The National Register.
London, England, 1818-03-16 00:00:00

'VIII?. NATIONAL IMGLITA.

objection to bring forward evidence neeessery to defend and
justify their condoet, and instanced the trials ender the
special commission at York, where witnesses were brought
forward to swear against their accomplices, and not the least
personal injury or insult was offered to them. So at Derby,
thirty or forty witnesses were examined, and not it single in.
inconvenience bad arisen to any of them from that eiremo.
stance. It was therefore folly to talk of the danger atten-
dant on examining witnesses. It had been said, why s.kgi it
that what Oliver had said in the Park, on the first day of the
Sessions, had been so lung kept secret ? Why, be would sitg-
gest a reason ; until within the last three or four weeks, the
Suspension Act was in foree,and those ss•hq displeased Oliver
and his frieuds, were connnitted for indefidlte terms ; could it
then be expected that individuals would subject themselves
to Oliver's vengeance and ruin. 31r. Scholes was in this very
situation ; he was ruined because he disregarded Oliver, and
did not wait till the Suspension Act was repealed.: lie pre.
sumed to threaten Oliver, and in 48 hours afierhe was line-
self in confinement, and ruin followed to himself and family ;
and such would have been the fate of his Hon. Friend's in-
formant if he had been equally bold and and imps udent.
31r.Ceersitsin defended the conduct of Ministers. He
agreed with the Hon. Gent. that if the case for a Bill of
Indemnity was made out, it must be owing, not to the nee, but
to the abuse of that pow er which Parliainentbad entrusted in
the hands of the Government. The ,Itight lion. Gent. ie.
ferred to the cases of Ward and Ogdru ; the first an . • in
—a Luddite; the other, who it wasetated, for the put pose of
opposition, was ill-treated and nranacled, although silvered
over with grey hairs, and venerable tions his age; but how
turned the fact oat ?—Why the venerable gentleman, it ape
peared, from his own confession, was never, so happy as
when in prison ; forithougls it was endeavoured to excite the
bowels of compassion of the House in his favour, when cool'
nutted he was and had beenaftlieted w ith rupture ; and how
stobd the ease ? Why this unfortunate old gentleman gets
cured of his rupture, without the aid of the Huptore Society.
—Again, in respect to Oliver, and the testimony which G 1•11-
11eineu opposite promised to produce, if the House would
grant enquiry ; that lie, Oliver, wished to overthrow she•Go•
vernment by physical force—this waa to be proved by a re-
spectable anonymous geetk-man ; and again, with respect to
the story of the inciting to treason, on the day of opeuing
the Parliament; if these worthy• Gentlemen really knew all
this, why did they not denounce this mau Oliver ? was it be-
cause they favoured his object, and had not the courage to
join him ; or are they now anxious to hunt laim down, seeing
that there is no lougee any fear of treason ?
Mr. LA.msrort said,. he felt it hie duty, as an independent
Member, to state a fact which he had received from a most
respectable individual ; and if that would not do, he would
stake his own character, as a man of honour, to the truth of
his statement; and if he were denied that character he had
no business to address that. House any more. It had been
said, he boasted of tieing able to produce thistlentleinan;
be (would repeal, " give lam the opportunity, and he
would do so." He could only say, he was fully convinced
of the truth of his former statement.

CIIOKER said, that this person of respectability was
responsible tor .the conduct ut Oliver in not giving infor_
rnation with respect to the alleged conduct of Oliver in the
Park, on the day the Regent went to open the Session of Par:
!lament.

Sir J; Ns: VPORT reprobated the employment of .hired spies
and informers. The situation of the country rose from an
overbearing GmtternOtent, and. a servile Parliament. this
system was pursued there would be an end of .the liberties
of the country.
Mr. BAustrrr ttrasted that there was still character and
interest enough left itt the House to reject this infamous urea..
sure.

The House then divided —for the going into the Committee
238—Against it 60-3ldjarity.l7l.
'file House then vent into a Committee pre fcrinc.—Ad-
joorned at One o'clock.

TkIVRSDAY.

PL'IITIONS.

Petitions against the fTatlierl;;;;;ere presented from the
Tanners and Lea(h.q. Dealers of the following places :—Hor•
sham, Barton on Humber, Hereford, Brosuyard, Norwich,
Walsall, Kiiigstomon County of Essex, Ashburton,
Skipton, and Seaford, Soutliamptou, Prescot; Dolgelly, Dur.
ham City, Boston, Grantham, Stourbridge, and others.
Mr. C. CALVLRT presented a Petition from the Tanners in
the Borough of Southwark.. He could state generally, .that
the additional Tax had reduced the trade to a state of the
greatest distress, and he hoped glut the Chancellor of •the
Exchequer would consent to repeal it before he was compel.
led to do so.

Mr. C. BAacLaypresented a similar Petition from.the Mo-
rocco Leatber Dresers of the Borough.
Mr: Ald. \Poop presented a Petition from Leeds, signed by
a large number of inhabitants, praying for Parliamentary.
Kaolin, and the impeachment of the Ministers.
Sir R. FEttnusns presented a Petition from •Weymouth
against the Salt Tax.
Lord STANLEY presented a • Petiticm from Royston,
praying Iwo :a repeal of the .Corn Act and the dismission of
Ministers.

Sir R. HERON said he had Petitions to present from Swine-
head and Kirton, %Inch bore the names of villages, but in
population exceeded a great number of tomes.

/c( )11'1 H POLE.

Mr. CROXER said, that as the progress this Pill for
amending the Act: respecting the Beard of Longitude had
been delayed, he mistier, to brint in another Bit! for a limited
purpose, which it would he desirable to pas: through before
titeholidays. It wacao alter the words of the oath prescribed to
be taken by the Masters of Greco:and ships, a ho•weie com-
pelled to swear that they had no view of pi alit but the fishe:•y.
He proposed to add " or the Parliamentary Reward for ap•
proachin,g the Pole." Ships were now every vlay tilting out
for the trade. • Heimoved for ►ease to•bring in a Bill fur this
purpose.—Leave was given.
In answer to A question of Lord A. Hamilton,
Mr. Cnoteee. said, -that he did nut intend to press on
hastily the other Bill on the same sunject now before the
►louse.

'lllO fill was read a first and second time, and ordered to
be committee to morrow.

.iiisevvr to a question from Mr Wane,
Sir Cr. WARREN:DER po.trom d the Navy Estimates till
31tmiiity.

To *Repents of the Salt Committee of 1801, were ercLred
-to be printed. __ __ __

P:iRTNERSIIII'•

trlr..lld. Woon gave notice that after the holi.ia;:s lie
Olinda move for leave to bring in a Bill 101 the encouragor
lima of Trade and Mauutacturcs. It 11'.0 to au Act

-MARCH,I6.

which had twev passed in lrelsnd. The object was to enable
perAons to vest money in trading concerns, without their
being answerable fur any thing beyond the amount of niunt y
so invested, sciLthey were nut acting partners.

LEATHER TAX.

Lord •ALTHORP rose to brieg forward hieprotnieed motion
upon this subject. The question, he said, for the House to
consider on this occasion was,whether the Leather Tootle had
keen dept essed through the operation of the additional tax
imposed upon it in Itll2, end whether the produce of the
ro elate rembing from that tax-was such as should render it
expedietitto continue the tax, to, the prejudice of an impar.
taut branch of our staple matinfacture. . That the trade bad
been dept eased w as, he thoeght, naturally. to be anti' red from
a variety of circumstances. All the Petitions on the table
alleged that dein ession, and ascribed it. to the tax, fur the
repeal of which, therefore, the. Petitioners prayed. He
stated, that those cards which were still occupied were hot
woik, and the trade had declined equal to unc•seventh
instead of having increased with the population of the come.
try, as it had alaays done before the imposition of the double
tax.. In proposing this objectionable tax, be could not imitate
the example of his Heu. Friend (Mr. Calcraft) upon the sub.
ject of the Salt Tax, by holding wit the promise of any sub-
te ; fur, is his view, it was in the power of Moisten them.
selves teproxislethatwhichwas Richest substitute feu taxation,
namely, by latch a reduction of our expenditure and public
estaldistimentsdS it was their duty•to wake. The Noble Lord
concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill for (lie rt.
peal of the additional duty on Leather.
The CNAKCSI.LOR of the LatillEiat/ZR. said,. that if the
motion of the •Noble Lord were fur the•,aupointsueut of a
Committee, and that the House were disposed Ichaceede to it,
he should not object to its adoption. But he could not C(141.
cur in the present Motion, because it called upon the Mouse
to decide in favour of,the. Petitioners, a itliout.any inquiry
as to the truth of their uargation. The produce of the
Leather Tax the Right Hosiourable.Cient.leman stated to be
204,0001. iu 1777,215,0001. iu 1191,:3444,0001. in 1812, which
advance was owing to an increased demand through the ear,
and 264,0001. within the lust ytar. From .this statement
it was clear that the produce of the Leather Tax had not
fallen off. There were at present Petitions before the House
praying the t n viii ut uu less than three milliutwaud.a half ef
lasts, to smite of uhielt it was deemed just and e-4etlient to
concede and especially to those teethe repuel,of the window
tax in Ireland. ljuder such circuctststices,•he.trusted the
House would not accede to a.mution whicli,pkoposed to de-
pri e the state of no. less thau.:.:60,0001. per annum—that it
would consider if it thus proceeded to redtice.thatcstablished
revenue, it would have no alternative .but to..choose by.
tween banlcrisptcy and disgrace, °rifle impositian.of the Pea.
perty Tax.

Mr. Cettwert -deprecated the reference of this .question
to s• Committee, as-the result melt be recollected of such
a reference upon a• former occasion ; declaring his resulu-
lion, notwithstanding Flit • threat of the Property Tax, to
support the motion, and vote for the repeal of this mischievous
tax.

Mr. BENSON said he should Tote for the Motion of the Noble
Lord. The whole amount of the produce of the additional
duties was 1:140001. ; and for such a tritlingssugu, be trusted
the Right Han. tue Chancellor of the Exchequer would not
continue to ling it, which be canddereil the injury iLinflicted
on the manufacture.
•.Lord Chrif.ENEAGH recommended the adoption !of a Se.
lest Committee, to when the Petitions 011 tha Table shoal d
he referred anil.inovedmn Amendment to that elect.

Mr. BROUGHAM trusted liis.!.'tde Friend would persevere
in pressing liis.,Motiou. Two Committees had already sat,
every .information was rocorded, and ne other result would
follow from the adoption .of the amanduicit, but further
delay.
Lord Coxvrost spoke in favottrof the.lll9l*.r:and denied
that the.tax was productive.
Colonel. Wunn said, whether it was prodnettio.oz upt,
would be.best ascertained in a Committed. ,Ve waseue.uf
those who thought the Legislature liegau at the wrung end,
in shifting the Property fax front themselves and leaving
other taxes that. directly pressed upon the lower orders.
Comparing the ceverities of both, he would prefer a relief
from:the Salt Duties, sod the continuation of the Leather
Tax.

Geettal GASCOIGNE said he should vote fur the Noble Lord's
(Althurp's) motion.
Mr. C. Cwt.vratT denied that the additional duties lied
been prriluctive.
Mr. 3IAR It IiAT stated the distress of L•is t!onstituents la the
Borough of Sandwich, who were connected with. fie Leather
Manufacture. In thp.parish where these people priucipally
resided, the•Yoors' rate was 2,05. in the.r.unti—in the other
parish it was only.l2s.
After a few words from Comeral Gascnigue, Mr. Lushing-
ton, and Mri Penson, in explanation, he House divided—kor
the Aitkeetiment 84—Against it 94—Majority 10.
. Lord Althorp's Motion fur leave to sent in the Bill to re-
peal the Duties, was then putfand agreed to.
. PAROCHIAL VESTRIES AND RATES.

Mr. S. Rousts E rose to make his promised motion for leave
to bring in two Bills for the Regulation „of Parish VestiieF,
&c. vil:lch he prefaced by a few observations illustrative of
the purposes he had in view.. The object of his first Bill
(among minor regulations) who'd be to give additional influ-
ence to persons in Parish Vestries, in proportion to their eon.
tribution to the Poors' Rates. This,proposition was 1101 lit W
to the .I-louse, and tie was not aware that any objection had
been made to it ; and as far as he could learn from commu-
nications with all parts of the country it was a provision that
would be very generally acceptable.. The first object of his
second Bill would be a proviston to enable. !wishes of consi-
derable extent to appoint select vestries fur the management
of their concerns ; the orders of which sboald not he over-
ruled by any single Alagistrate;. but only by two or
Another object would he to eaalde. parishes to appoint an
assistant overseer, with a salary. The next provision was
one of considerable importance, although only in furtherance
of the existing law; it was to make pros isiun for currying
into better effect the statute of Elizabeth, as jar as regarded
setting to work the children of parents who ,were unable to
maintain them. This was, at the present moment, a matter
of the inmost consequence, for a practice.tnost injurious had
become prevalent to a very great extent, built in inamitactur-
ing and in agricultural districts, which ought all means to
be,counteracted-- that of lowering the wagos tit labour, and
making good the deticieucytnit of the pours' rates. lie could
not retrain laotiimaining. one parish in particular, in which
thts practice had been carried further/C.:in in any other that
lie had heard of. He had received information that in the
parish of Butesdale, is Suffolk, the price of labour bad hcen
reduced to 6,1. a thy ! to a labourer, the expeuge.of

am

ITARCII IG:

maintaining whose family was 20 or 30 shillings a week, the
person who hail its labour paid three shillings, and the parish
made good ,the remainder out of the poors' rates ! The next
provision of his proposed Bill would tend again to further the
execution of tlic existing law, by giving employment to those
oat of work ; it would be to •enable parishes to let small pot..
Bons of !and to industrions illdkit!oal4 ; and, if adopted, mold
be was persuaded, exhibit very beneficial results. The next
provision would be one of considerable importance. It would
be in the case of towns; to enable parishes to rate•the owners
cvf Muses instead of- occupiers. It, towns, by VlifillllS 111123116
a large proportion of the occupiers of houses-escaped tieihg
rated ( the consequence of which was a larger rent paid to the
owners), and all immense burden was thus thrown on the
remainder. After several minor regulations, there would be
a provision to authorise parishes to discriminate in-the relief
afforded, aud• to regelate its•amount and .nature by the
character and habits of those to whom it was -granted; so
that overseers should advance money to those who had squan-
dered previous means, only by way of loan, to be.repaid by
installments. His intention was, it the House gave him leave,
to bring in the Bills as soot, a• possible, to till up the blanks,
and to hive them printed, and circulated • throughout the
country, for the consideration of those who were most cum, Cy •
sant with the subject.
Leave was then granted•to bring in the Bills.
IN DENINITY, BILL.

The ATTOR NEN Gusts moved- the commitment of the
Indemnity Lilt.
After some observations from, Sir Wm. Burroughs and
others, the House went lute the Committee.

The Bill went through the Committee without receiving
an amendments, and the Report was (ordered to be received.