame to them as to the system on which they acted. On a late private Bill, there were sixteen Members of Parliament who had each a very large interest in get ting it passed ; thisltill he would not now name, but he found, in looking over the list, that each of these sixteen Members had direct pecuniary interests in it, from one thousand pounds to one thousand five hundred. Surely, then, no man would deny that such a system should be put an end to. The Hon. Member then concluded by moving in substance—" That it be a standing order of this House, that no Member having any ditect pecuniary interest shall vote in a Committee up stairs, as in Bills for Joint Stock Companies, Ca nals, or Bills to obtain an advantage or provide against a logs, the practice to the contrary hitherto prevailing being contrary to prece dent and to the due administration of justice." Mr. CANNING rose, but in his commencement spoke in so low a tone of voice, that we could not distinctly hear him. The Right lion. tient, thought it was a very difficult matter very often to determine and ascertain where the particular interests of Members on a Committee lay. Interests might exist and not be detected ; and again, although these interests were apparent, it was unfair to infer that the Bill would be improperly drawn up. For his part, he would adopt the illustration of the conduct of the (louse in contested elections, as indicative of the general rule by which they were regulated on other occasions. In the case of the return of a Member whose election was disputed, the House judged and • decided from principles of justice and honour, and not from a re gard to party views. (Hear, hear.) This principle, therefore, . already prevailed, and it was unneensary, by the Resolutions of the • Hon. Member, to confirm it. Ile fully admitted all the principles he advanced, but felt great difficulty as to the mode and practicabi lity of enforcing them. That evils existed he would not deny, but those Resolutions only stated the evil., without supplying the re , medy ; they kft the House worse than it had been before; they affirmed an undisputed proposition, but administered no light to relieve than from the difficulties with which the maintenance of it was accompanied. This was the mere record of a complaint, : without the cure by which health and sanity were to be restored. It was therefore, that, although agreeing with the Hon. Gentleman as to the advantage and expediency of persons who vote upon Cont. mittens to hear the evidence before them, yet he aas not disposed at present to assent to his resolutions : they were unnecessary, be cause impracticable. If the Honourable Gentleman persisted in his present motion, he would reluctantly conclude by moving the ; previous question. He would recommend him, however, to post. . pone the consideration of the subject-matter they contained until ; 1 the next Session of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Sir W. DE CRESPIONV, on thing (as we understood), adverted to some expressions which had fallen from the Honourable Member for Aberdeen, which he conceived to be personally appli cable to him. 3lr. HUME disclaimed the intention of any personal allusion whatever to the lion. Member. _ Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY resumed, and remarked, that though the most competent persons to serve on Committees of this kind were those who were most acquainted with the particular subjects they were called upon to discuss, nothing could be more ridiculous than the mode that sometimes prevailed of fetching up 3lemhe e s from other Committees to decide and vote on questions without bay ing heard a tittle of the evidence on which it should be founded. Mr. S. woirri.cy agreed with his Right Hon. Friend (31r. Canning) that the substance of the resolutions was already adopted by the House, and that it was therefore unnecessary andsuperfluous to superadd them. Mr. I'.GRENFELL.thought the present system that existed with regard to private Bills deserved no better epithet than that of atrocious ; it was the very perversion of justice, a disgrace alike to the House and to the country. If it were not too late after the amentiment of the Right Honourable lientleman, lie would re commend his Honourable Friend, Mr. Hume, to withdraw his present motion, ar.d to substitute a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into what regulations might be advantageously intro. dared into the mode of conducting Private Bills If obstacles were , in the way they could he surmounted ; at least the attempt, for the satisfaction of the country and the honour of the House was one I that ought to be made. It was in vain to introduce a Bill on the very firsttlay of the Session ; it' there was only sufficient money em ployed to oppose it, it might be deferred over to the ensu ing Session by means of delay of hearing counsel, &c. Fire or six lawyers were frequently engaged ; one lawyer on one occa sion made a speech before one of these Committees for five hours and a quarter; another for two hours and a half; and thus irrelevant discussion was uselessly prolonged. On one of those occasions the lawyer was stopped, for what he was speak ing about had as little teference to the matter before the Com mittee as if he were to read a page from Ilume's History. (Hear, bear, and a laugh.) However, interruption was found to produce very little good effect, and it turned out to be preferable to give the most unqualified latitude to their discussions. Then there was canvassing out of doors for votes. For his part he conseien doubly resisted such applications, and never gave a vote on a Bill without having previously heard the evidence appertaining to it. There was an anecdote told of Mr. Burke in a ease of this kind. On being requested by a lady to vote on a particular occasion, to serve some individual purpose or interest, Mr. Burke (who knew nothing of the subject) replied, " I would be very happy to oblige your ladyship, but my injustice is engaged on the opposite side." It suggested itself to him that an oath should be taken, or wont of ' honour pledged, that the individual serving on the Committee had no personal interest in the Bill on the Committee of which lie was appointed a member. Ile concluded by repeating his recommenda tion of a Committee of Inquiry. Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought that much of the abuse com plained of would be rectified by a strict attention to the standing orders of the House in presenting petitions to introduce a Bill, sad in regular attention to the various stages through which it was for warded in Parliament. After a few words from Mr. ELLIS and Mr. WILIIIIAHASI, TO4IIO. the Alye. IIii.;CAIII.ETT observed, that important as private Bills Might be, they were not more so than public measures; and if 3lembers were prevented liom voting on private Bills without attending Committees, the public would expect that they who did not hear the debate should be prohibited from voting on public questions. lie threw this out merely an a suggestion. Sir C. FORBES, as we understod, said, that this new pro posed chane would create a reform in the House. Mr. ('.I S NI NG said, that he did not foresee the practical bene fits of this motion that were likely to be arrived at during the present Session. He would recommend the Hon. Member, however, to postpone the adoption of any measure on this subject in the present Session, and to bring it forward early in the next; meanwhile, the discussion that had just taken place would not be without its good effects. It would awaken the House to a sense of their duty, and create regenerated feelings, which, he was sure, would operate to the public good. (Hear, hear.) Mr. 11U31 ill thought 'Armitage would be derived from the ap pointment of the Committee at present. The very morning of the question—two or three meetings--would prepare thz way for any arrangements on which, in a future Session of l'arlianient, they might resolve. lie would therefore press the motion fora Select Committee of Inquiry, as to whether any and what regulations were advisable to be introduced," for the better conducting Private Hill* through th^ House: and to report the minutes of their pro ceedings, and their opinions thereupon, to the House." Mr. CA NN INI front the strong opinion which had been ex pressed in favour of the motion, would withdraw the amend. anent, and permit the amended resolution of the Hon. Member to pass without opposition. (Hear.) He would only require that the Committee be not required to report their minutes, but merely be called on for their opinions. 31r. II assented to the omission of the clause objected to ' by the Right lion. Gentleman. The motion then parsed. and the Committee appointed. CUSTOMS 1(11.1a ...... The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved thethird reading of the Customs Bill. in its amended form. Mr. 1). BROWN moved, that before the Rill passed the petition frem the County of Mayo, against the duties on linens. Elm be read. The petition was then read hem the inhabitants of the county of Mayo, presented this Session, against the repeal of the Linen Bounties. Mr. 111•:\ IS BROWNE then moved that the Addresses of both Houses of Parliament to King William, on the 10th of June, 1698, be real. . , The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the addresses were not at hand, and it would take some time to procure them, and asked Mx Right Hon. Friend if he could not go on with his 'marks without having them read, by referring to the substance of them Mr. D. BROWNE did not wonder at his Right Hon. Friend having a disinclination for the reading of these addresses; but it the House would allow hint, he would read them front & private book. The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the addresses, the ob ject of which was. praying his Majesty to encourage the woollen ' manufacture in England and the linen mantifactuve in Ireland ; and to do all in his power to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ire land. Ills :Majesty replied, that he wculd do all in bit power to discourage the woollen 'manufacture in Ireland, and to eticourag? the linen mannfacture there; and the IPth of William and Mn.,hy chap. the Right lion. Gentleman inated. wu passed expressly to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ireland. Alderman WGOI/ hoped the repeal would extend to small coals as well as large. Mr. C. M. 11U "I'l'll INti()N objected to the repeal of the dutiee on come linen.. No country hod flourished mute than I:ngland ' under protecting duties, and he was surprised at the Right Hon. Gentleman wishing to repeal the duties on wane linens. Lord M 11,Tt suggested to the Right lion. Gentleman. that the persons most interested in this treasure were the landholders, who would receive higher rents in consequence of It, and not the linen manufacturtms. The measure, however, should hare his support. Mr. GRATTAN objected to the BilL iiirN.i". 7 .lEll4.l;l' was against the Bill, tss it regarded the duties of foals tarried en twine. The !louse then divided on the third reading, when there ap. Ayes, 93 ; Noes. 26-31witwity for the Dill, 67. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. and aereral clauses added by way of riders. I R N.ERGY RESIDENCE BILL. The Report on this Bill was brought up. A conversation toot place between Sir Joust' NrwroaT. Mt. 0. PAWSOW. Mr. Got: I.nuttsr, and Mr. Ga•mmAw, when Sir J. N1...8 . 1'1MT proposed a clause that no clergyman who held a living of 40W. a year and upwards should be allowed to hold a second living. Mr. G(II*1;11CRX opposed the bringing up of the elanse. Mr. PLUNKETT said, that he would not object to this rlanse if brought forward at the proper period for considering ph: Hines. Ile thought that any thing calculated to make th e clergymen attend to their duties was calculated to promote the interests of' the church. But it was his opinion that the clause proposed by his lion. Friend (Sir J. Newport) would give rise to innumerable difficulties. In case of a demand for tithes, when a clergyman had taken a second hv. ing it would be necessary to prove that the value of the living ass not above a certain sum, and thus lead to litigation. He did not object to the principle of the clause, trot to the manner of s , ..eking to bring it into the present Bill, and if brought forward urtict d!f ferent circumstances it should have his support. Mr. HUTCHINSON had heard with great satisfaction the ob. servations of the Right lion. the Attorney-General for Ireland, which he considered as the pledge of • future measure. He thought it would be right to give the Harmsen what they were entitled to. hut he could nut allow their holding livings in the north and livings in the south, while they were only obliged to reside a short period in either place. Lord MILTON thought the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Hutchinson) hasty in conceiving the observations of the Right Hoe. Gentleman to contain a pledge. After a few observations from Mr. Gnavvas: and Sir JOHN NF.WPORT, in reply, the House diiided on the clause, and the numberspp!aret:l _ Fo . r . the clause, 38—Against it, 75—/Ifsjority, The Report as then agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-tnorrow. WAREHOVSED WHEAT BILL The House went into a Committee on the Warehoused Wheat Mr. ELLICE proposed a clause to allow the Canadian wheat now warehoused in this country to be brought into the market fret of duty.. _ _ The clause wss opposed by Mr. i.. FOLTZ'. Mr. Ir. HORTON. Mr. WHITMORE, and Mr. CURTEIS. The clause was supported by Mr. lirsurssoy mid Sir Jomr NEWrOBT. The House divided on the clause, and the numbers were— Foe the clause, 4.s—Against it. 19--Majortry, 26. After the passing of the clause, a derultorr debate took plate between Mr. CERTEIS. Mr. iII:SEISSOY, Sir J. SE RR IGH Mr. ELLICF., and Mr. L. FOSTER. The Report was then brought up, read, and ordered to be taken into further enn•ideration on Monday neat. .LANCASTER COUNTY COURTS' BILL. The Lancaster County Courts' Bill was read a second time. and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the Hausa adjourned at a Quarter before Two &Clock. ORDERS OF THE DAY. (THIS DAY.) Marine Insurance Bill—Seeoni Reading. Register Office Bill--Second Reading Land Tax Redemption Bill Reading. Newfoundland Judicature Bill—Second Reeding. Exchequer Court Fees Investment Bill_Cammittee. Law Expenses (Ireland) Bill—Second Reading. Roman Catholic Itirriages Bill--Commitiec. Transportation of Offenders Bill—Second Reading. Savings Banks Bill—Report. Game laws Amendment Bill--Report. Large Bridge Bill—Report. Hibernian 31iniug EMnpany Bill—Report. New ('l' inches Bill—Committee. Paroehisl Stipends (Scotland) Bill—Cnaimittee. Fleet-market Removal Bill—Report. Tenants' Relief (Ireland) Bill—Report. Impounding Distresses (Ireland) Bill —Report. pkWES OF FOREIGN STOCKS YESTERDAY. Austrian Bonds Prussian Bonds 08/ Ditto Acct. 2.1/ 6 Ditto Ace. 981 Chilian hood. 79 Ditto Bonds (1822) Cotomb. Bond. 881 Russian Bonds 95/ 1 a / Ditto Acct. 83/ Ditto Acct. 951 i / 6 Ditto Scrip 1 i a pm Span. Coon. 20/ i i Danish Bonds Ditto Aect. ft/ Ditto Marks Batten Ditto 810 Bonds 201 11 Greek Scrip 5/ 6 51 6/ 78 a Ditto 170 & 285 Bonds ii dis Ditto 85 Bonds Ditto Acet. 5/ 61 81 dii Ditto S per Cents. (1823) Mexican Bonds 624 Ditto Bonds (1820) Ditto Scrip 1 a a i A 9 ►`m Anglo-31exican Mines Ditto Acct. .4 Acia 5 4) poi United Mexican alines Neapolitan Bonds French Renter 104 f. 50c. Peruvian Bonds Exchange 25f. 50c. 40c. Ditto Scrip Ditto Scrip Portuguese Bondy 931 Ditto Acct. I►itto Acct. 931 21 3/ Exchange MAILS. DUE : I Lisbon, I Dottenbure. ARRIVED: I Ilsunburgh, I Flanders, 1 French. Efte Ortttolt alrefio. THEATRE ROYAL, COVENT-GARDEN. This Evening, FR I %V, Way 40. will he performed CIIARLF.S TIIK SECOND: or, TUE MERRV MoNARCIL King Charles the Sewood, Mr. C. Kembles Lord Rochester, Mr. Junes Captain Copp, Mr. Fawcett t Mary. Mies M. Tree. After which, FORTUNE'S FROLICS. Robin Roophhead, Mr. Rayner. To conclude with CLARL Auk. Vivaldi, Mr. Abbott; FaAeett ; Clart. Min M. 'free: Vcapina. hi. Love. . r, Cherie; tie'''''''''' ' '''''''''''''''''' ' and the Hunter of NEW SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, and TO-MORROW, the Mekb-Dounftelf ZULUCA AND THE RIVAL WARRIORS; or. The TRIER HUNT. Otter which, THE ADVANTAGES OF LYING; or. 110 W TO GIVE A ROUT. HATE; or. THE CATARACT OF TIIE MOUNTAIN. The BRITIIR PRESS commenced pli!ilighing yestenlay morning at half-past six o clock. LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1691. Mr. Hume brought forward his motion last night on the subject of Members attending on C'emmittees, and voting on private hills, for the establishment of joint stock companies and other measures before the House, in which they possess a direct pecuniary interest ; and the Ho nourable Gentleman moved in substance—" That it be a standing order of the House that no Member be allowed to vote in any Committee up stairs, having any direct pecu niary interest in any joint stock companies, canals, or in any bills, the object of which may be to obtain for any such Member on a Committee a direct pecuniary advan.; tape, or to provide against any loss, the practice to the con trary hitherto prevailing being contrary to precedent, ar.il to the even administration of justice." The Honourable Member cited parliamentary precedents from 1604 to the present period, deciding that Members on Committees up stairs, having a direct pecuniary interest in the Rill before them, should not be permitted to vote. lie did not, Mr. Hume added, censure the individuals so much as the system which had so long and so impro perly continued. Mr. Canning rose to say, that he (lid not dissent from the principle on which Mr. Ilume's resolution was founded. That principle, the Right lion. Secretary added, was, however, already in existence; for he thought that Members possessing an interest in any private Bills coming before the Committees in which they sat, acted generally as they would on a Committee ap pointed to canvass the validity of an election, when they looked, not to the political principles of tlho candidate, but to the merits of his case. There was no difference of opinion, Mr. Canning stated, as to the inconvenience of Ow usage; but the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) did not point out the remedy for it. He {M'r. Canning) thought the only effective remedy was in the feeling of Members themselves as to the propriety of attending and hearing the -I