The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-27 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 26.
Mr. BROGDEN and others, from the Commons, brought up
the Exchequer Bills' Amendment Bill, and other Bills, which
were read a first time.
Earl GREY presented a 'petition, very numerously signed,
from the operative weavers of Glasgow, against the combination
laws; a petition from Flexham, in favour of the County Courts'
Bill ; and a petition from inhabitants of Westminster, against
the power exercised by Magistrates of holding to bail and com-
mitting for libel. The petition, we understood, referred to the
case of Mr. C. Butt, as an example of the abuse of this power ;
and the Noble Lord, in presenting the petition, reminded the
House that he had some years ago brought this subject under
their consideration, and had contended that the practice was
contrary to law. He had since directed his attention very much
to the question, but had learned nothing which could induce
him to alter his opinion. Ile therefore concurred with the_pe-
titioners in considering the practice to be contrary to the Bri-
tish Constitution. The Noble Earl made several other obser-
vations, which were not heard ; and the crowd and confusion
below the bar rendered it also extremely difficult to collect any
distinct account of the subsequent proceedings.
IMPROVEMENT OF IRELAND.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE said, that he had to pre_
! sent a petition from a most respectable Gentleman, whose
humanity and patriotism had been long known to the country
at large, and who had lately turned his attention more particu-
larly to Ireland, and who thought that the extension of the
system which he had introduced in Scotland, with respect to
those particular parts of Ireland which lie described, would be
beneficial to the United Kingdom. The petition was from
Robert Owen, Esq., of New Lanark, who stated,• as he had
mentioned, that the beneficial effects which his system had
already produced in Scotland was calculated to produce similar
effects in other parts. It was also the wish of the petitioner
that their Lordships should appoint a Select Conunittee to
examine various plans which the petitioner was prepared to
submit, for the amelioration of the state of Ireland. The
Noble Marquis said, that although he did not- entirely approve
of the plans, he had felt it his duty to present the petition to the
House; which was accordingly read and laid upon the table.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated a conversation he had
had with Mr. Owen on the subject of his plan. He observed to
that Gentleman, that he did not know whether what he pro-
posed would make a better state of society than the 'present or
not, but he was convinced that neither this nor any other Euro-
pean Government could exist, if it were carried into effect.
this Mr. Owen replied, " I see you perfectly understand my
plan."—(Laughter. )
The Marquis of DOWNSIIIRE observed that Mr. Owen's
plan with regard to Ireland was different from that to which
the Noble Lord had alluded.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE did not pretend to know any
thing of Mr. Owen's particular plan for Ireland.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE had given notice that lie
would that night, move the addition of two resolutions relative
to Joint Stock Companies to the Standing Orders; but as he
wished to make some amendments in the resolutions, he should
defer big motion until they were printed. When the printed
copies were delivered, he would, perhaps on Monday, as we
understood, submit the resolutions •to the consideration of
their Lordships. In the mean time, if their Lordships permit-
ted him to adopt this course, he trusted that no Bills for in-
corporating Companies whi!th might now be pending, or which
might now come before the House, would be allowed to ad-
vance beyond a first reading. The INoble Lord then stated his
amendments, and the resolutions so amended were 'ordered to
be printed.
PEERAGES' RESTORATION BILLS.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the second reading of
the Bill for the Restoration of Honours to Wm. Nairn, Esq.
The Earl of RA DNOR made some observations on the word-
ing of the Bill.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought it would be proper to
give the Bills a second reading, before any discussion as to the
wording took place.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE objected to the mode of pro-
ceeding. When an attainder was reversed, the party claim-
ing had still to make good his title. But the Noble Earl met
him here by saying that these Bills were not for reversing at-
tainders, but for restoring honours. Ile contended, however,
that the course should be similar, and that the parties ought to
prove their cases. This was surely necessary, as there were
facts stated in the Bills of which the House could know nothing.
Passing the Bills as they now stood, might injure other parties
who would hereafter apply for redress. He hoped that their
Lordships would in their business take care to proceed with
regularity.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL recommended tlt their Lord-
ships, in a case of this kind, to proceed according to precedent
and usage, which would form in the first instance a better guide
than any reasoning on the subject. The report upon which the
Bills were founded was drawn up upon evidence•strictly Inves-
tigated, and he certainly should not have brought those bills
down had he not had • his Noble-and Learned Friend's concur-

• rence to the course it was proposed to adopt. The cases of
these bills were similar to that of the restoration of the title of
the Earl of Doncaster. He was, however, perfectly willing
that a Committee should be appointed to search for precedents,
in order that all doubts on the subject might be settled.
Lord MELVILLE held in his hand a copy of the bill for re-
storing to the Duke of Buccleuch the titles of Earl of Don-
castor and Baron Scott, which was similar to the bilis now on
the table. In that case it did not appear that there had been
any inquiry instituted by the House. The Bill had had the
royal signature, and upon that authority it appeared to have
passed.
The Earl of RADNOR had now obtained what he had hi-
therto wanted—a precedent which served to account for the
course of proceeding.
Lord HOLLAND . admitted the distinction which Noble
Lords had drawn between bills for reversing attainders and for
restoring honours. But, though a friend to the measure, he
was not satisfied that the proposed course of proceeding with
respect to the latter bills was regular. As it was meant to re-
store particular persons, their Lordships must be aware that the
bills involved questions of fact, of the accuracy of which the
House ought to be informed.
The Earl of HARROW BY said, that the real distinction in
the bills consisted in this—that the reversal of the Stafford at-
•tainder was an act of justice, whereas the restoration of the other
titles was an act of grace and favour.
Lord REDESDALE was of opinion that evidence should'be
had. In passing one of these bills, their Lordships would de-
clare that such a person was tile heir of such another person,
and they ought therefore to be first satisfied of that fact. If,
on a question of voting for Irish Peers, it was required that the
claimant should prove his descent, it was to be expected that
the present bills would not be passed without a similar formali-
ty. If these bills were passed without inquiry, their Lord-
ships would not merely restore the persons therein named, but
set aside all other claimants. The case of the restoration of
the titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott was not in
point; for the person restored being admitted to be Duke of
Buccleuch, he must be considered the heir of the Duke of
Monmouth, to whom the restored peerages belonged.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that when an English
peerage was claimed, application was made to him. The party
making the application was in all probability a total stranger to
the Lord Chancellor. The first thing he had to do in the exe-
cution of his office was to call for proof of the party's claim._
When strict evidence was demanded, it often happened that
the claimant was grievously offended, and it was very possible
that a Lord Chancellor might fail, with all his efforts, to dis-
cover the truth, unless he referred the case to the House of
Lords, which, for his part, he was always ready to do. With
respect to the present bills, the evidence on which they were
founded had been referred to the Attorney-General and other
Officers of the Crown, and reported on before they were drawn
up. There was, as had been already observed, a material
distinction between the reversal of an attainder and the restor-
ation of a peerage. In the case of a reversal, the House decid-
ed nothing as to the possession of the honour, and the party
claiming had to make good his title ; but the practice had been
different with regard to restorations. It appeared that as to
them, the circumstance of the Royal signi manual being at-
tached to a bill, was considered proof of tae necessary evidence
having been gone into, and as authority for the facts it con-
tained. Their Lordships ought not to depart from the usual
practice in such cases, especially when it might be a familiar
exercise of the Royal authority. Wishing that the Royal pre.
rogative should be carefully maintained, he had no objection to
the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents.
Lord REDSDALE again contended for the propriety of
going into evidence on the Bills.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested, that all the Bills
should be read a second time, and then lie would move the ap-
pointment of a Committee to search for precedents.
After a few words from the Earl of it ADNOR, this course
was adopted the Bills were read, and the Committee appointed.
I he Scotch Entailed Estates Bill went through a Committee.
—Adjourned to Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sir J. GRAHAM brought up , the Report of the Committee
o;► the Equitable Loan Bill.
;lir. S. IVHITBREAD moved that Counsel, who were in
attendance, should be heard against the Bill.
Sir J 1; RA 11 AAI considered the hearing of Counsel would
cause an unnecessary waste of the time of the I louse.
Mr. H. SUMNER., Mr. Bnics•r, and Mr, PETRA:IIOOBE,
expressed similar.opinions.

The noun then divided on the question of hearing Counsel ;
the numbers were :
Ayes,
Noes,

--- 1 2
-

Majority . 40
Mr. PLUUMER'presented a petition from the Corporation
London Assurance Company, against the Bill for repealing so
much of the Act of the 6th of Geo. I. as restricts partnerships
from insuring ships• -
Sir It. SHAW' presented' a petition from an auctioneer of
Dublin against the Equitable Loan Bill.
The British Annuity Company Bill was read the third time,
and passed.
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Ilford, praying for the abolition of slavery.
CASE OF THE LATE MR. SMITH, THE
MISSIONARY.

Petitions, praying the House to take into consideration the
case of the late Mr. Smith, were presented from the inhabitants
of Wigan", by Lord- LixDsar; from a dissenting congrega-
tion in Cumberland, by Mr. Cu RWEN ; and from the inhabi-
tants of Rochdale, by Mr BIACK/3URNE.
Mr. WODEHOUSE presented a petition from an
dual, praying that it might be made allowable for persons who
made deposits in savings ban's to turn those deposits into an-
nuities.
Mr. SYKES presented .a petition from the Merchants and
prayingthat Parliament would take into
cBohnisPilewranten o
consideration whether llull'
a moreeligible mode of recruiting the
navy than by impressment night not be adopted ; also a pe-
tition.from the Bankers, Mer:hants, &c. of Hull, praying that
Attornies may be permitted tepractice as Notaries Public.
Sir R. SHAW presented apetition from the Paper-hanging
Manufacturers of Dublin, paying for an alteration in the tinty
on their Licences.
Mr. F. LEWIS thought itright for the House, to know that
the whole sum paid by these fades amounted only to 1,200/.
per annum. It would be satsfactory to the House to know
also, that a Bill was now in preparation to the effect prayed
for, one of the consequences o which would, he 'believed, in-
crease the receipts of these lie:rice-duties, which had been. so
strangely unproductive.
Sir C: COLE presented :a petition from Swansea, against
Negro Slavery. ,
Mr. CURTEIS moved fora copy of the Orders in Council
relative to the countervailng duties on French vessels coming
to English ports; which vere ordered.
Mr. CURTEIS also give notice of his intention to move
early in the next session, for a Bill to alter the existing laws
relative to seamen's apprentices.
MR. OWEN, OF LANARK.
Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from Mr. R. Owen, of
Lanark, in which he stated that he had invented a plan for the
amelioration of the condition of the poorer classes of Ire-
land. For his own part. the Hon. Gentleman did not see his
way sufficiently clear to pursue the subject any further than
by presenting the petition ; but he would willingly lend his
aid if any other Gentleman should be disposed to bring it be-
fore the House.

Sir IV. CRESPIGNY said, he had advised Mr. Owen
never to bring his plan again before Parliament.
Colonel TRENCH deprecated the visionary nature of Mr.
Owen's plan, the object of which was to destroy the roots of so_
ciety, and to offer no pubic benefit.
Mr. COLVILLE presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Kilmore, praying that the Several parishes of Ireland should
be empowered by the authority of Parliament to maintain their
Own poor.. _ _

Mr. J. SMITH presented a petition from George Pryme,
Esq., of Cambridge, against the Legacy Duties.
Lord MILTON presented a petition from a Mr. Paterson,
formerly employed id the collection of customs duties in the
port of London, praying for an inquiry into his conduct.
His Lordship also presented a petition from Thomas Flana-
gan, complaining of abuses in Courts of Law • and petitions
against Slavery, from Whitby, and from Stansted.
COURTENAY presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Exeter, against the Beer Bill.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the tanners of Mus-
selburgh, against thellides and Skins Regulation Bill.
MISSIONARY SMITH.

Petitions praying for an inquiry into the case of this person
were presented by .Mr. Egerton, from Macclesfield ; by Mr. B.
-Wilbraham, from Dover; by Mr. Burrell, from Newbury and
from Brighton ; by Mr. Legh-Keck, from Market Harborough
and Henley; ,by Mr. Jones, from Carmarthen ; by Mr. Lamb-
ton, from Barnard Castle; by Sir John Wrottesley, from
Wolverhampton ; by Lord George Cavendish, from Derby and
I3elper ; by Mr. S: Wortley, from Whitby; by Lord Milton,
from York, from Idle, from Northallerton, from Halifax.
All of which were otfiered to be laid on the table, and to be
printed. ' _ _

• Mr. liYGON presented a petition fzom the town of Stour-
bridge, againut the Excise Licences.
DUBLIN STEAM-PACKETS.

Sir R.'SELAW, pursuant to notice, moved for the production
of copies of the-correipondeJnce between the Post-office and Mr.
Watt, relative to . the boilers of the Royal Sovereign steam-
packet; also a report of the Engineers sent down to inspect the
same. The Hon. Gentleman prefaced the motion with a few
observations tending to show that the means of communication
between Dublin* and Holyhead, notwithstanding all the ex-
pence which Government had wasted upon it, were so inade-
quate, that the packets were continually passed by the steam
craft of private owners,-and that the grievance was so severely
felt, that a number of Dublin bankers and merchants, having
memorialized the Treasury in vain, had determined to put ves-
sels of their own afloat if immediate remedies were not found
by the Post-office. •
Sir H. PARNELL supported the Motion, and afterwards
moved for Returns of the ten longest voyages made by the
' three Post-office packets in the years 1821, 1822, and 1823.
Mr. lIERRIES acquiesced in the motion, but could not for-
bear entering into a justification of the Post-office, the duties of
which were generally allowed to be fulfilled in a most exem-
plary way—he had almost said with a promptitude and fidelity
unequalled in any other department. He would take care to
have included in these returns a paper written by the Post-office
especially upon this subject, which would fully exonerate them
from any imputation.
USURY LAWS.
Alderman lIEYGATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for the more equitable imposition of the penalties in case of
Usury. Ile had before pointed out to the House the enormous
disproportion which existed between the degrees of offence and
punishment. The penalties of the statute were triple the amount
of the usurious debt. If a man took 51. more than lawful in-
terest upon 100,000/., the penalties and loss of the debt would
be 400,0001. If another took 201. beyond lawful interest on
1001., his total loss in debt and penalties, though he had of.
fended 20 times more grievously than the first, would be no
more than 4001. , This was a state of things which rendered the
laws either" cruel and unjust, or that which more frequently
happened, wholly inoperative on accoant of their iniquitous
violence. He reserved himself as to details and further ex,
planation of the principle until the discussion on the Bill.—
Leave given.

SCOTCH POOR BILL.
Mr KENNEDY moved the Order of the Day for the pur-
pose of having it discharged. But though he gave up the sub-
ject for the present, there was such crying detects in the Scotch
Law under this head, that he -was determined to bring it for-
ward in the next session, when neither clamour nor misrepre-
sentation, nor any other indirect means, could avail in prevent.
ing him from carrying it through, should the Mouse be found
to side with him.

Lord A. HAMILTON declared himself hostile to the Bill.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said that the sense of Scotland
was decidedly against it.
Air. W. DUNDAS recommended that it should not be
brought forward again. -
31r. H. DRUMMOND decidedly opposed the sweeping
course which it was to take.
The Bill was then withdrawn by consent ; the other Orders
of the Day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at HALF
PAST SEVEN O'CLOCK.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
On Sir John Newport's Motion relative to the First Fruits

Finid inL.eland—May 25.
Allan, J. H. Hill, Lord Arthur Power, R.
Anson, Sir Geo. Hornby,
WE. Powlett, lion. W.
Banker, henry Hug hes. L. Price, R.
Barnard, Viscount JoseHumeph Robarts, A. W.
Becher, %V. W. Hutchinson, Hon. Robarts, G. J.
Bernal, Ralph C. H. Robinson, Sir Geo.
Brougham, IL. Knight, R. Russell, Ld J.
Calcraft, .I. H.
Leycester, Ralph Bickford, W.
Campbell, Hon. G. Lloyd, Sir E. Scarlett, J.
Carew, C. S.
Leader, W. Scott, J.
Chaloner,- R. . Langston, J. H. 'SLIM, J.
Coke, T. W. jun. Lester, B. L. . Stanley, Lord
Colborne, N. NV. Macdonald,
.Jas. Stewart, W. (Tyr.)
Creevey, T. • Marjoribanks, S. Stuart, Lord P. J.
Cole, Sir C. Martin, J. Taylor, M. A.
Denison, W. J. Milton, Viscount Tierney, Rt. kin.G.
Ebrington, Viset. Monck, J. B. Wharton, J.
Evans, W. Newport, Rt. Hon. Whitbread, S. C.
Fergusson, Sir R.C. Sir J. Williams, W.
Grattan, J. Nugent, Lord Wood, M.
Grenfell, Pascoe O'Callaghan, J. Whitmore, W. W.
Guise, Sir W. Ord, AV.
Gurney, R. H. Osborne, Lord F. TELLERS.
00111011, R.
.Palmer, C. F. Duncannon, Vint.
Hamilton, Lord A. Phillips, G. en. Rice, T. S.
Heron, Sir H. Phillips, G. jun.

7?
-
• •\
?, ,

MASONIC NOTICES FOR NEXT WEEK.
ENGLAND.
Monday, May 31, LoxDON-. Nos. 91, 458.
COUNTRY. No. 227, 246, 707.
Tuesday, June 1, I.o.NDoN. Nos. 9, 129, 281, 237,
3131, 399.
Go uNTRY. Nos. 21, 127, 167, 170,
130, 184, 195, 204, 385,
387, 4713, 507, 512, 532,
544, 551, 557, 639.
Wednesday, _. 2, LONDON. Nos. 35. 75, 220. Quar.
terly Communication.
COUNTRY. Nos. 84, 95, 124, 139, 146,
207, 229, 339, 465, 487,
- 491, 505, 513, 526, 529,
5131, 585, 656, 711, 713,
725.
Thursday, 3, LONDON. Nos. 61, 239, 277, 325,
439.
COUNTRY. Nos. 48, 113, 171, 132,
234, 416, 451, 453, 466,
469, 555,,561, 599, 627.
Friday, -4, LolfDoN. No. 210.
COUNTRY. Nos. 13, VI, 30, U, 58,
470, 538, 709.
Saturday, -5, LONDON. No. 173.
CouNTar. No. 675.
• I a RI.A.ND.
Tuesday, June 1, Coax. No. 95.
Wednesday, -2, CORN. Nos. I, 41.
Thursday, -3, CORK. • No. 3.