The National Register.
London, England, 1819-06-21 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16.

ADJOURNMENT.—The CHAVCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved, that the /louse at its rising should adjourn to Friday
next.—Agreed to.
LOAN lIILI..—On the third reading of the Loan Bill,
Mr. P. GRENer:t.r. rose to propose an omission of the clause
regarding the profit of the Bank on the boat, of ig,•si imoo/. which
wis at the rate of nuut. per million, amounting to obotd. One
tenth of that expence would be amply sufficient to remunerate
the trouble of the Bank ; and he therefore thought, in times like
the present, that every po,ible saving ought to be effected. lie
moved the omission of the clause.

The CIIANCELLOII of the ExCltelll'Ett Said, that such
allowances had been made from time immemorial ; and that as it
had so long prevailed, and as he trusted there would not be any
other loan for many years, he thought it would not be advisesble
to press the saving now. The Bank deserved something for
tr.) ible, and he saw no reason for departure fr9m the previously
arranged amount.
The motion for the omission of the clause was then negatived
without a division.—The Dill was then read a third time and
passed.

BREACH or PRITILEGE.--Mr. W. SHITII presented a
Petition from the Tins. Reporter, praying to be discharged out
of custody, on paying of his fees.
Sir F. Minima-a. again protested against the power assumed
by the House in this and in other instances, under the name in
what he denied to be privilego, to try persons in the way of
which this Petitioner had been tried and punished. Besides it
seemed that the words reported, and %opposed not to have been
uttered, now turned out to have been partly uttered.—(Sonar
cries t )—He understood some lion. Members to have ex-
ptmial that they remembered the cheers, the smile. &c.—(lfear,
Hear.) lle protested against the power which had been exer-
cised, and thought the Petitioner ought to be discharged without
paying of his foes. The lion. Baronet expressed his amnish-
mama that the debates were reported with so much accuracy and
ability.
Lord CASTLEREAGH could not see what object the Hon.
Baronet promised to himself. As an Advocate, he was a most
injudiztious one; as a.Counsel he was a most suspicious one, the
lion. Bart. having tried the question of privilege in various ways,
slid failed; and as a friend in this instance he was not likely to
etfect much good. The offence which had been co 1111 l detect was of
a calumnious nature; and it was no excuse to say that it had not
been intentionally committed. It might have been productive of
most fatal extremities ; sod therefore it could not pass unnoticed
by the House.
Mr. W. COURTENAT was sorry for the course which had been
pursued by the Hon. Member.
Mr. II riusisso is said the misrepresentation was most gross;
had it been otherwise, it could not have passed unnoticed by the
Hight Hon. Gentleman.--( ;es if 0, dc r).
Mr. Hustle said, had the lion. Baronet been in the House
when an explanation was made on a former night. lie (Sir P. B.)
would not have insinuated that the report was an fact correct.
Lord BINNING also declared that nothing had been said to
warrant the insinuation that the report was substantially correct;
and lamented that the lion. Baronet should have lent himself to
countenance any such feeling. The report was most false, foul,
and scandalous.

Mr. LITTLETON said, from what he recollected of the epecch,
the report was inLyrrect.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON thought the Noble Lord ( Binning)
was nut warranted hi using the language w Bich he hsil
adopted ; he wan neither warranted in saying tbat the report
was wilfully false. nor in charging the Bum Baronet in un-
animity lending himself ts countenance error. As to their
privileges he would not be deterred by either of the Noble
Lords, isir by an lion. Member, from expressing his ;mini's,
respi cling any individual art. or any question of privilege;
and as to the exertion of their priv.leaes this Sessiou, he
thought they had been enforced most severely.—( Hear.)
Lord DINING explained, and said he had nut intended
to Ilse any onparbanrtvttary language.
Petition brought up 11141 read.
Mr W. SMITH HMI moved, that the Reporter he placed
at the Bar fur the 'impose of being discharged.—Agreed
to.
The Reporter having been placed at the B ir,

The SPEAKER amid, that i , comic-wiener of the Repot,
ire having confessed himself the author of the paragraph,
afterwards voter' to be a scamd dons misrepreaeutatioti lit
the debates, a coltemoious libel on one of its Members, and
an aggravated breach of its privileges, he had been CUM-
Mil led to the custody of the Sejeant at Arms. Hit Peti-
tion had been received, and that, as well as the nionniir of
the Petitioner and his ea plantations, had been fully consi-
dered. The sorrow and regret which he had now ex-
pressed, coupled with his conduct yesterday, the Reuse
had bees, induced to extend mercy to the Petitions r. A
reprimand had been directed, and then the discharge of
the Petitioner ; but the Speaker was desirous that this le-
nity 'tumid not be mismidei stood. The Reports resulted.
from the indulgence of the Rowe, and an abuse of that
indulgence constituted an aggravated ottence ; and it was
desired that this should he deemed a piddle wai iiing that
any tutu re offence of a similar character, let it be commit.
ted by whom it might, would be visited a lilt the utmost
rigoor.—{Cheers.)
The Petitioner was discharged on payment of his fees ;
and the reprimand was coileted to be emceed on the Jour-
nals on thr motion of Lord Castlereagh.
Petitions sgalnst the Foreign Enlistment Bill were pre.
sensed limn Liverpool and Mallow.
MAII RIAGE AcT.—Mr. W. SMITH observed, that in bring-
ing forward this motion, he found himself tiirtified by the
contents of several petitions which had been presented on the
subject. The prayer of those petitions was air some alteration in
the marriage service, as it respected a particular class of innvi.
duals. The grievance complained of was described in as brief
terms as possible in the petitions theinite.ves, which stated thut
the marriage service, as proscribed by law, was, in some of its
parts, inconsistent with the principles of their religious belief.
Prior to the act of the gfali Geo. 11. marriage was considered in
this country merely as a civil contract. To the ceremonial ap-
pointed by that act the dissenters generally entertained sonic
objection; but what was ernsiplained of by his clients on this
occasion was, the various expo:talons relative to the doctrine of
the Trinity which occurred in it. By a recent statute they had
been relieved from the penalties and disabilities imposed by laws
which had become almost obsolete, but it was siill unpleasant to
their consciences that this doctrine should be introduced in a
manner that implied a recognition of it on their part. As this
inv.duction of it was pertectly undess, the petitioners hoped
boat the liheraiity of the house, that in their cave it might be
dispensed with. Before the act of George IL, montage was
lid Ito be essentially a civil impact. l'or this proposition he
had the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was not then
re.ittii-ite to it, validity, that it should be connected with a reit-
gio ..s cereirainy. From the operation of that act, however, Jews