The Sun. — London, England, 1806-03-22 00:00:00

- :is,._ • IMPERIAL PAELIAMENT. HOUSE OF PEERS. FRIDAY, 1„ARCII 21., IN an Appeal from Scotland, " Glassell v. the Earl of Wemyss," Mr. Adam was heard on behalf of the Appellant ; after which the further consideration was postponed till to-morrow. The American Treaty Bill, the Wool Exportation Bill, the Mutiny Bill, the EngliSh and Irish Militia Bills, the Militia Subalterns' Bill, the Militia Adju • , tants' Bill, and the Scotch Bankrupt Bill, were read ' a third time and passed, and a Message ordered to the Ilguse of CoMmons to aCquaint them therewith. On the Motion of Lord ELDON, the further consi deration of the claims of the Duke of Clarence, and other Royal DUkes, to ths, Right of Voting in the Ele&ion of Representative PeerS : for Ireland, was fixed for Tuesday. ' , , The fmther" hearing of the case, " Keeting v. the East India• Company;" was, on the Motion of the same Noble, Lord, also fixed for Tuesday ; and the fiitther .consideration t of the Appeal", " The ' Countess Dowager 'of Lincoln and others v. the Duke of Newcastle and others," deferred till Wed- riesday. Mr. Stavely, from the Post Office, presented an Account of the Balances in the hands of Deputy Postmasters, on the sth of January, 180aj which was ordered to lie on the:Table. LIABILITY OF , ty'ITNESSES. Lord EIDON; after adverting to what had taken place on Wednesday relative to the DeClaratory • observed, that he did not attend on that day in con sequence ofunderstinding , that a Noble and Learned L'ird . (Lord' Ellettborough), not now in his place, would propose a. clause .Specifically providing/for the exC , vtii - as to the,general principle, and which was to be -substitutes .for the proviso which he (Lord 1:1(lon) had .prop used to their ,Lordships. , From wh:it had happeArd, however, on that day, he was convinced that lae:must have misuridcrstood :the in tentions of the Noble and • Learned Lord to whom he had alluded. 'He was still of, opinion .that the Till, if passed in its present shape, might generate much mischief, and,could he have conceived that no qualifying clause would have been proposed, he would haVe attended in his place on Wednesday, ;Ind stand' ont , to the last fin- the adoption of his pro- V:SO. 'As the business stood now he must content IHinself. with giving notice, that if the Bill came up from the House of Commons without receiving any Amendment that could again bring the subject into discussion, h&should make a Motion on the Bill le - onght in bfr a Noble Lord (Stanhope), for the pur pose of britiging the question again under their Lordships', consideration. The Loan CHANCELLOR, after adverting to the causes which had given rlse to the Declaratory Bill, which he hal had the honour to present to their Lordships,. contended, that the general enactments contained in the Bill merely declared the law to be what the majority of the Judges had stated it ; but did not take away any of those privileges of ddrnurrer , which witnesses were previously allowed by law, or the power of the Judge to decide upon such grounds of demurer, according to the Law as previously de fined and laid down. 'ln framing the Bill, Ire took for its grOund-work the language used by the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon) in the. question referred to the Judges,, which question had been answered in the affirmative, by a majority Of those learned per sons; if, theretbre, there was a &tea int,he Dill, it must arise-from defective opinion ,deliered 'by the Judges. • - Lord ELDON still adhered to his former opinion relative to the operation of the Bill. He thought, however, it would be advisable, if the Bill was not amended in the Hbuse of Commons, to put a ques tion' to the Judges for . the purpose of ascertaining whether the exceptions to the general principles were saved or not under the general enacting words of the-Bill.---Adjourned till to-morrow Wilk day). HOUSE OF COMMONS. FRIDAY, MARCH 21 . A'Return wa'spresented from the Privy Cot.'lei] of the Number of Men raised under the Defence Aa, dit , tinguishink those who were discharged, and also those who live volunteered for general service.= Ordered to he on the Table, and to be pleinted. Mr. DICKE:O, in the absence of his Hon. Friend,. 1111;. C. Pole, took occasion to oost poi) e, till Monday, the notice of Motion' relative 'to India, . which his . Hon. Friend had announced his intention of bring • in forward this day. • BURD67.vi rose, pursuant to notice, to sub-' mit'a prol)diition of great and general importance, particularly to the poorer classes of the commu nity: It,*as become in. the highest degree neces sary to ascertain, ;and to fix upon some mode for the accurate tneaqtrement of. Coals, for in conse quence of the want of such an arrangement the public, and especially the poor and ignorant i were subjea to the grossest frauds and imposition. To remedy ,such. evils was the object of the measure he had thought it'his duty to bring forward. The Hon.' Member concluded with moving for leave to bring .a Bill for the better regulating, the admeasurement of Coals seaborne.—Leave given. ' Mr..Btaveley presented at the Bar an Account of the Receipts and Arrears in the Post Office Depart ment on the 51 h of January, 18065 and Mr. Frank-. r j r.Tre . sr r t6d - in ACCOUtffiroTh tire - Commissiimers of Customs of the Arrears and Balances due by Cot lelors, &c: Thes - e - Acconnts were ordered to lie on the, Table, and the latter •was ordered /o be,printed. A Message from the LordS inforthed the House of their , Lordships' assent to the Scotch Creditors' 13i14, the American Treaty and the American - WOol , Bills ; the Irish and English Militia Pay and oloth ing. , and Adjutants' and Subalterns' Allowance, 13iiis. - , , • Ordered,' on the Motion of Mr. VANSITTAIT, that'an.Aceount shoal,be laid before the House Of the Amount of Interest accruing upon such Exche , cpaer• Bills as are to'be paid off in the Year 'BO6 ;, and the Right IIo». Gentleninn gave notice;thache would Move a Vote uoon this subject in the Com mittec of Supply on _Monday. • 0 . Sir JottN, AND2IIBON preSented a. Petition 'from the Trustees of .Bethlern -Hospital, prqing Parlia-, itentarj.aid.—Reterred to'a Sele& Committee. The Ten z.nd a Half Million Exchequer Bills Bill, Fxlthe ,, One tnd a Hulf Million Exchequer Bills Bill, were sevttrally commit ted, , and Che'RepOrtS were or dered to be bi•ouglit up on Monday. , The Excise Continuance Bill, the Cu.stams• Con tinuance 'Bill, 4nd the Felons Transportation Bill, were reported, and ordered to be read a third' time on MOnday. _ • _ , _ _ _ The. House resolVed itself into a Committee on the Dublin Paving Bill. Mr. WyriNg moved that a snm of .co,oool. be placed at the disposure of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, for the purpose of' improving the Paving,. &c. of the City of Dublin. Mr. ORMSBY said, that before .the Resolution passed, he should be glad to know what was the . obje& of it, or what good end it would answer ? A power had been given to the Lord Lieutenant last summer,'to issue a sum of 20,0001. in debentures, bearing 5 per cent. interest, not one farthing of, which 'had yet been laid out. It was now proposed to permit the Lord , Lieutenant to issue the same sum in Debentures, bearing an interest *of 6 per cent. As the 5 per cent. Debentures were not at par. in Ireland, the Debentures for ,20,0001. would not have produced the whole of sum sum ; but it appeared to him that it would have been Much.bet ter to grant a sniall sum to make up the deficiency .that, would subsist from the Debentures not being at par, than to ,agree to the present Resolution. ' Mr. WYNNE said, he did not see the force of the. Hon: Gentleman's objection 'to the present Re solution. The House had before deterinined that this sum should be raised for repairing the Paving, &c. of the City of Dublin ; 'it had been. found that it could not be raised advantageously in the way be fore pfoposed, and therefore this Resolution had been proposed. Mr..ORM - SBY begged leave again to repeat, that no part of the Money already voted: had been yet expended, and he thought , it would ,be quite time enough to come .to'ParliaMent for more when that was nearly exhausted. As to the stun of 20,0001: .he was pert - 664 convinced that. suns, would not be stiflicient 'Or the purpose, nor did he think 40,0001. would; but be objeded to this Resolution until the sum already granted bad been .nearly, expended. Mr. WyNNE, said, that the sum whia the Lord Lieutenant , had deemed,sufficient in the present in stance Was 20,6001;and,.therefore, he conceived there could- be no obje6tion to voting it, as it was agreed on all sides that the City of Dublin ought not to be suffered to remain in its present state any longer. Lin-d DE BLAQUIEVE said, that if this sum was necessary, why had it not been applied for be fore ? The Session had now continued two months without any application having been made. . Mr. LATO I.ICHE said, that the reason why an earlier applicatiOn for the money had not been made was, because there was no Public Body in Ireland to whom the diSposal of' it could have been given. It was known that the present Paving Board had giVen great•dissatisfaaiop, and that their condu& was un der examination; therefore the money could not,. with prop?ietv,• nave been placed at their 'disposal. There *ere, however, now a set of persons who had _Undertaken to repair the streets of Dublin, and therefore the application was now made. VANSITTART said, the money now pro -1564M7t0. be granted was absolutely necessary ; the House might as well refuse to suffer the streets .of Dublin to be paved as refuse to grant the Money. As to .what had . been said about the five per cent. Debentures, if it had been lottnd upon examination that Government would have Lost money by. issuing these Debentures . ; it surely was a good reason for adopting the present plan. . _ •. _ - After. a few words llom Mr. ORlinri and Lord DE 'B LA CRT!! ER E, the Resolution was, agreed to, and the . Report was-ordered to be received on Monday. THE BUDGET. Lord. HENRY PETTY gave 'notice, that he would on Friday next,- bring forward the Wa3/s and MeanS foi the year, and upon that occasion snake the statement which was commonly denominated the Budget: Mr. G. ROSE' took occasion to ask, whether it was intended to bring forward the Array Estimates for the 'year before the Motion of which the Noble Lord had giVen notice, a:• no instance had occurred. since the Revolutibn of the Budget having been submitted to Parliament until the amount of the MilitaryExpeno of the Country was precisely stated ? After some moments of silence, Mr. VANsIT TART rose, and remarked, that in point of Parlia mentary regularity the only thing necessary re speding the Budget was, that the Ways and Means should be commensurate with the Supply: - 'Lord HENRY PETTY said, that if the Hon. Gentleman fihould,think proper to objeEt to the pro position he meant to submit, he would have the .op 2 portunity of mAing a•Motioll upon the subjed w that proposition should be laid before the lion le, Mr. ROSE repeated, that it. would be without ex ample to propose the. Budget .before Parliamet.t and the Country were accurately informed,' in the regular and usual way, of the probable expellee in the Mdi tat'y Department. This pra6tice he thought proper and necessary to be folloed, , and if the Noble Lord shouild in this instance attempt to deviate from it, he should certainly feel it his duty to make a Motion on the subjea.. TREATING ACT Mr. TIERNEY moved the second reading'of the Treating Ad. Upon the Motion being put, Mr. F,ULLER- expressed his surprise that the Right Hon. Gentleman should submit such an iin portant_Motion without saying ;one sentence 3.lp9ii t he subjea. To say much in its favour, he thought quite beyond the power of ..the Right Hon. Gentleman or any other person. Indeed,:it did not .hpliear to his mind that such a measure could at all be sustained; for its tendency would be to disfranchise an immense; proportion of the Freeholders of the country. In the case even of the county he had the honour to repro ' sent (Sussex) what would be the fate of the poor Freeholders who lived above eighty miles from the place of polling ?---Why, that such persons, unable to defray the ekpence of the journey, - would forfeit theirvotes. The same thing would, no doubt, hap penin many, is all other counties., If.was enorwh that poor Freeholders should be. subjea to the loss of time and the trouble of going 'to the Hustings, withotit being called _upon to submit to the expence of carriage from distant quarter:. This expence was no material loss to the Candidates, and it was to he recollected thatthe piior voters were only treated to this jaunt once in seven' years. It would be cruel then to dash thus trivial cup from the poor man's lips.. The House should bear in mind the Manner 41 which. our agacious enemy akled towards hrs people, particularly towards his soldiery, to every one of whom he occasionally , appwled, complimenting then at once as th,. judges s ofhs conduit, the means of his success, and the,partakers of, his glory.. A. si milar, policy should govern this country. Every Enlishman should be taught to feel a common in terest with his Country and its Legislature, and the beat mode to encourage that feeling was by making every, even the poorest Freeholder, an arbiter of the condat of his'', Representative. But the obje& of this Bill 'could be to deprive the greater part of the poor Freeholders of this important right. If s;ich a Bill were to pass, the effect would be to injure in dependent Candidates, to exclude distant Voters, and to leave the fate of an ele&ion generally to the decision .of•the mob ofthe town where it might take place. Thns,the man who could best harangue the mob would probably be the successful CatiOid a te,-t o the exclusion of those independent men who were most worthy. to be. Members, of Parliament—for those who would not submit to great.trouble would have 'no . ell,pnce of succeeding. Sir Edward Coke had observed, that these men 'were most fit to be Members of Parliament who did not care whether they Were so or not—and if this Bill were. to be' adopted, such men would, in all likelihood,' be ut terly excluded; for being prevented from paying for the conveyance of Voters, being too proud to, can vass, aild•Unwilling to count the mere mob at the Hustings, they would have but little chance of any Voters at all.• • . . Mr. 211011RIS rose, and argued against the men-, sure with 'considerable force and ingenuity : his oh .jedions were so radi c al, th a t n o alterationor amend- I met a could reconcile him to, its adoption, and therefore he felt this the proper stage to tbakte his i stand against it. If it were meant as a declaratory, LaW to explain . the Aa of King William, he would resist it as totally unnecessary ; and if meant to go , f farther than that Ad, he would resist it as improper I anal unjust. /The'giving meat and drink to voters' . was already prohibited by the letter of the Statute of William ; and there, in his judgment, the - Law went far enough. If it proceeded the length. of prohibiting the conveyance of voters at the ex pence of Candidates, he should sincerely regret it ; and, among others, for the reasons stated by the last Speaker. But it was urged, he understood, by ' the Right Hon. Mover of this Bill, whose speech . he had not the good fortune to hear, that doubts. ex isted with, resped to the interpretation of 'the Law upop the suaje& of Treating, and that therefore a declaratory Law, was necessary.• Of tlie existence of such doubts he was not at all aware. In the , Worcester case, alluded to by the Right lion. Geo tlernao, the argument of Counsel *as evidently • mistaken' for,the decision of the Committee. . The taint fa was, that subsequent to, that decision, Bill . was brought in, as it professed, to remove doubts as to the Treating Ad. That Bill found its way into the ,House of Lords, where it was strongly repro-. bated by Lord Man s fi e ld, who very properly ob served, that the.multiplication of Statutes, instead of adding to the stre ng th o f t h e L aw , served to-impair and weaken it. Such a .remark was always entitled to 'Consideration, but particularly. where, 'as in this ' case, there was no ground-of neeessity. To prove the necessity, h o wev er , souse endeavours had been used' by referring to cases of d o ub t . A mong thi sse cases:lpsWicli and Barnstaple had been referred to. NOw the fad was, that in the former case the sub ject shads not, been at-all gohe :into, the EleCtion having been declared void on other grounds ; and as to, Barnstaple, the only appearance ,of doubt in the construCtion of, the 4aw W[l,s by the Petitioners, who stated, that if their opponent fiUd advanced' money merely for the travelling expenses ofvoters, they should no t p ress t h e C omm i ttee to come to any decision upon that . point. Such a statement, however, could-avail nothing in arguing the ques tion before the House. These Petitioners . might have declined to enter ilito discussion es to travelling charges, havingprobably defrayed the same charges on their own side. But their motive was of little consequence. The question- was, whether, their misconstrudion of the Law should. be , taken as- a proof that any doubts existed as, to tIN fair interpre tation of that Law ; whether the mistakes of a ievir . men as to the meaning of- the Law should be ad . mitted as evidence that the Law was doubtful, and that a' declaratory . A& , was necessary, as was pre tended in the case before the House Whereas, in reality, n 6 doubt existed upon this subject.' The 1 last decision upon th e Heiefordshire case was quite conclusive as -to Treating: The COnamittee there , had before them the proof of travelling charges having been paid by' the' Candidate ; but their de- • : termination was grohoded distinCtlyoapors this, that tickets had been given to tlie voters tor meat and . drink, :and this it was which they pronounced to,be, within the meaning of the Treating Ad. Of course, upon :than ground the Candidate was disqualified. . So far as to the decisions of Committees with regard . f to thii Law. Now, as to . the proceedings in the Cohrts respeeling it, there . were but.a - few cases. From the actions, however, which were hroright by Innkeepers against Candidates for the expenses-in curred at Elections contrary to, the Treating,AEt, it appeared that stitch actions could not be kiaintamed: - In the anion 'Brought against two WriNers of that 'House, ,l'ilessrs. Francis and Moore, Lord Kenyon did ,not, to be sure, dired a nonsoit, because, very properly as a .Thdge of Nisi . Prius, perceiving a look of equity - in the claim, he referred it; at the same time . pronoithciog an ,agteement which appeared to: have been entered into by one of the Candidates to indemni fy theother fbr his eleation expences tb be totally ille gal; 'i because it pledged a . man to pay those expences . which it was contrary to Law - to incur." There were other.cases on the books which served to spew that no doubts prevailed in the Cohrts helow upon . the • interpretation of ' the Treating ACI. The point was . indeed conclusively deterimued by the decisien in the Court of Common Pleas, in/the case of Ribbons . v. Crickett. Upon the whole then, it , waYobvious to his judgment that no 'doubt existed-as to the con- strudion of the Treating Ad ; no Declaratory Lavi necessary; and that a new law, such as that before the House, would be highly improper, it required . very little consideration to-prove. It was impossible' to say what mischiefs would result from the' adop tion of such a Bill. , A vast number of Freeholders would be disfranchised, not for any improper aft, but merely in, consequence of their inability to de fray the expellee -of their conveyance to the hust ings. The . Right Honourable Mover was reported to have said that the removal - of a voter irons the :prase where his - right of voting lay was a matter of oe e tion—nt that was not the case. Fo r the trades- Man and the manufa&urer must go ,where his in dustry may meet employment—he must shift his residence to follow the market. In many, if not most, instances, the change of - residence on the part of voters is not a matter of choice but of neces sity, 'oftentimes painful necessity, and yet this Bill would aggravate such pain. - • In Comities the Right Hon. Mover proposed the taking of the poll at differ ent- places, in order to obviate one of the most glaring objections to his such a multiplica tion of polling places would be productive of con fusion and increased expence even to the Candidate. Furthermore, he would object to such a proposition, Because he liked the publicity in which a Freeholder now gave his vote—in the face of the . County and of the Candidate. With regard to the independence of 40s. Freeholders Ms opinion was, that from the general diffusion of industry and its produetive ca pacity, Freeholders of that class possessed as much • independence of mind as any other description of • persons. To -deprive a great body of such men, as this Bill would tend to, of the exercise of their ele&ive franchise, would 'serve to produce a disposition to • listlessness and langour among the people, than which nothing was,more to be dreaded—for nothing ' would be better calculated to 'facilitate the subjuga tioreof the Country and t o l ea d to despotism. ;The French scarcely valued such a thing as the ele6tive franchise—but any man who had 'ever seen art. ele&ion in thiscountry`must be sensible ; h ow dif ferent the feeling which prevailed among,English- men — c hew eagerly they crowded to the hustings, and bow little they :Wee in a state to pe reconciled to • the 'relinquishment pf a right they so highly prized. He , Was glad to think on the estimation in which the'People held this important privilege, and'was always happy to perceive the. enthusiasm whieh prevailed at popular eleEtions. Since such scenes had been freed from the tumult and intoxi cation • which formerly disgraced them,, the enthu siam'displayed must-tie observed .with pleasure by every man who loved popular libertyc—who' felt as an Englishman, -The Learned Gentleman conclud- • ed with stating that he could not coeceive the least mischief likely to arise to thefreedomof eleCtion merely from the Candidates paying the expence in curred by the carriage of poor voters to the hust ing-s;.'while very great evil -was to be apprehended, if, by disqualifying Candidates for merely defrayincr stich expences, a - vast number of voters should be prechided from the exercise of their frahchise. Mr. FR/INCIS corrected the statement of-the Learned Gentleman with regard to the case in' which his name was ietroduced. He assured the Learned Gentleman that his information was unfounded, as no such agreement as that alluded to had ever taken! place between himself and his Hon. Friend, Mr. `Moore. 'ln that case, indeed, Lord Kenyon did We utmost in his power against the DefetAants, who had to pay full costs, &c. No ohithion was taken to the Plaintiff's demand on any other ground than - to its quantity. For whatever the law might be on the subject, 'he should -in faro conscievia feel hilnself bound to discharge the claim if it were not enermeus in its ametint—as the result proved . when the plaintiff was finally settled v. ith. ,With regard, to-the- Bill before the House, he wondered that such an idea as the disfranchisement of any body of the Freeholders could enter into the mind of the Right -Hon. Mover of this Bill. He thought his Right von. Friend did not at all meditate such a, thing, although such would be the particular result of his _proposition. 'ln coneunCtio n w i t h hi s Ri g h t Min:Friend lie — remembered to have fought many battles in the 'cause of Parliamentary Reform—and he recolle&ed.thet one of the strongest admonitions of the Society (the Friends of the People) with which they acted was—" Not is forget their Prin ciples in Prosperity:" Though to be sure if (Mr. F.) were to' forget his principles, they were not likely to be driven into oblivion by prosperity. But to return to the Asso c i a ti o n he a ll u d e d great obje& notoriously was to extend the right of voting to every species of property, but farther than that not to go. There were many, no doubt, who would go farther—but he was not one. -He was, perhaps, censidere'd too moderate,. for he was ale ways adverse to universal sUffrage, because the, idea of such a change struck him to be extremely absurd, and the danger enormous. To be sure this idea had now grown out of fashion. But even when it was in some degree popular, his opinion uniformly was, that power must attach to property, and therefore that nothing could be gained 'by the change proposed. For if power were tbansferred from men of -pro- - pertx to the populace,„ the 'property would soon fol low the power. could never,- indeed, reconcile to his mind that any men who walked the street that were cbitimey-sweepers' and 'coachmen should have a right to Vote. In tie t; ',that valuable right was never carried to such ; ari extreme in any Nation.— Even in the Roman, Republia there were two classes of men Who were excluded from all civil privileges, excepting only the prote&ion of the law ; the one were the capita censi,' who.were merely reckerie& upon, for servile work ; and the .other prolatorii, who were deemed fit only to get children. Ex - clusien•froth the privileges of the People_bad . ways existed in ail well regulated communities; and they were properfor the security both of freemen and property. Reverting from the - measure now under - discussion; the Hon.. Gentleman express ed his surprise' that his Right Hon. Friend should ‘1 bring forward a proposition •so eontradieory to the - principle to which he had alluded; respeding the ex tension of the right of• voting, to every species of property. If it were the - obje&-of the Right Hon. Gentleman to deprive the 40s. Freeholders of their ' right of' voting e and 'to confine that rightlo all Free- • holders above 301. he should at once avow it, and in which he would have a great contradiction to re— concile ; this Bill was of sech'a nature as to give ' some gound for suspicion ; and_if the Right Hon. Gentleman did not, really entertain the intention al lude'd to, he should not leave himself open to rnii- - constrtaion.. ' • • Mr. Moults eXplained. . Mr. TIERNEY disclaimed the slightest intention of proposing to disfranchise any Freeholders under • 301:2 On the contrary, if a proposition of that na ture were brought forware he would be among the first_ to oppose it: , Mr. W. DtmnAs and Mr. J9I-INSTON-E disapprov. ed of any change •in the pee deal systen of the' Constitution. Mr. LEIGH copSid ere d this.a rneasure, "rihe,ap propriate'title of which would be " A Bilt to lege i 'the. number a Voters." It 'was calculated, h