The Sun. — London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

tiee was, whether greater political power could be given to. the Roman Catholics without endangering our Civil and Eccle eiasfieeil Establishments. No one regretted the exclusion of elle Catholics from their rights more than he did, but toleration was of two kinds, religious and political. The first allowed -every man to worship the Deity according to the dictates orlue own conscience, but the other was very different. The Ade. • Prelate then applied this distinction to t h e case o f t h e Henan Catholics, and argued to shew that their belief in the 'sspremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff influenced their civil con , duct as subjects of this country.' He kneiv that in the town of Lancaster, .where there were many poor. Catholics in the work house, they refused to work on Saints' days and other holidays held sacred bythe - Church of Rome. Again he would observe , _ that the society a Jesuits, established at Stonyhurst, was both unwearied and successful in making converts to the Catholic religion. The Roman Catholics were, in fact, semper cadet): - nil action re :rant dam quid agendum manebit. H e did not , however, wish for perpetual exclusion, but onlysuch as neces sity demanded. The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that nothing but im perative duty could induce hem to trouble their Lordships en -the present occasion. As a servant of the King, however, he • could not allow his Majesty's prerogatives to be destroyed, as must be the case if these Bills passed the Legislature. These ,two Bills, although discussed by the Noble Marquis (Lana down) as one measure, were in reality perfectly distinct. The first Bill sought to alter what for more than a century ;had been the settled law of the land. But when it was con sidered that the whole frame of the Constitution was Pro testant, he did think it would be strange indeed if the Catholics were not called upon to give some test of their adherence to •it before they enjoyed the privileges it conferred. How was it possible to grant the right of voting and not of being elected ? Until two years back no one ever heard a whisper about giving , the elective franchise to the English Roman Catholics. In Ire land it was necessary that every person voting at an election should take the oath of _allegiance, and produce a certificate of the same on the hustings.; but this Bill provided no such thing, and therefore there was no analogy in the two cases. In Ireland -the offices excepted were specifically enumerated, -but in this respect also the present measure was different. As to the law --of 1817, relative to Olficers in the Army and Navy, he (the .Lord C.) had doubts whether that Act were necessary or not; and although he did not recollect having given the opinion stated by the Noble Marquis on the right of the Duke of Nor folk to officiate at the Coronation as Earl Marshal, he now had no hesitation in saying that his opinion, if asked, must have been such as had been described. The second Bill merely went to demand haw Parliament could deny the same privileges - to an infinite number of English Catholics, which were pos sessed by Irish Catholics. It was-sale, why not do now what was done before. The truth, however, appeared to be, that they had been.going on until they knew not where to stop. He wished their Lordships to look into history. Let them study the Ist of Philip and Mary, and they would then see that the spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy of the Catholics included temporal supremacy also. deio subject had a• right to enjoy the offices sought for who did not acknowledge the King as su preme. If, -within 20 years past, it was thought to carry the Catholic Question by storm, that time was now gone, and it was only. attempted to gain the same object by. raping and mining. But he still relied upon the -wisdom of that House, and should conclude with observing, -that he could never agree to the Bills on their Lordships' table. -The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that - were - the present the general.-question relative to -the Catholics, no man should more firmly oppose it than himself. -Events which had occurred even within a few days, must have strengthened the sentiments -with which he had always viewed that measure. The Bills, however, under immediate consideration were .of a limited nature, and had no reference to the 'Roman Catholics of Ire -land, but related solely to those of England. -For his own part, he should say, that he-would violate every principle that guided his public conduct through life if he 'did not up hold the supremacy of the Crown. But this -was always a question of degree. He had no elifficelty in saying that the King of this country should be Protestant, the Council Pro testant—the Parliament Protestant—and_ the Judges Protest ase, 'because they were the supreme parts of the Government. Upon these grounds he differed with the Noble Lords opposite respecting the general question. Every honest Catholic must be hostile to a Government such as he (Lord L.) just described; and where they would have the power to endanger it, they should not in his-opinion be admitted. Hence he objected to the general measure introduced by the Noble Lord opposite, and desired him to partieelarize the redress he sought. To apply the same principle to the Office of Lord Chancellor and of a. etidewaiter, rendered it ridiculous. His object was net -to give what would be dangerous,- not to refuse what would he safe. —lle did not think because a certain law prevailed in Ireland that that was in itself a sufficient reason for introducing a sirni. .lar law into this country, but there were some cases where it waulti be preposterous not to aim at uniformity. If the elec tive franchise was given 'at the recommendation of the Crown t 3 the Irish Catholics, why should it be withheld front those of f.:lghtrid ? Generosity, be thought, demanded the concession as well as justice. The oaths alluded to it was well known were scarcely ever tendered hut as means of delay. With re -speet to the second Bill, which went to confer eligibility to -office, it was divided into three parts—that relative tothe Reve &c., Justices of the Peace—and the Earl -Marshal of England. The' last he must join with all who had preceded in wishing to have met as a separate measure although he - -could well appreciate the exalted motives of the Noble Duke -it concerned - for declining any individual relief. Next, as to ...Justices of the Peacee h.?. confessed there were some - debateable -difficulties attending the subject, however free his own mind might be from any important doubts. But he did not see how - the law as regards. the Revenue, Custom, and Excise could re -main in its present state.—[The Noble Earl here entered into --au explanation of the consolidation of the Boards of the two -countries.] —That- evil must, he thought, have some remedy. On the general iittestion affecting the Catholics he had no fears. He knew the opinion of the public of this country on that sub , iect, and-he agreed with his Noble Friend (Earl Westmore land) that the only weakness to be apprehended was from re fusing trifling concessions irrelevant to the real merits of the - measure. The Marquis of LANSDOWN briefly, replied, after which the question was ,put on the second -reading of -the .Elective Franchiie Bill, • When the numbers were—. :13ontents Proxies Not Contents - Proxies - - - 55-139 -Majority against the second reading The Rouse then divided on the second Bill,. for admitting , Riaglish Roman Catholics to offices, &c.—when the numbers -wore, for the second reading, Contents - Proxies - Non-Contents Proxies - Majority - - 'The Rouse then Adjourned. 43-163 74 67-143 _34 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. BYNG presented a. petition from certain persons against the St. Katherine's Dock Bill, and praying to'he heard - by Counsel against it. Mr. Git EN FELL complained of the 'delay which had oc • curred before the Committee on the Bill by the hearing Coun sel. Twenty-three petitions had already been referred to the Committee, and each had been supported by Counsel. In fact it was quite clear that the object of those who opposed the Bill , was delay ; and no individual had more plainly and unequivo .cally evinced that spirit than an Hon, Alderman near - him. He trusted the House would rescue its character from this discre .dit--he had almost said disgrace ; and if there was any prece dent for refusing.to hear Counsel against a Bill, he sho u ld b e -disposed to follow it upon this occasion. Mr. C. CALVERT complained of the course which had 'been adopted by the-Committee. Mr. Alderman HEYGATE said that he had only opposed delay to what he considered unjustifiable and unprecedented •preespitation. The SPEAKER recommended that the House should not go into a discussion upon the merits of.the Bill, because they were obviously not in a condition to do so until the Committee made f the 'their report. He stated the.practice , 9f _ House to be not to c t r o e t ipo articularo _refuse to hear the prayer of parties who i o n b t j h e te c o t a e . d is -details of the Bill. It was, however, Committee not to allow the same points be argued over petitions. again upon the presentation of different • After some further obse rva ti ons f ro m Mr. BUTTERwOR TIT , Mr. GRENFELL, and the S PEAKER , the petition was referr e d to the Committee. ..... °Various other petitions to the same effect were presented and similarly disposed of. Several petitions were presented Against the South London Docks Bill. Mr. J. SMITH presented one from the Rev. S amue l Ben son , Lectur er o f St. J o h n ' s, comp l a i ning that his interests woulde seriou s l y i njured by the removal of the houses where the ben son, was to be made.—Referred to the Committee. lES. The Report of the NEW Alliance COMPA Insurance Company Bill was brought up. Mr. GItENFELL wished to know what was the operation of that Clause which enabled such Companies to sue and be jiv ed in theperson of their Secretary. It was necessary that pu Wiz credit andyublic security should have some guarantee ore Bills of this nature were'passed ; and he should like to Ilext . t h e opinion of any ilon.°Member acquainted with the law. who happened to be present as to the full meaning of this clause. Mr. HUSKISSON said that the clause only gave the Com pany the privilege of proceeding in the name of their Secre tary as a matter of convenience ; and in the event of his not making good their engagement% and satisfying all just cl a i ms made upon them, an individal to claiming under the law was at liberty to select any one member, or any body of members belonging to the Company, and levy his debt upon their goods. He did not say that this was the law, but it became so from a provision which all such 13iila contained.' , . In order to insure this security, it was the intention of Government to have the names of all Shareholders enrolled at the Stamp Office; and that no transactions done by the Company shottld - be legal until that obligation were discharged ; so that the public should know who to pursue in case of a default in making good the engagements of th e C ompany . Mr. Alderman BRYDGES asked a question as to the con dition in which those persons would stand who having origi.: nally been, Shareholders, and having enrolled their names, should-subsequently dispose of their shares. Mr. HUSKISSON said that such names would be held re sponsible until the names of the persons to whom the shares were sold slionld be substituted in their stead. Mr. M. DAWSON presented a petition from Clonmell in favour of Catholic Emancipation,—Laid on the table. Mr. BYNG presented a petition from Uxbridge against the Beer Bill.—Laid on the table. Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from Worcester, praying for the AbcSlition of Slavery.—Laid on the table. Mr. STANLEY presented two petitions from the Minister and Congregation of Charlesworth, and the Inhabitants of Warrington, praying for an inquiry into the transactions at Demerara relative to the late Mr. Smith. As it was soon terming before the House, he should not make any observations upon the question. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a similar petition from Liver pool,. and for the same reason declined making any observation upon the present o.7.casion. Mr. HUSKISSON also presented a petition from the Mer chants and other respectable Inhabitants of Liverpool, to which he called the attention of Agricultural Gentlemen. The peti tioners stated, and they suhstantiated their statement by evi -dence, that prohibitory laws were not advantageous to the growers of corn in this country. They showed that in the last reign, 38 laws of that description were passed, and since that time, anti more particularly since the year, 181.5, when the prohibition was made complete, corn had been at lower prices than at any other period. They therefore prayed that such re strictions might be removed, and a free trade in corn allowed, with such a duty as would protect the British Grower. Mr. CURTEIS thought no time so favourable as the present moment for taking this subject into consideration, and he hoped it would not be delayed beyond the next Session. Mr. PHILLIPS said that it was impossible to go with the application of the principles of free trade to our manufacturing and commercial regulations, until something was done upon this important question. Mr. WHITMORE deciared that nothing but his firm con viction erthe intention of Government to propose a measure of this nature in the next Session, prevented him from bringing it forward again. Mr. HUSKISSON explained to the lion. Member for Suf folk (Mr. Curteis), why he - should not be able to comply with an order of the House, made in consequence of a motion of the 'Hon. Member upon the subject of Corn Averages. He meant to supply all but that which related to returns made upon fraudulent sales, for this reason : he had conceived it his duty to enforce the law against the parties who had offended against it, and he could not therefore supply the evidence upon th et part of the question without defeating the ends of justice. After a few words from Mr. CURTEIS, the petition was or derecl to be printed. Mr. SCARLETT presented petitions from Peterborough' and another place, praying the emancipation of Negroes.—Laid on the-table. Mr. SCARLETT presented a petition from an individual named Fitzgerald, praying compensation for losses under the County Courts Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. CHAPLIN presented a petition from the Hundred in the County of Lincoln, against the importation of Foreign Wool.—Laid on the table. Mr. WHARTON presented a petition from the Magistrates of Northallerton, against the Clause in the Jail Bill relating to the tread-wheel. Mir. CHALLENOR said, that the object of this petition was to enable Magistrates to continue to work prisoners at the tread-mill before trial.—Ordered to b e p r i n t e d. IVIr. DENMAN moved for returns of the Names of all per sons convicted of Misdemeanours before the Court of King's Bench, in the years 1821, 1822, and 1823; with a statement of those who suffered judgment to go lay default, those who plead ed guilty, and those who were convicted on the verdict of a Jury; specifying the nature of the offences—the places where committed—and where sentence was passed.—Ordered. Mr. F. PALMER presented a petition from the Inhabitants -of Sudbury, in favour of the Beer Bill.—Laid on the table. THE LATE MR. SMITH. Lord STANLEY presentett a petition from Manchester, praying a Revision of the Sentence passed upon the late Mr. ' Smith at Demerara.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. BROUGHAM intimated to the House that he was under the necessity of postponing his intention to bring the . question of Mr. Smith's Trial before the House on ThurSday next. He would fain fix it for Tuesday, but he saw the Order List so crowded on that day, that unless some of his Hon. Friends would give way to him, he must be obliged to !kin forward the business on Wednesday. Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a Petition -from Dewbury against the Hides and Skins l3ill.—Laid on the table. GAME LAWS. Mr.' S. WORTLE Y postponed the Order of the Day for the, further consideration of the Report. on.the Game Laws' Bill to . Friday, when he expressed,a hope that it would come on. • Mr. MONCK presented Petitions from the inhabitants of several parishes in Oxfordshire in favour of the Beer Bill_ Laid on the table. Mr. CURTEIS presented petitions from the Licensed Vic tuallers of Sudbury against the Beer Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. R. PRICE presented a petition from• Ross in favour of tile County Courts Bill.—Ordered to he printed. • Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from three parishes. in Ireland complaining of pluralities in the Church. —Laid on the table. CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION. 'Mr. BROWNLOW gave notice that, on Friday next he should present a petition relating to the Catholic Association, and that he should move to refer,the same to a Select Committee. Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS presented a petition from the Fleshers of the Burgh of Annan in favour of the Hides and Skins Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS presented a petition from the PreshyteTy of Annon against the Bill now in the House relat ing to -the Provision for the Poor of Scotland. He recom mended his -Hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill, , and move early , in the next Session to refer the question to a Committee. Lord A. HAMILTON said he thought the Bill was objec tionable in every point of view. He hoped it would be with , drawn from the House, though he had no doubt of the rectitude of the intentions of his Hon. Friend. Mr. KENNEDY said he should not press the Bill this Ses sion ; but he should wish for an opportunity of stating the rea sons which had induced him to bring it forward. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor -of the Exchequer would give him precedence in the course of the evening. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would Willingly do so, but the business he had to bring forward was very important, and he feared the statement of the •son. Gen tleman would not of itself , dispose of his Bill, as discussion might follow his statement. Mr. KENNEDY explained, and the Petition was then read and ordered to lie on the table. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a Petition from Maid stone against-the Beer Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a Petition from the Brewers of Kent on the same subject ; and expressed his hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the Bill, this Session.—Ordered to be printed. MISSIONARY SMITH. Lord F. OSBORNE presented tt petition from Royston, praying that the House would take into consideration the case of Mr. Smith—Ordered to lie on the table. SALMON FISHERY. Lord A. HAMILTON presented a petition from Several persons engaged in Scotch Salmon Fishery, against the Bill re lating to that Fishery..--Referred to the-Committ ee on the Bill. Sir THOMAS A CLAND presented a petition from Barn staple in favour of Mr. Smith's case. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from Ayr against the Scotch Poor Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. 'IV—HORTON moved for several Returns relating to the House Tax. :Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from Essex in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table. • HIDES AND SKINS. :Lard E. CAVENDISH presented a petition from Chester-. field in favour of the Hides and Skins Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table. SPITALPIELDS BILL. Mr. HUSRISSON moved the first reading of the Spital fields Bill.—Rcad a first time, and ordered for a second read ing on Thursday. A Message from the Lords here announced their Lordships'. Assent to several Bill§._ BEER BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for.considering the Report.on the Beer BM. 311-101 The Bill was recommitted; and on the motion for the House going into the Committee, Mr. MABERLY said, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad given up . many objectionable parts, the Bill was yet of a nature to demand- the 'greatest consideration. It had two objects ; first, the altering of the Malt Duty, and next, the throwing open of the Peer Trade. But still it continued a most v exa ti ous duty ; and even the proposed reduction only went to take off the duty from one kind of beer to put it on another. With regard to the Beer Trade, the Bill was opposed by many Brewers a nd Victuallers, who declared that it would be their ruin. He was in favou r of free trade ; but he wished to he cautious in disturbing capital, which had been embarked for several years in property of this nature under the authority of law. All that these persons required was an investigation, before their interests. were destroyed. That this inquiry might be effectually made, he should move that the present Bill be recommitted that day six months; but he repeated, he should - do so only to prepare for a proper inquiry. He had no interest of a personal nature in the question ; but he did not wish to see vested- interests unfairly dealt with; and indeed in this case, lie really thought few people wourd be able to avail them selves of the liberty given by the'Bill. These people, it should be observed, did not ask for compensation, but only to be heard. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill be recom mitted that day six months. Mr. DAVENPORT opposed the bill on account of its being injurious to publicans. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the arguments of the Hon. Gentlemen had already been discussed and decided by the House. Be did not know about what the Hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to inquire in a Commit tee, especially as he admitted that opening the trade would . lower the price of beer. This was giving him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the wh o l e case for which he contended. As to th e a rgu ment about vested interests, it would apply at all times, and if it were therefore allowed to prevail, no alter ation could ever take place. Besides, it was doubtful at this moment whether, under the present law, a brewer could not deal in b eer by retail. Many individuals had trued to do so, and being convicted for so dealing, their appeal to the Court of King's 'Bench had led to a suggestion, from the Court, that the law should be set at rest by a declaratory Act. The brewers and publicans could not say that they were now taken by 'sur trise, as a Committee had been appointed on the subject two years ago, which had frequently been brought under the notice of the House since that period. The evils of the present system were admitted, and the advantages which would follow from the proposed Bill were not denied. He could not therefore consent to the postponement of the measure, and he begged the House to meet it with " Aye" or " No." He felt confident as to the result, particularly as the Bill proposed measures which would contribute to the comfort of the poorer classes.— (Hear, hear!) Mr. LOCKHART supported the Bill. Mr. T. WILSON thought the interests of the 'brewers and publicans deserved some consideration. Mr. F. PALMER did not concur in opinion with the last speaker, and thought the Bill as it now stood, would work a considerable benefit to the community. There was no real com petition among brewers, except in the few instances wherein the Magistrates did their duty. Mr. CHARLES WHITBREAD assured the House his opposition to the Bill was not caused by interested motives, but by a regard to the rights of many of his constituents who were brewers and publicans. lie should oppose the Bill. Mr. Alderman Bit YDGES opposed the Bill. Sir JOHN SE BRIG H T supported the Bill in order to check the monopoly of Brewers. Mr. CHA LILES CALVERT opposed the Bill. Col. DAVIES also opposed the Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought the Bill did not deal fairly with Publicans; and he should therefore oppose it. Mr. CURIVE'N thought the Bill was deserving of the sup port of every Member of the House. Mr. MONCK also supported the Bill. It had actually been proved that die Brewers brewed several kinds of beer, the best for the free houses, over which they had no controul ; and the very worst for their own houses. Mr. Barclay, the great Brewer, had very handsomely offered to consent to open the trade. Mr. WODEHOUSE supported the Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD contended that the measure waS one not calculated to benefit the people of England. So far from relieving the poor, it - had a direct contrary tendency. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put the duty on a quarter of malt at 245. as lie had formerly held out, instead of 375. tid., it would be putting the question upon its right footing. • Free trade ought to be established in every department of national industry. It was absurd that there should be a free trade in one article and not in another. Mr. MONOK explained. Mr. DENISON supported the amendment. His Honour able Friend °thy called for inquiry : he did not pledge himself to any specific course of conduct or opinion. His object was to reconcile the interest of the public at large to the measure, to which in reality he did not object. 111 r. said, he thought this measure if passed would be injurious to the interests of the public, and therefore' he should oppose it. Mr. CURTEIS said, that in compliance with the prayer of the petitions which he had presented, lie should vote against the Bill. Mr. MANSFIELD supported the Bill, because it had been altered from its original shape. Mr. BUTTERWORTH said a few words, which were in audible in the Gallery. The House then divided— For the Pill - 99 Fur the Amendment - - 32 Majority in favour of the Bill - —67 The HoitSe .. then went into a Committee on the Report. Mr. MABERLY moved an amendment to a clause, to the effect that Licences to Publicans be discontinued. The CHANCELLOR of the EI:CHEQUER said he must -oppose this motion, because he could not afford to give up two hundred thousand pounds. Mr. MABERLY said he only wished to place the publiean -upon the same footing as all other trades. The Gallery was then cleared for a division. After an ex clusion for a considerable time we were again admitted to the -Gallery, no division having taken place. The Amendment, it was understood, was withdrawn, and the clause was adopted. The other clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, with cer tain verbal Amendments. The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re ceived to-morrow. COUNTY COURTS BILL. On the motion of Lord. ALTHORP that this Bill be read a third time, Mr. SCARLETT rose to state his objections to the bill. It was desirable that a summary mode should be provided for the recovery of small debts, which would defeat the frauds now practised. He differed from his Noble Friend as to the extent to which the jurisdiction of the inferior courts ought to be car ried. If their powers were so augmented that debts of M. could be recovered in them, he thought that would be sufficient. His Noble Friend wished to allow the County Courts at pre sent held to remain for suits of replevin. These, however, were very few, in some places not averaging more than one a month.; and it could hardly be expected that it would be worth any respectable person's while to bold such Courts for a remuneration of 2s. 4d. each time, which was as much as could be expected from suits of that description. Another objection to this Bill was, that it was proposed to take effect from next July. There were cases already in progress, and would be more, and he wished to know what was to become of them. The whole of them must be interrupted, and the costs already incurred thrown away. These, however, were but minor objections. Had these alone suggested themselves, he would not have opposed the third reading of the Bill. He however objected to enabling creditors to make recoverable such large SLIMS, as it was now proposed, in a C ourt o f Conscience. The law of England had always considered the practice of allowing parties to be ex amined in.their own cases as holding out a temptation to per jury. By the common law of England, which after ail was that which the peopleapproved most, a wiEness could not be examined who was interested in the result of the trial. This was the grand principle of the law of England, and the main foundation on which the law of evidence rested. He would not object to debts pot exceeding 5/. being recovered in courts of conscience, but to advance at once to iO/. would in his opinion be a very dan gerous experiment. If, instead of this, a Bill were introduced to effect the adaptation of existing courts, to lessen the expen ce of proceedings in th em, and to provide for the taxing of costs by the:appointment-of an assessor, that would be a different measure, and would not excite alarm. B ut t h e Bill o f his Noble Friend, though it would seem to be such in title, did not bear Ithat character. Instead of going to improve the jurisdiction of these Courts, it went to introduce twenty new jurisdictions and twenty new Judge s to be appointed by the Crown, and to him, therefore, it that had been brough t a peared to be the most important Bill forward since he had had the honcur to hold a seat in that House. The Bill had a clause which went to make it perpetual, howe ver i ncon venient or injurious i t might be found- Appointin gas i t d i d, twenty n ew J u d ges, with sala ries of 8001. p er annum each ; if five or six yearn hence, it should be found an unwise measure, it would be no easy matter to repeal it, so many would be interested in supporting it. He considered that the additional patronage which it gave to the Crown would make it perpetual. That patronage he did not wish to see extendid. It had already largely increased, was in creasing, and ought to be diminished. Those who gained these new situations would be looking out for som et hi ng better by and by. The Jud ges ' officers would be mad e the footstools r from which they would reac h for ot h er t hi ngs, and these twenty officeis would bc generally at t h e call of the Crown, an i mate d by - a eon -of gratitude for favours to come, which was gene.. rally much more active than gratitude for benefits received.-- addition as follows :—" In which statement several erasures These Gentlemen would have great local influence which and alterations in pencil appear to have been subsequen t! ! might be improp er l y use d. N ow, w i t h out w i s h ing to diminish made by Lieutenant-Colonel Western. the fair patronage of the Crown, he saw no reason for increas- " There was also found a memorandum in peacfl, re lative tg ing it. He con s id ere d this lull to add to it largely, and to have wh a t t oo k p l ace on t h e ground, on a detached piece o f paper." a tendency to di m i n i s h t h e i n d epen d ence of the Gentlemen at Why was the account contained in this memorandum sup" the Bar. He therefore so Strongly objected to the measure, pressed in the statement published by Sir H. Hardinge on ul e that'he should take the sense of the House on the third reading I itli ? If the name of Sir H. Hardinge is puffed and parade d of the Bill. He proceeded to shew, by referring to the consti- with so much pomp, Colonel Western,. too, was equally We. tut th e of the existing - Courts, that tile provisions of this Bill known as a brave and distinguished officer, and no less know , : were unnecessary. He would be content to extend the juris- as an honourable man, incapable of distorting or misren diction of the Courts of Conscience to the recovery of debts sensing facts. Why, then, were the " erazures and penciled amounting to a ; he would prievide for the taxing of costs by alterations subsequently made by him in his statement , an Assessor to be appointed by the Sheriff: He wished the omitted in that of Sir Henry Hardinge ? Why was " t h e Oen; Sheriffs' Courts to retain th e i r present j ur i s di ct i on, and object- cried memorandum on a detached piece of paper" suppressed • ing to give the Crown additional patronage, which might prove It will be said that this penciled memorandum and these pen' injurious to the n a ti on . H e move d as an Amendment that the cited alteratiops were subsequent to the signature of .11. •P Bill should be read a thi r d ti me on t h at d a y s i x months. which the paper bears. True, but as this paper is without Mr. SYKES, when he consid ere d t h e expences necessarily Colonel Western's signature, it is evident that he had 110 t , incurred under the existing law in reco ver i ng a sma ll sum, finished his exami nat i on o f t h e sub j ect, and that he decline" which often made it advisable to abandon a debt of 251. or signing the document, till this very memorandum and these 301., confessed that he thought this Bill ought to pass. The very alterations in 'question were admitted by Sir Henry Ham' proposition of the Lea rne d G ent l eman f or extending the ju- dinge. It was C o l one l W estern ' s intention to have wa i t risdiction of the County Courts to 51. would be wholly inade- on Sir Henry Harding; for the express purpose of 110 1 4 quate to remedy the evils complained of'. On the point of this material alteration inserted ; and death alone p re vent patronage he agree d w i t h t h e L earne d Gentleman, and could him from acting on this intention. I now ca ll u pon the . wish that it s h ou ld not b e g i ven to the Crown, but rather to two Gent lemen(Mr. Fren c h an d G en. Turner), who, withoa , the Sheriff, a nd th e a d vantages resu l t i ng f rom it lie had thought my k now l e d ge, exam i ned the papers of the l a t e Col. Wester° , would be no unfair compensation for the expence thrown on at his uncle's house, to produce a co py o f the p e n c iled mentor' those who took u pon th emse l ves that office. lie was, however, andurn in question, which form e d a p art of' those papers, and unwilling to put off the measure for another Session, and s h ou ld w hi c h , on examination, I allege will be found to corroborate vote for the third r ea di ng . my assertions, and to correspond in its substance and tene t ' Mr. SCAR LETT explained. with the following statement : ' MiS J. WILLIA3IS fully agreed with the view taken of the Mr. B. said to Sir 11. Hardin a—" Do you, on the part of patronage' given by this Bill to the Crown by his Hon. Friend his Lordship, mean to give hie a fresh insult ?u, Do yo i n tent' the Member for Peterboro ug h, an d t h oug h t that that furnished to tell me that lam a liar? " Sir H. replied, " No ; I do not an objection whiclomeght to sink the measure to the ground.— mean to say so; but every man ishable to mis-et a t emen a yOO, It had lately been said, th a t 1,50 places w ere a t p resent ope_ Sir, (turning to Col. Western), may make a miss -statement, or Irating on the virtue of GentleMeri at the Bar. If this were an may ; Mr. Battier must have been misinformed." over-calculation, he himself could count above 120, and to add . After th e pa i ns w hi c h the penciled memorandum wil l to them 20 places, w hi c h m i g h t be held by Gentlemen of five prove to have been taken on the ground by Sir Henry Her' years standing at the Bar, would be throwing additional weight dinge in explaining away the nature of a Ores; which into that scale which was already too heavy, and he should if deliberately used, must have been grossly eflansive (and, therefore feel it to be his duty to vote tbr the amendment of his which, if viewed in that light, all who knew the'character 0' Learned Friend. Colonel Western must know that lie would not for an instant Mr. It. SMITH was of opinion, that giving the patronage in have submitted to); and after time very different colouring g iven question to the Crown, was the only means of fixing responsi- to the affair, in Sir H. Hardinge'a published statement I con bility and pre vent i ng t h e propose d appo i ntments from being MI- ,ceived th a t th e a c count l ie had put forth in the public journals properly bestowed. The existing evil absolutely required a "was totally at verience with the true character of the mane remedy, and he should certainly give his vote for the bill, action, and deficient in most important Circumstances, as I have Lord A LTHORP defended the measure, and r e pli e d t o th e a l ready stated in The Observer. I th ere f ore felt myself war objections urged against it. It was true that it gave some ad- ranted in saying, that Sir H. Hardinge drew up a partial ditional patronage to the Crown, but the increase was not so statement of the occurrences, which Colonel W e stern, much as, in hi s o pi n i on , to ma k e any great difference with re- admit, has signed, but the impo r t of which, I repeat, his apect to thei n d e pendelice of the Bar. Ther e a l wa y s h a d b een subsequent memorandum in pencil p roves t h at he did not in the profession of the law splendid exceptions to the influence " thoroughly examine" or comprehend. On these grounds, 1 of the Crown, and such, he doubted, would continue to be required from Sir H. Hardinge an explanati on o f th e meani ng found. Some inco nven i ene i es were to b e r i s k ed where the object intended to be conveyed by his late statement, or a meeting' was to correct evils of such magnitude as now called for re- Every thing like explanation he thought proper to decline; dress. To thew how much some such measure was required, and as to a meeting, it was flatly refused in the followins he referred to a case which had occurred at Worcester. A terms, which Sir H. Hardinge cavalierly dictated to my friend , woman, of the name of Brown, sued a person for 41. Bs. The who at his request took them down in writing ;_ parties went to t r i a l, an d, h e b e li eve d , the person he had " Sir H. Hardinge says, that at the time lie stated that he pained gained the cause. For recovering this 41. Bs. the At- would, under the advice of his friend, not decline to wee torney brought in his bill, which amounted "to 901. es. 3d. She Mr. Battier or any man, he was not aware th at M r. B att i e r could not pay it, was arreste d i n consequence, and had been in had published in The Observer a flagrant and infamous ca prison since the 14th of last July; in consequence of having lumpy, which he has promised to prove, and which Sir II• recovered a just debt. 'When such was the state of the law, it Hardinge defies hint to prove; he can look on Mr. Battier could not be denied that some remedy ought to be provided. in no other light than as a calumniator, pleased to and subsequently He had done his b es t, an d en d eavoure d to f rame a measure cal- unworthy of his notice. " To this Sir H. II. was culated to meet the evil. make . a verbal addition, which no honourable man can vista The Gallery was then ordered to be cleared, but the strangers in any other light, than as the bravado of a bully—" That had not wholly retired when the question was put on th e t h oug h he would not meet Mr. Battier, lie would meet an! amendment, which was negati ve d. The third reading was then gentleman who w ou ld s t ep f orwar d and put himself in h i s carried. place !" On such an absurd, but convenient piece of affectation , Some additional clauses were then moved and agreed to. I shall make no comment. Colonel TRENCH moved a clause to give compens a ti o n s t o H av i ng stated these facts, i would ask what course was left the Town Clerk o f C am b r id ge, f or the loss of his emoluments for me to pursue? I had merely required of Sir H. Hardingew in consequence of the passing of this Bill. state his own expressiens,the very words himself had used on the On this the Ho use di v id e d, w h en t h e numbers were— ground, and whi c h th e p enc il e d h and-writing of CoL W. wil l For the Clause - - - - 31 proved. He refus e d, t a ki ng advantage of the diffi cu lty i n w hi c h I Against it - - - - - 112 - was placed, by the death of the only individual who could have Majority . _ —3l given personal testimony on my side ; but little imagining that Lord ALTHORP proposed a clause to negative the Com- that person (Col. W.) had left behind him a document which pensatioh for loss of Offices under the operation of the Bill. will place the fact I assert beyond the possibility of dispute. The Noble Lord did not mean to repeal the whole clause, and Whether the step which irritated feelings impelled me to accordingly moved to leave out part of the words. take, on meeting Sir H. Hardinge in the street, was precipitate The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was surprised the Noble or net, Ido not stop to canvass: I only ask any man, with the Lord in the last stage of the Bill should oppose this clause. So common feelings of human nature, what he would have done far as he was concerned, 'he stood upon fair wound. The per- under the same circumstances ? or what alternative was left sons whose names h a d b ee n introduced in the Compensation me, after Sir H. Hardinge had misrepresented my conduct, re' Clause, were persons who had purchased offices allowed fused my message with insult, and then coolly and insolent', by law to be sold. Th e y were all freehold offices ; they deputed my own friend to be the bearer of that insult ? Sue had all the character and interest of other freehold property, are the plain facts of this case--and I repeat it, they will be annd he asked whether it was justiee to say those offices proved in their most important points by the document ',chic" ould be abolished without giving compensation ? If a dock Colonel Western has left behind him. They cannot b e con" was to be built, or a canal excavated, the parties whose troverted by specious sophistry and diplomatiiacnnjcaip.agaloblniwe.,hofoirnher; property was taken, received compensation .1 and he might 1 have been counselled in self-defence to address this letter ask why a distinction was to be drawn ? If Gentlemen 4 to you for the perusal of my friends. would make inquiry, they would find a ll th e characteristics of the late Colonel Western, know that h r e rli v e ra Y ; this property, and if so, how could they leave out the com- own sake, of acting the part which the statement of Sir ll' pensation clause ? The Finance Committee had recommended liardinge, adroitly drawn up by that Gentleman, and I admit, compensation for these claims, Saleable offices were considered hastily signed by Colonel Western, would imPute to him: part of the salaries of Judges, and how then could they take That Colonel Western did hastily sign this document, is proven away those salaries ? the Judges according to the Report of a by the pencil memorandum, which Sir H. Hardinge's own Committee of Finance, would not be sufficiently paid without friend admits was found among Colonel Western's papers, and the emolument of those offices. Th e parties held the property the contents of which memorandum I now again require to be by purchase. stated by the two Gentlemen who examined those papers. Mr. BRIGHT could not find precedents for giving com en- As to Sir H. Harding; after the part he can only and the action. 'When the Star Chamber was suppressed, no compen- chastisement he has drawn upon himself, I can only view hill , sation was given to individuals holding offices. Ile supported with contempt; he has carried his fondness for argument to the Noble Lord's motion. the last, for he now disputes upon the mode and manner of 31r. N. CA LVER r opposed the clause. ' using a whip—quibbling upon the difference between raising The House then divided— a whip over him, and shaking it at him. - . - For the clause - - - - 47 To conclude--His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief For the amendment - - -41 has been pleased to remove me from-the army, but there exists Majority against the amendment - _.O no power on earth that can force me to submit to insult. Lord The Bill was, then, as we understand, read a third time and Londonderry, for the seine offence as mine, has been visited passed. . - . • . with--a gentle censure! On this I make no comment —the thins speaks for itself. There is, however, one consolatory re flection—Since Military Justice is thus dispensed, we may re joice that we hold our Civil Rights under a less precarious te nure. SCOTCH JURIES BILL. Mr. KENNEDY moved that the Report of the Scotch Juries Bill be received. The Report was accordingly received. Lord BINNING moved that the Bill be re-couunitted. , The House divided. Ayes - - - - - se .Noes - - - - 25 Majority - - - - —3 The Amendments in the Bill were agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. Mr. HUME obtained leave to bring in the Bills recommend ed by the Committee on Artisans. The first Bill, that for repealing the Combination Laws, was brought in and read a first time.—Ordered for a second reading to-morrow.—Adjourned at ONE o'CLock. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, WM. BATTIER. To the Editor of the The Morning Chronicle. P.S. I annex a document received from Colonel Western's uncle, which may in some degree illustrate the motives and sentiments of my s ite friend, Colonel Western. Had not his sudden illness prevented his perfecting this communication, many of the difficulties in which this affair has been industri ously involved might have been avoided. " " No. 7, Gr ea t J ames -street, Bedford-row, May 22. Sir`—ln examining the papers of my nephew, the late Lieut.-Colonel Western, I have found a letter in his hand writing, of which (after consulting with others of his family) I deem it my duty to furnish you with a copy. The letter was open and without date or signature. I should have sent you the original, but as it may be necessary to authenticate this do cument, I have thought it prudent to retain the letter, which shall be forthcoming whenever called for. " I am, Sir, your obedient, servant, " William Battier, Esq. " JAMES WESTERN." " DEAR BATTIER—I conceive it a duty under the circum stances of yesterday's and this day's business, to lay before you (though uncalled for) a brief explanation of-my motives for pursuing the line of conduct I did. This, I trust, will meet with the approval of your real friends„ and shew why I did not chuse bloodthirstly to insist on the continuation of bos. tilities.—First, you certainly, in a public view of the pro ceedings, have gained a complete victory; your mind, not withstanding, laboured under the impression, that some persons might be illiberal enough to suppose that the virulence of your language was unde r an id ea t h at t h e M arquess would not meet you ; the same party (should any such exist) might suppose that you hid yourself under the generality of your langusge to the corps, and that not having personified any individual, you were secure from personal collision from any individual: " Have you not proved to the world, that by the c , -ent of the day, you have shcwn yourself a man who has not wonted a courage you did not possess ? Has Lord Londondi rry not proved to you that he looks on you as a Gentleman, or be would not have put himself before you in personal conflict ? " In consideration of this, together with the public opinion, I could not, as a man and a Christian, think of allowing you to seek with inveteracy that man's blood, whose fire you had manfully stood against, and whose blood certainly would have been on my head had any fatal consequences occurred after the first fire. The chance of your pistol having missed lire was an event not to be looked for by either party ; but it having so happened, any further proceedings, in my opinion, would have only been rash and vindictive. The world would so have con sidered it, and I should have been to blame, and only me, had I acted otherwise than .1 did. " I write this solely to convince you of my feelings on the subject, and however 1 may have erred in the opinion of the rash, I do not consider either your honour or mine have been impeached by it, but rather added consideration to the prin ciples under which we acted.'" • a * LIST OF THE MINORITY Who voted' with Mr. 3faberly on his Amendment that the Beer Bill should be recommitted this day six months. Bridges, G. Davenport, D. Rowley, Sir W. Barrett, S. M. Davies, Colonel R a msbottom, John Bradshaw, R. 11. Denman, T. Williams, W. Butterworth,- J. Drake, W. T. Wilson, T. Bernal, Ralph Hod g son, F. Whitbread, W. H. Birch, J. Knatchbull, Sir E. - Whitbread, S. C. Calvert, C. King., Sir J. D. Wood, M. Coke, T. W. jun. Marjoribanks, S. - Wells, J. Cavendish, R. Moberly, W. L. TELLERS. Cavendish, H. Plummer, John Moberly, J. Curteis, E. J. Pitt, J. Denison, W. J. SIR H. HARDINGE AND CORNET BATTIER. [FROM THE MORNING CHRONICLE.] Monday, May 24, 1824. Sin.—ln the Papers of Sunday I perceive that Sir H. Hardinge has published some correspondence and other documents relative to a late affair. The colouring he has en deavoured to give these documents, no doubt affords grea t relief to his present feelings, but I shall trouble you with a few remarks, and also some proofs, which may set the matter in a clearer point of view. The fulsome compliments which a General Turner lavishes upon " his dear Hardinge," are no doubt extremely flattering to the latter Gentleman's vanity; and accordingly we find that he has gratefully repaid " his deaf Turner," by " his entire concurrence in every step the General has taken." But as all these fine words do not advance one single step towards ascer taining the real truth, they must, in the present instance, be regarded as totally extraneous matter ; I therefore pass over the Major-General's rhetorical flourishes, and come to the chi cument which is considered so conclusive by him, and which is put forward with so much bombastical triumph by Sir Henry Hardinge; who (to give him all due credit) has made great proficiency in the diplomatic art of twisting, distorting, and perplexing a very plain case, This document, to which the four signatures are affixed, states, that among the late Colonel Western's papers was found an exact copy of the statement published by Sir H. Hardinge in The Morning Chronicle of the 15th instant, and also another statement in the hand-writ ing of Colonel Western, similar in 'substance. It would be very well for the ex-parte statement of Sir H. Hardinge, if the document concluded here, but a little farther on we find an • • * 1 e TUE VICE-CHANCELLOIt.-It will afford great pleasure to the absent friends of the VICE-CHANCZLLOR to hear, that he was so much recovered from his late attack of ill ness, as to be enabled to entertain his friends yesterday, in South -street, with a sumptuous dinner, and do the honours of the table with his usual affability and grace. : P c Iv Pt