The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-24 00:00:00

PARLI EN'F.

110 USE OF LORDS, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 9-3*
An account from the Trinity-House of the receipts and
1824,
the
appropriation of the surplus rates of Pilotage for year
was presented at the bar.—Laid on the table.
APPEAL.—MABERLY v. BANN. OF SCOTLAND.
This was an appeal from the decision appellantthe Court of Session
in Scotland. The amount claimed by the is 2501. being
ee amount of notes of the Bank of Scotland, of which the halves
ad been stolen on their transmission by coach ; but, as under
thee circumstances, Messrs. Maberly were aware that the
Bank of Scotland might hereafter be called upon by the hold-
era of the mutilated notes for the repayment of their amount,
they abstained from a direct claim, and pursued the Respon.
gents, therefore, only for a conditional payment—they (the
•Appemokts) giving sufficient guarantee for the indemnification
otshe Respondents in the supposed event of the institution of
a similar clang by a third party. These were shortly the facts
• vipers which the Lords of Session had decided in favour of the
lteapondents--upon the ground that the notes in question hay-
"ing been mutilated by Messrs. Maberiy, they were therefore
-clisentitled to sue the Respondents for relief from the conse-
tWnces of their own act; and that as the Bank of Scotland
4aAl, besides the head branch, various other branches where
:heir notes were payable, no indemnity could be given against
. payment of the other half of the notes which could not be
Identified.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. BROUGHAM were
heard for the Appellant; Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. WALKER
for the Respondents.
The Lord Deputy (GIFFoRro) proceeded to address their
_ I;ordships in judgment. After reviewing the case as proved
at law, his Lordship observed, that it came before them as an
Appeal for equitable relief from the decision of the Court of
°Session. He did not think the alleged mutilation of the notes
,y the Appellants should be considered, as it had been consi-
dered by the Court of Session as depriving Messrs. Maberly
of an equitable claim for relief. He was sure such claim was
. sustainable, and he, therefore, had no iifficulty in saying that
the decision of the Lords, of Session should he reversed, and
the only difficulty consisted in the form of such reversal. At
all events, the case must be returned to the Court of Session,
and he therefore moved their Lordships for judgment to that
affect, the claim of Messrs. Maberly being sustainable.
There was no other public business after the appeals.
Ad journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. BYNG moved the second reading of the Bill for the
Iron-rail-way in the Isle of Dogs.
Mr. GRENFELL regretted that the Hon. Member for
Aberdeen was not present, as the House must now feel the pro-
priety of acting upon the motion which his Hon. Friend had
made yesterday. He (Mr. Grenfell) was for .carrying the prin.
ciple of that motion farther. He would not only have any
Member prevented from voting on.a private bill, whose private
interest might lead him to support the Bills; he would also ex-
'elude all those who had an Interest directly opposed to the
Bill; and if tbelion.• Member for Aberdeen would not, he
pledged himself that at the earliest opportunity he would sub-
mit a-measure tatheliouse for that purpose.
. aIroBROUGH AM said, that the mode of voting on private
bills - was sooicandalous in its nature, that he had made it a rule
with himself never to-vote upon a private bill, nor had he ever
voted upon one, except one which was not, in his estimation,
a private bill, but a bill, of considerable. public interest, and
that was the Highgate Chapel bill. That was in itself a cor-
rupt job of an attorney, not out of zeal for the welfare of the
church, sor any excess of piety, but out of a corrupt love of
jabbing--of jobbing for nothing else but his own bill of charges.
But the House would not go half far enough if it stopped at the
exclusion of those who had.an interest either in supporting or,
opposing the bill. Why should a Member be prevented from
_giving his own vote, and be left at liberty to obtain as many
-votes as he could, by the solicitation of himself or his agent,
his wife or his sister ? Persons went about with letters from
Members, entreating the votes and interests of other Members
to whom such letters were addressed, meaning thereby that
they were to come down, not only to give their own cor-
rupt
votes, but that they were to endeavour to corrupt as
. loamy others as they could prevail with for the same object.— i
It was that view of the scandalous jobbing in votes for private
hills which had caused bins teetake that resolution which lie had
mentioned, and to which he had uniformly adhered, except in
the case of the Highgate chapel—the Highgate attorney's chapel
.bill. He had before stood in this breach, and had been check-
.ed by the bashful consciousness of the House, from relating
a:.l _a.eer-ilot? COollerAillZJlze,mmtv.,'4 eliO" atiO , Pao ilaca. .. RUB e
was tearing away wit% too rude a hand the veil of mystery which
Bung before that branch of Parliamentary proceeding. But
:now,- to shew the notoriety of those practices,. which were
equally shameful to the character of the House, and a just
complaint among the people, he would relate that very anecdote
whieb the House, front a consciousness of its own virtue, had
-refused to let him mention before. It was a fact which took
.place in the progress of that Highgate chapel job. He was
Counsel for the Bill. The proceedings in the committee resem-
e bled more an investigation of a Committee under. the Grenville
Act. The Committee sat from ten till the meeting of the
Ilouse daily—examinations were met by cross-examinations-
- there were objections taken which were again, replied to—all
-sorts of argument were resorted to in turn. lie had never seen
business more regularly, zealously, or effectually performed.
Alas Hon. and Learned Friend 'Warren was in favour of the
Pill, which was about to be rejected, not by jobbing in votes--
the opponents of the Bill were determined not to solicit one, but
.by main strength—by the-absolute goodness, of the cause. They
.lead sixteen votes out of twenty gentlemen who had uniformly
_attended the Committee. - At that instant, . when victory was
sure, as they all thought, the other Committee Rooms were
ritnsecked and swept: down came 20 new Members, who had
never heard one word of the proceedings, and overwhelmed the
16, who had prepared their minds, by tedious examination, to
reject the Bill. The good sense of the House fortunately pre-
.eailed at last, and the Bill was rejected. It was a principle that
a man could not .vote upon a Jury in any question affecting the LAND-TAX.
property. of another, without hearing the objections of those Mr. WARRE, after adverting to the unequal manner in
whose property might he injured by the proceeding; which that branch of the Land-tax denominated " the Stock-
. and yet Honourable Members had brought themselves tax," was assessed, presented a petition front Taunton, praying
.to believe that they might, withoutsheone or reproach, vote in for an equalization of the Land-tax.
.a Committee, which was no other than a Grand Jury, that Mr. DERBIES said, this had been a fixed tax for so many
the lands of A should he given to B; and again vote B's years, that it would he extremely difficult to find a remedy
money into the pocket of A. larhy should this be allowed any which would meet the object and wishes of the Honourable
more than a vote directly interested ? lie was not sure that the Gentleman. •
analogies of the Constitution did prevent a Member from von- Mr. BA RING said, a remedy ought to be devised, for
. log where he was interested. At any rate, he- was not so sure this was really a crying evil. The arbitrary manner in
.of that as be was that those analogies did not warrant voting on which the Commissioners apportioned the " Stock-tax" was
- questions interesting to the property of others, °a any other a cause of general complaint. The tax produced only
. terms but those-on which a Member could vote for or against a 5,0001., and of that suns not less than 3001. er 4001. were raised
, public questioa—namely • after hearing, and investigation, and in Taunton.
opals conviction only. 'lluch : was -said of private interests. Mr. HUMS censured the tax as unjust and partial. If the
asliat Would they say to public ones ? Why should a Lord of system under which the land-tax was collected, were revied,
the Admiralty have a vote upon his lion. Friend's (the Mem- the public would save half a million annually. The conduct
.. aer for Newcastle's) motion for abcliehing two junior Lord- of the collectors was most arbitrary. They frequently received
ships ? Why should a borough-holder have a vote against more than they were authorized to do by Act of
Parliament. In
. parliamentary- reform ? Why shoteld - those .who fattened on cases of that kind, those individuals who transgressed the law
the public purse be allowed to vote against any motion for eco- ought to be prosecuted by the Government; for what indivi-
- aomy in the expenditure ? • Why should those whose income dual, who was '
charged ss. 10s., or a pound too much, would
- was derived —they, or their friends or dependents—from the salt seek redress, when he had to incur the expense of an action ?
duty, vote against his Hon. Friend the Member for Wareham, The whole system of the Tax-office was bad. In a Committee
• who did, however, cause it to be reduced in spite of them ?up stairs it had been stated, that the Tax-office had no check
.At any rate he took the salt out of their porridge. These con- or controul on the collectors. Thus, if the assessment for Bed-
, siderations, he hoped, would lead to a better plan of conducting fordshire were 5,5001., so as they got that sum they did not care
- the. private business than that which-was at present the reproach if 50,0001. were collected. A regular account ought to be made
• s of the House. out of what was assessed, and what received.
Mr. IWNG said a few words. Mr. CALVERT said, he was not aware that his constitu-
Mr. BARING agreed in the observation that the practice of eats were compelled to pay the tax • upon their stock as well
. voting on private Bills was a shame and reproach to the honour
and character of Parliament. He thought that it might be as upon the la_ nd they occupied. He should immediately com-
advisable to adopt sonic mode of balloting, for private cot- municate with them on th.e sub' and if lie found it neccs-
. mittees, as in the case of election committees, with power to sary, he should forthwith institujetectlairliamentary measures to
obtain relief from so urgent a border..
- strike out names known to .be interested, and confine the vot-
ing to those left; or else to circumscribe that privilege by After a few words front Sir Ronan's: WILSON', which
were inaudible—
confining it to those-who had listened to the arguments and -
evidence. Mr. HERRIES' said, that it was his intention very shortly
Colonel DAVIES. strongly objected to-any attempt at I;ntit. to introduce a Bill for the purpose of remedying one of the
jog the votes of aleirberswho,s.re-bound to obey their consti-- tevils complained of, and which it had hitherto been found.dif-
tuents either in supporting or opposing the Bill with all their ficult to deal with. He meant the removal
. power and influence. He slid not believe that the Constitution to the as was practicable, and in cases where it wasof a.nmoste,"toorsreasstrfiacrt
had any such power as to take, away or qualify that right of their powers. The other difficulty— that relating . tax
on stock—was too extensive and considerable to full within his
voting from the altmbers....
M. CA LGRA rf could not-see so much danger as. was ap- -proposed measure.
prehended from interested votes, considering how powerful to
check jobbing and corruption were their forms, and how rums- he would, as he found the
Mr. CALVERT said, that he hoped front the latter obser-
vation of the Hon. Gentleman, that. .
his-support to that
roux the opportunities for exposing them in the course of passing subject too extensive for his own Bill, give
a Bill through both Houses. Thereavere, he conceived, checks which he (Mr. Calvert) intended to propose.,.Mr Baring, Mr
enough in the House already to prevent the private business A short conversation ensued between
:the • • .
carried through Parliament, without
from being improperlyWarre, Mr. Curteis, and Mr. Smith, after which petition
resorting to new meaeures..alf Gentlenien who were in Parlia- was ordered•to lie on the table and to he printed.
t te. orn-
ment could not be trustse,. with the impartial-consideration of Mr. S. RICE moved for the re-appointment
cityof 1 C
measures of this nature, in God's name let them be sent about rnittee to inquire-into the local taxation of the of Dublin,
. their business, and let the country select proper persons to per- which was ordered.
DISSENTERS' Ii.knRIAGEs.
form their legislative duties.—(Hear !)—lie had often, and no
doubt would again have, to find fault with the corrupt -decisions Mr. W g
. SMITH brought in a BiJl for ranting relief to
ad
of majoritie* of that House, but certainly never with reference persons dissenting from the Church of England a
which was re with respect
to private business. It' individuals could be supposed capable to the ceremony of solemnizing marriages;
-of acting from or under bias in matters of a private nature, then first time, and ordered to be read the second time on Friday,
were they totally unfit for the performance of public duties ; the 4th of March next. .
because, in those cases, Lord DUNCANNON presented a petition from Carrick-on-
jet cases of a private description. tie had rarely taken any part Suir, in favour of Catholic Emancipation.—Ordered to be
with reference to Bills of this sort, nor did he recommend those printed.
vtho had any interest in pirate measures to du so. Jut he Lord FOLKESTONE presented a.petition . from 31aryle-

on the table.
Sir J. STE IVA RT presented a petition from the Nobility,
Gentry, and Freeholders, of the county of Tyrone, for the sup-
.pression of the Catholic Association.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. CURTEIS moved for an account of the several Com-
missioners of Sewers who have made returns to the Court of
Exchequer, from the Ist of January, 1822, to the Ist of Janu-
ary, 11125 • and an account of all fines sued for and obtained
by their clerks at the sessions, trout Jan. 1822, to Jan. 1325.
Ordered.
Mr. bAMBTON presented a petition from the Ship-owners
of Sunderland, against the duty on coals ; and a similar peti-
tion from the owners of colleries in that neighbourhood.—Or-
(l°Ttii-."l‘/Nrls'iltiapreseriteu a similar petition rrom the town or
Rye ;. and a petition for the repeal of Assessed Taxes.—Laid
on the table.
31r. SIABERLY presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of the County Meath, against the Catholic Associa-
tion bill.
Mr. J. SMITH presented a petition from the Roman Catho-
lics of the town of Skibbereen, praying the House not to sup-
press the Catholic Association without further inquiry. The
petitioners stated, that whatever might be the decision of the
House on this subject, their loyalty would remain unaltered;
and they demanded whether it was not right that an inquiry
should be set on foot, to ascertain whether the Catholic Associ-
ation deserved the imputations that had been cast upon it.—
Ordered to he printed.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from the town
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, titer the repeal of the House and. Win-
dow Duty.—Laid on the table.
Sir F. ACLA ND presented two petitions from Ashburton—
one for the repeal of the House and ‘Window Tax, the other for
the repeal of the Duty on Coals.—Laid on the table.
Mr. BYNG presented a petition from the Inhabitants of
. Shoreditch, against the House and Window Tax.—Laid on the
table.
Sir M. SOMERVILLE presented petitions from Hard-
castle, hi the ccunty of Meath, and Ballchard, in the same
county, against the Bill for Suppressing the Roman Catholic
Association.

bone, praying for the repeal of theassessed taxes.—Ordered to
be printed.
Mr. T. ELLICE presented a petition from the curriers of
Dublin against an assimilation of the duties in England and
Ireland.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. C. CA INERT moved for an account of the sums re-
ceived by Greenwich Hospital, on account of the merchant sea-
men's sixpences.—Ordered.
Sir. HOBHOUSE gave notice of his intention to move on
the Bth of March next for the total repeal of the window-tax.
Sir. P. GRENFELL moved for an account of the aggre-
gate amount of balances in the Bank of England, on account
of public deposits, up to the latest date; also an account of the
sums paid to the Bank for the management of the public debt
in the year 182-1.
Sir. HUME wished to know whether it was the intention of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose any reduction in
this sum. The country was put to an annual expense of
267,0001. for the transaction of business, which could be done
as well for 100,0001. He expressed his hope, if some satisfac-
tory answer were not given on this subject, that his Honour-
able Friend (Mr. Grenfell) would move for a Committee on
the subject.
Mr. PEA RSE made some observations, but in so low a tone
as to render him nearly inaudible. We understood-the tenour
of them to be, that the actual expense incurred by the Bank of
England in managing the public business was nearly equal to
the allowance, in addition to which they had to stand to all
losses which might be sustained by means of forgery and other-
wise. In a recent case the loss had amounted to much more
than the whole allowance, and this had happened notwithstand-
ing all the due diligence which had been exerted.—The returns
were then ordered.
Sir. HU3IE moved for returns of all the promotions which
had taken place in the Navy, from January, 182-1, to 1825 ; of
the number of officers employed and on half-pay during the.
same period, and of the actual number of officers from the rank
of Admiral to that of Lieutenant inclusive ; and also for a re-
turn of the names and rates of all the ships which had been
launced since January, 1815, the expenses of building and re-
airing them from that period to the present. His object in
moving for the last return, was to ascertain whether the ships
built since the conclusion of the war had been more efficiently
constructed than those built before.
Sir G. CLERK said, there was no objection to granting
these returns. He should rather be glad of the opportunity of
making public the great superiority. which the ships built since
the war had over those constructed in former times.
The returns were then ordered.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
amending an Act of the 55th year of the late King, for regu-
lating the.practice of Apothecaries in England and -Wales. A
great hardship had been found to arise from the inartifical
manner in which the Bill had been framed, although in ita
principle it was highly beneficial. Under the present Act, an
apothecary could neither recover payment of his bill, nor de-
fend a qui tutu action, which might be brought against him .for
penalties, without bringing to the Court in which the trial
might take place some person to prove the handwriting of the
Warden and Examiner of the Apothecaries' Company to the
certificate which was his license for practising. The Hon.
Member proposed to amend this by introducing a clause,making
the seal of the Company evidence in all cases, guarding against
the possibility of that seal being forged, by providing for the
punishment of per ons committing such a frauu. It happened
that men frequently came from Scotland and Ireland, to settle
in London, who were us well qualified to practise as those who
had been licensed by the Apothecaries' Company. Ile pro-
posed therefore to extend to persons who had been properly
examined by the Universities of Dublin, Edinburgh, and Glas-
gow, the same privileges as were possessed by those. who ha e
d
received the certificate of the London Apothecaries. Th
other Scotch Universities, owing to the laxity of their practice
with respect to examinations, could not at present be included
in the Bill consistently with a due regard for the publc safety.
If the sum of 151. were transmitted to Aberdeen, or St. An-
drew's College, the diploma of which it was the price was re-
gularly transmitted by the post. This practice he reg whilete
d,
because it added little to the revenues of those Colleges,
it disinherited them of that reputation which they derived from
their ancestors, among whom had been some very eminent men.
In sonic future Bill, when these Colleges should have acquired
a better habit, and the public health,
therefore, had some
stronger security, he should be willing to see them included.
After a few words from 3lr. CROKEII, leave was given to
bring m the Bill.
The house then proceeded to the other orders of the day,
and adjourned at SEVEN O'CLOCK.