The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-15 00:00:00

HIDES AND SKINS.

Mr. LUSIIINGi6SIn-;;;:aTorleave to bring in a Bill to
repeal the several Acts imposing tines for damages arising in
flaying of hides and skins. lie stated, that his reason for bring-
ing in this Bill was, that the Acts which he sought to repeal
were unnecessary, vexatious, unjust, and also expensive.
M r..IAM ES seconded the motion.
11r. G. I'll:IMAM said a few words that were totally inau-
dible in the gallery.
Mr. MABERIN was averse to the measure of the Hon.
Gentleman, because it was partial-anduot general in its opera-
tion. It took away many inconveniences, which at present •dis-
tewil the country dealers, but left the London dealers entirely
without relief'. -fie admitted that the existing laws wanted
considerable alteration, but hefore that alteration was made, he
conceived that an inquiry ought to take place before a Corn-

Mr. IHISKISSON said, he concurred in all the general
principles which his Hon. Friend (Air. Lushington) had laid
down as to the irnpolicy of interfering with the internal con-
cerns of any trade or manufacture. He believed, however,that
the Acts which his lion. Friend wished to repeal were not in-
troduced to the House as public, but as private Acts, and there-
fore could not be dealt with as if they had been of the former de-
scription. He suggested, in order to prevent a protracted dis-
cussion on a subject which was not easily intelligible to the
House, that the best course would be to refer the Acts to a
Committee up stairs, - when the Bill arrived at a proper stage
for that purpose. Knowing that the rumour of the intended
repeal of those laws had created a considerable sensation
throughout the country, lie was apprehensive, if the course he
pointed out were not adopted, that a large portion of valuable
time would be lost in discussing the question on the presenta-
tion of various petitions, which, he had no doubt, would be for-
warded to the House. _

Mr. LUSIIINGTON said, his object was to avoid, as much
as possible, giving the House any trouble that could be pre-
vented. Ile belieyed that the bill ,o which his Right lion.
Friend alluded was brought in as a public, not as. a private
measure. It was, however, referred to a Select Committee;
but no evidence was taken before that Committee. His opinion
was, that the case was so perfectly clear, that it did not require
the production otevidence. He could see no reason why evi-
dence should be adduced as to the propriety of repealing the
act, when none was brought forward to show the propriety of
the measure when it was enacted. _ _

• _
General GASCOYNE opposed the motion. Gentlemen
complained that it was very hard to call on-the butcher to pay
a penalty, if he iujured a hide in removing it from the carcase.
Now he conceived nothing could be more just than that •the
person who committed the error should be the sufferer. lie
denied that the Hon. Gentleman had adduced any sufficient
reason for the repeal of those laws. When the 39th and 40th
of Geo. 111. was brought in, an inquiry was instituted up
stairs ; anti it was but fair, before the proposed repeal was car-
ried into effect, that a'similar inquiry should be instituted.—
Some few places, of little rote, had:called for a repeal of those
aces.; but he had not seen a single petition from any considera-
ble town in favour of the measure. On the contrary, he knew
that Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Worcester, and Brig-
tol, were decidedly against the repeal.
Sir It. FERGUSSON was surprised to hear the Gallant Ge-
neral deny that the lion. Member had adduced no argument
in favour of the repeal. Vas it, he asked, nothing to relies a
man from the payment of.a ,penalty, because he happened to
cut his own property in an improper .manner ? Would not the
Gallant Gener2l think it very hard, if, having cut a hole in his

pantaloons, he was liable to be fined for it ?—(Laughter.)—As 1
the Act at present stood, the tanner was pointed out as the only
person who did not know his own interest. The right of judg-
ing was rested in other hands. . .
Mr. J. MARTIN said the question was, whether in the first •
instance the subject should be referred to a Select Committee,
to consider of the propriety of bringing in this Bill, or whether
the measure should be introduced at once, and, at the regular
stage, referred to a Committee ? The former was, in his opi-
nion, the preferable mode. One point ought not to be lost sight
of—namely, that they had no remonstrance from the butchers
on this subject.
Mr. BRIGHT said, the idea of abolishing one half of those
laws, and. leaving the other half tin the statute-book, was really
nonsenscal. There ought only to be one law on the subject
throughout the country. He thought the subject ought to he
considered in a Select Committee before the Bill was brought
I in. He was not at all interested in the question. He wanted
nothing but justice; and therefore he was in favour of a full
consideration of the subject. .
-Mr. LUSHINGTON said he wished, in repealing this Bill,
to take the same course which was pursued when it was enacted.
If he found that the Select Committee to which the subject was
referred did not send for persons, papers, and records, be thought
it was too much to proceed with examination of that kind now.
If evidsnce were gone
into, and Counsel were heard, the inves..
tigation.would not terminate this year.
Mr. CUR WEN
was in favour of the repeal. The act par-
ticularly alluded to was, in his opinion, an abominable one.—
It operated against the interests of particular individuals, with-
out benefiting any person. - Ile recommended, however, that
when the Bill arrived at the proper stage, it should be referred.
to a Committee. '
Mr. CuRTEIS condemned the existing system, as extreme-
y vexatious. The acts appeared to him to be most prepos-
terous. It was a very great hardship on an individual to be
compelled, as was often the case, to send skins 10 or 20 miles
to be inspected, which skins were, perhaps, obliged to be sent
as many miles in an opposite direction to be manufactured.—
The machinery of these laws was also objectionable. Even a
pig•could not be skinned without the intervention of an in-
spector.—(A laugh.)—He was sorry to descend to such mi-
nute matters ; but if they legislated on such trifles, it was ne-
cessary to speak of thein.—(hear !)
Lord 01.11,T0N was of Opinion that the lion. Member was
fully justified in mtivin, for the repeal of those laws.
The House then divided, when there appeared-
For the Motion - - - 52
Against it - - - 6
Majority - - —46
NEW CHITRCHES.
,_ _ • - •

Mr. HUME now moved for " a return of the mannor in
which the sun► of 1,000,0001. sterling, voted by Parliament for
the erection of New Churches, had been laid out, together
with a Statement of the County and Parish in which any New
Church or Chapel. had been built—the number of the Popula-
tion in every such Parish during the last century—the number
of ChureAcs and Chapels belonging to the Establishment in
each Parish before the building of the New Churches—the
number of persons who owned seats in those Churches and
chapels—tl.te general number of persons who could be accom-
modated in each New Church or Chapel—the number of
seats which were paid for, and also the number of seats left
free end noon.

Mr. LEYCEST F.R seconded the motion. He hoped as the
public attention was called to this subject, that it would lead
to the adoption of some liberal and comprehensive measure by
which due accommodation would be afforded in our churches
to the people. The great objection against the grant of 600,0001
for building new churches seemed to arise from the idea, that
the proposition, of Ministers looked more like a salvo for their
own consciences, than an act originating in a conscientious feel-
ing for the good of the people. There were several ways by
width the interests of the Church could be effectually served,
without calling on the public for assistance. One of these was
by havitg divine worship celebrated five times on the Sunday,
which could easily be done in those parishes where marriages,
baptisms, and funerals, were chiefly solemnized in the week-
days. Another mode was, by appropriating. a part of the
Church Revenue to the building and repairing of churches.
This, he thought, would be perfectly fair. And, in the third
place, the conferring the patronage of new churches on the
trustees appointed by those who voluntarily contributed to their
erection, would be a measure fraught with much real good.
If those three points were carried into effect, and if, combined
with them, a grant of public money were called for, lie for
one would most willingly assent to that Parliamentary grant.
But he objected to the intended grant of 500.000/., because he
considered it, standing by itself, as more like an imposture
than a proposition made in the conscientious discharge of a
public duty.
The motion was agreed to.
Air. HUME moved for a return of the number of Churches
and Chapels exiting in each diocess injlngland and Wales
front 1613 to 1624, distinguishing thenumberember hi each year
and also for a return of the number of licences issued in each,
diocess in England and Wales, fbr places •of worship fre-
quented by persons dissenting from the Church of Englund, for
the same period.—Ordered. •