The National Register.
London, England, 1816-06-30 00:00:00

FRIDAY, JUNE 2A,

The Regent's Canal Bill was read a third time, after some
conversation between Earl Stanhope, Marquis Camden, Earls
llL•erelestield and Morton, and passed.
The .Irchhishop of CANTERBURY adverted to a part of Lord
speerh on the Slavic Insurrection in Ita:badoes, in
which tho Noble Lord stated, that he was apprehensive the
Church of England did not pay sufficient attention to the reli-
gions instruction of the Slaves in the %Vest India Nands. Every
pains had been taken to till up the Missionaries provided for by
bequests on estates. In sonic cases it had been found impos-
sible to do so, on account of the jealousy with which Mti.•sion-.
aries were received in the West Indies. As far as could be
alone, the Church of England had provided fur the instruction
of the Slaves in the West India Maink,
Lord HoLLA ND admit!ed that he had stated that the Church
of England had left undone many things towards the religious
instruction of the Negroes which they might have done. He
did not mean to blame any of the Bishops ; but he must say,
that more difficulty had been found in getting Missionaries of
the Clinrch of England, than those of any other sect of reli-
gionists whatever.
On the Report of the Gas Light Bill,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, the House would ruin the
Whale Fishery, and the other fair traders, if they agreed to this
Bill without giving time for tke consideration of the evidence
given betine the Committee.
The Earl of la in ERICK contended, that time enough had been'
given for the consideration of this Bill, and therefore he hoped
tije House would agree to the Report.
The Earl of Launen DALE said, that on the third reading of
this Bill he would move a clause, that the Company should not
itivrease the price of their lights when they should find that
train (al had become scarce.
The Report of the Bill was then agreed to, and the Bill or-
dered to he read a third time on Monday.
Lee'. Patent Bill was thrown out, on a division of 4 to 4 (an
equality of division being the same in the House of Lords as a
majority against any measure).
The Irish Clerk of the Pleas Bill went through a Committee,
And was reported.
The Aver and Malt Duty Drawback, the Clermont Estate,
the Criminal Returns, the Irish Militia Pay and Clothing, the
Loaa Provision, the Scotch Distillery, the Small Coal, the Navy
Offices s' half-pay, and the Treasury Consolidation Bills, were
severally read a third time and passed.
The Appropriation, the Ale Duty, the Clergy Farms, the
Chancery Courts, the Elgin Marbles, the Lunatic Offenders,
the Leather, the New Sheet, the Irish Spirit Trade, the Irish
)spirit Duty, the Coal and Coln), the Collieries and Mines Pro-
tection, the Insolvent Debtors', the Irish Insolvent Debtors',
the Watch and Ward, and the Windsor Forest Bills, went
through Committees, and were reported.—Adjuurned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY, JUNE 26
SAVING BANKS.

On the report, Mr. Rose moved for the iesertion of a clause
at Nvbich Mr. Caleraft expressed his surprise, as a similar
clause had been rejected in the discussion on Friday last in
the Committee. Instead of saying whether or no he would
proceed in the bill, the Hon. Member reproduced his clause
respecting investments. This was an unprecedented mode of
proceeding. The object of the clause was, that it' a labouring
man aceninulate•l ptoperty in a saving bank, and should after-
wards be obliged to apply to the parish, his accumulation
shoull not be made applicable to his relief, hut remain an in-
'violable fund. The parish was still to subsist him; which was
unjust, and subversive of the principle of the poor laws.
.A pauper might have lOW. in the saving bank, and thereby
be richer than assessed parishioners.
The CH A NCI-- LIAR of the Exeneuuen said, the clause was
an important part of the system. Some alteration might be
advisable ; and he sitzgested an amendment, by which, instead
of its being the imperative ditty of the magistrates to grant
the required relief, discretion should he given them in the case
of relief wanted by individuals who had money in the saving
banks. The present proposed clause was not exactly the
same, however, that had been negatived.
Sir C. Moses saw no islprovement in the proposed amend-
ment. The capital of an individual who wanted relief should
he tendered available for that purpose. This systeon might
have dangerous effects on oar poor laws. It was an extrava-
gant proposition to make, that a man should save money to
leave to his children, while he was receiving parochial relief.
Lind Bin 61Ni; said, the proposed amendment appeared to
remove all reasonable objections. Originally, the clause cer-
tainly prevented the justices from interfering as to money in
the saving banks; but by the amendment of the Chancellor of
-SG^ Exelsequer, the whole case would be left to their judgment.
Mr. LOCKHART was adverse to the clause, which in its
effects must be dangerous to the poor laws, or nugatory.
Earl Compton and Mr. Wilberforce supported the clause,
and Mr. H. Davis spoke against it.
(In the question for bringing up the clause,
Mr. Rose observed, that en a former occasion the Holum
wait very thin, and the majority very small. He therefore
felt himself justified in producing it in a fuller attendance.
It had seldom happened, that any bill had undergone a more
-strict and severe examination both within and without doors.
Me had himself received 300 communications on the subject.
-Committee,; of both I louses had sat, and it had been scrutinised
out of doors by many gentlemen in the mercantile line. He
agreed ti the propus-ed amendment for leaving to the
magistrates a discretiwi as to the consideration of the fund in
ises requiring parochial relief.
Sir C. Mosett thought the amendment made the claws
snore objeetionable. He highly praised the character null
conduct of the English mairistiatea—a body, of whom au
wher country tnjpyed the benefit; but he objected to giving
shim this iiiia?peliahle jurisdictioa, which they ought nut to
possecs hat in case's of iudithitatbie necessity.
The drugs was then read.
Upon the question that it stand part of the }till,
Mr. CALCHAF r said lie %%mint ~,,tildraw his objection on
account ut the iiinetikhnent that it had received.
Mr. B illpk'4l, if any limit was contemplated with

THE NATIONAL REGISTP.R.

rcspeet to the stuns allowed to remain la the Wok while the
person received parish aid? We should Hot burden the pour-
rate,.

The Cilameaumit of the Excntrturn replied, that it would
he impossible to tix a sum that would be suitable in all cir-
cuanstanees.

Sir C. NIIINCIt repeated some of his former objections. At
present the same individual could not be a receiver of paro-
chial aid, and a coutributor. This clause was contradictory
of such a principle; as it allowed a person to contribute
•actually to receive.
The House then divided on the question, that the clause
stand part of the it,39—Against it, 24—Majority 34.
.