The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-09 00:00:00

COM 131 NA TION LA WS

Wr.. P. MOORE presented petitions from II ythe and other
places, praying fora repeal of the Combination Laws,
petitions were presented hY Mr. T. ELLIS, from the
wor:;irg bricklayers of the city anublin ; and by 31r. /I
frsira the incorperated trades of the town of Aberdeen ; another
--fmril the %iieaverN of Manchester; and anoater from the flax-
dressers of the town of Aberdeen.
Referred to the Artisans' Committee.
• COUNTY COURTS BILL.
•

Mr. LA Al the merchant
of Darlington, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—Laid on
the table. - .

General GASCOYNE presented a petition from Liverpool,
against the County Courts hill.
Lord A LTI-1011 P said, that the petition was signed princi-
pally by persons connected with the law.
The petition was laid on the table.
On the motion of Lord .ALTHORP, the House resolved
itseirinto a Committee on the County- Courts bill.

The bill was read, the. House resu;ned, and the report was
ordered to be taken into consideration on Iklwlday next.
ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS.

Mr. PENISON presented a petition fiom the Trustees of
tile Smithfield Iloads against the building of the St. Catherine's
mocks.--Laid on the

SHEPHERDS' DOGS.

Mr. COURTENAY presented a petition from g.ruiers and
oth,,rs in the county of Dumfries, praying for a repeal of the
tax on shepherds' dogs.—laid on the table.
TM.; PRESS IN INDIA.

Mr. LAMBTON gave notice, that on Tue3day,the 25th of
May, he should bring forward his motion relative to the pnblic
press in India

NEW CH URCUES,

Mr.' G. BENNET-presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Newtown and liailesworth, against. the building of new
churches.

Mr. PHILLIPS presented similar petitions from the town
of Reddish and another place in the county of Lancaster.—Laid
on the table.

LONG WOOL.
Mr. LEGH KECK presented a petition from the Carpet-
me.nufacturers of Market Harborotigh, against the exportation
of Long Wool —Laid on the table.
r. PO YNTZ presented a petition from Occupiers of Land
in Chichester, against the repeal of the duties on foreign wool.
The petitioners stated that agriculture was by no means in a
I:Curt-thing 'condition ; and that if the tax was continued on
foreign wool, and a relief from some of the assessed taxes, it
would add greatly to the comforts of the country, and be Ines;
• gratefully received.—Laid on the table.
ASSESSED TAXES.
PYAI presented a. petition from Leighton-Buzzard,
praying for a repeal of the W inflow Tax.—Laid on the table. •
MANCHESTER. GAS lifLl2.
On the motion of. Mr. CIJIMIS, the standing order was
feat!, directing that- all petitions should be signed by the neti,
tioncrs, and that the contrary was a breach of privilege. tie
then, in pursuanee of the notice he had given, moved for the
I%lrod ction (0 the minutes of evident. taken before the Man.,

chester Gas Committee, Which were taken befcra the Committee
appointed by that House.
Lord STANLEY said he was unable to gather from the
Hon. Member what was the ulterior object of his motion. Ile,
as Chairman of the CoMinittee, could have no objection, to the
production of the evidence; but he thought that some-ground
ought to be laid in the first instance to Justify any further in-
traision of this topic upon the attention of the House.
Mr. BOOTLE7WILBRA HAM admitted the necessity of
discontinuing the improper insertion of signatures to a petition,
although in populous manufacturing districts it was unavoid-
able. Still it ditlnot follow, from the irregularity complained
of, that such a petition was at variance with the opinion enter-
tained by those whose names were so subscribed. His opinion
was, that some better mode of remedying the evil complained
of might be devised than the present.
Mr. UR ENFELL complained of the application of the term
".job" to the St. Catherine's Dock, a measure which was soon
to be brought under the re-consideration of the House.
Mr. HOWIE SUMNER declared that he should vote for
the production of these ihinn tea.
Mr. W. Pm., Mr. PEL14.4.51, and 11r. PUMPS declared
that they should vote against their production.
Thequestion was then put upon Mr.CußTEn's motion,which
was negatived without a diviston.
- IRISH PETTY SESSIONS' COURTS.
Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that in Ireland Petty Sessions
had been recently introduced, to the great service of the country,
and the credit of the Magistrates. The bill he was about to
present was for the purijase of giving greater facility to their
endeavours. His object was to ascertain- what were the fees,
and for the better arrangement of them. He also wished that
a court-housu should be procured for the purpose, which wrtthl
powerfully aB•4iSt their objects; and also that a register of their
pro eedings should be r gnlsrly k. pt. He concluded by asking
leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the bolding of Petty Sts.
sions, and the recovery of small debts.
After a few words from Mr. Et'. is, leave was granted.
Mr. S. RICE moved for the appointment of a Special Com-
mittee on the local Taxation of 1)0AM, and to report their ob-
setvations thereon- to the House.
The several petitions on the subject of Local Taxation of
Dublin were referred to ibis Committee, which was then.ap-
Pointed, tansis.ing of nearly-the same Members as served the
fanner Committee on the same subject.
WEST INDIES.

Mr. HOME moved for a return of the number of slaves in
our West India Colonies ; distinguishing' tiros,' who were over
from those under .1).O years of age; and also those slaves who,
by escheat or otherwise, had been sold.
Mr. HUME made a similar motion relative to the Island of
Bcrbice. The object of this latter motion was, that if it should
appear that the slaves of this island at present were a burden
to the public, they should have their freedom rather than con-
tinue so any longer, provided that freedom was not incon-
sistent with the peace and safety of the other inhabitants of the
island.

The .ATTORNE V.-GENERAL asked permiwirM. to bring
in a Bill to amend the Act relative to the British` useum.—
Leave granted.

GOLILTICTRN asked for leave to bring in 'a Bill for
draining and'improving the bogs of Ireland. He also obtained
leave to amend a Bill of hat Session, relative to the holding of
Sessions' Courts in Ireland. The Hon. Member also obtained
permission to bring in two other Bills; one to amend the
Civil Bill Act, the other for certain regulations and reduction,
in the Police establishments .of Ireland.

USURY LAWS.

Mr. Serjeant Order of the Day for the
House going into a Committee on the Usury Laws Bill.
.'dr. 13. CO( FER opposed the motion. lie had paid every
attention to all heloud heard and read on the subject, but we;
not satisfied that the repeal of the Laws would be beoeticial.—
Laws of this nature had been adopted, and were continued by •
tnost civilized countries. The Hon. Member here referred, in
support of his argument, to the practice of the ancient Romans,
and other nations, and to the author of Cato, in condemnation
of Usury. lie should not enter into a long argument of reason-
ing to peeve the efficacy of these laws. He relied principally
upon the authority they had acquired by established custom.
He moved, as an amendment, That the Bill be committed that
day six months.
Mr. D .1 VE N FORT seconded the amendment. He consi-
dered that the repeal of the laws would be most destructive to
the landed interest. Ile denied too that the repeal would lower
the rate of interest in the Market.
%Ir. 1. FOSTER said it by no means followed, that because
these laws were injudiciously made it would be judicious stud.
denlyto repeal them. H: thought money ought to be free like
any other commodiTy, but the sudden repeal of these laws,
even though they were injudicious in themselves, might
considerable mischief to particular interests. He aprr,hended
this would be the case in Ireland to a very alarming extent.
Capital
Caepitparlesdeindt niontcul.xmisbtratnbeeers o there
tonanlayncdonWsoiudletrlabtlhee amount;reftre be very
much affected. Mortgage money would • be called in that it
might be laid out in speculation, and fresh borrowing would
lead to heavier terms of interest, and the unpleasant discoveries
of many defects in titles. The Court of Chancery in Ireland had
set aside many contracts affecting land because they were tainted
with usurious considerations. There were still many such
contracts in existence which might yet he called in question,
and theretbre wished to know how such cases were to be
dealt with. If the Bill was not to be retrospective, it would
of course be necessary to declare that all past usurious
transactions should be punishable; but all future transactions
of that nature were to be carried on with impunity. lle should,
on the whole, oppose the Bill, not because he approved of the
Usury Laws on principle, but because lie thoaglit their present
sudden repeal was not a Iristable.
Mr. ROBERTSON opposed the Bill, contending that the
evidence taken before the Committee, on whose report the
Bill was founded, was of a superficial nature. He denied that
money ought to be considered as a saleable commodity. It'
could not be bought and sold like a bale of goods, though
ft was the standard by which goods were bought. The Ho-
nourable Member here, at some length, referred to the ancient
laws against usury (beginning with the reign of Henry the
Eighth), in order to chew that they were made in consequence
of the actual oppression exercised by usurers, and therefore to
disprove the argument that their reveal would have no effect
upon the rate of interest to the benefit of usurers. These, he
contended, were facts drawn from historical experience ; and
were not therefore to be lightly considered. He referred also
to the practice of ancient countries, and' that at present ob-
served in China, in all of which the regulation of interest had
been considered a proper object of legislative interference.—
' neturning to the Bill before the House, he observed that it
proceeded on the Report of a Committee ; and it was not
a little remarkable that, although die ancient laws against
usury stated die exactions-which were practised by lawyers
-in nut-ley transactions, and decreed punishment upon them
in certain cases ; yet the House had entrusted this impor-
tant subject almost entirely to lawyers, who were the chief
Members of the Committee.—(floor, hear ! and a laugh from
Mr. Sergeant Onslow.)—He warned the landed interest against
the consequences which would inevitably follow this till:—
They would be exposed to a knot of Usurers of the game kind
as those against whom our ameesters had made these protect-
ing and regulating laws. The arguments against the Bill
were supported by experience, but those in favour of it were
founded only on theory. The history of all Countries shelved
a proper interference on the rate of interest. He should cer-
tainly oppose the Bill.
Sir H. PARNELL supported the Bill. The opposers of it
he thought had misunderstood the nature of the interest of
money. He had himself, as well as the Hon. Member oppo-
site, read the evidence before the Committee ; and he came to
the conclusion that the interest of money always would be re-
gulated by the rate of profit. The present laws were worse
than useless ; and he thought that, instead of admiring them tor
their antiquity, the House ought to consider whether these laws
had been founded on right or wrong principles. He thought
that the leaving money, like all other commodities, to its own
course, would be the best mode of proceNling. He did not
think that this Bill would produce any mischief to Ireland in
any way whatever, as was feared by his lion. Friend (Mr. L.
Foster.) So far from being mischievous, he thought it would
be beneficial, by drawing capital to that quarter ; and he had
no doubt that the rate of profit there would hear a high rate
• of interest, in order to attract capital. He should cordially
support the bill.
Mr. CURWEN opposed the bill, which he though would
fill the country with money.jobbers. He did not approve of
the principle of the usury laws, but his disapprobation et'
them did not necessarily- call for an approbation of this bill. - -
Mr. SYKES said lie was glad to find that no one Member
of that House, but the Hon. Member for Grarnpound (Mr.
hertson) had defended the principle of these laws. For his
own part,- he prefered taking the opinion of the late Mr. Ri-
cardo to that of the lion. Member. Hon. Members talked
of restraining lenders, but they said nothing at all about
dealers. Dealers were to be allowed to demand and receive
what they pleased ; but the. man who might lend them money
to enable them to deal, was to be tied down to five per cent.
Ile (Mr. Sykes) was satisfied that these laws were -impolitic -
and unjust; and particularly unjust to the borrower. They
led to contrivances and shifts (annuities among the rest) which
brought many borrowers to actual ruin. He had himself seen
many instances of the ruin of country gentlemen by this system
of borrowing; and he roust be permitted to say, that he really
thought the country gentlemen who were adverse to the Bill
did not see their own interest They might make laws as
many and as strong as they pleased, and might impose as
many penalties as they -pleased, but they newer could carry such
laws into the effect they desired ; they only effect to heypro
duced was the distress of the borrower. In short, n
legisla-
tion was able to restrain the interest of money. Arid as for the

assertion of the Hon. Member for Crampound that money could
not he bought, he (Mr. S.) would tell that Hon. Member that
money was_bought every day, in every dealing for commodity.
The Honourable Member had referred to ancient times ; had
travelled, in his instances, from one part of the world to the
ct:ier, and had even taken them to the celestial empire. But
instead of these • learned references, it might have been as
well if the Honourable Alember had endeavoured to draw
souse assistance from the present times, from our neighbour-
ing country, Holland, for instance, a trading country, in
which there were no effectual Usury Laws. But if Him.
Members would contend for legal right of regulating inte-
rest, at what rate, he begged to ask, would they fix it, or
what means would they devise for fixing it ? He had a right
to ask this question, even of the Hon. Member for Gram-
pound ' • because, although the Honourable Member had con-
tended for the right to contest the rate of interest, he had not
even attempted to shew that five per cent. was the exact
standard to be fixedupon. On this part of the subject, and
this alone, he would imitate the example of the Honoura-
Me .3lember for GrampouTl, and refer to ancient times.—
In the reign of Elizabeth, when one of the present Acts was
under discus:ion, there was a Mr. Wilson (lie understood he
too, was a Member for (Irampounci,) though be chewed more
consistency than his successor. This Mr. Wilson, when the
rate of interest was under discussion, said he would not sanc-
tion any meddling at all with the rate of interest. He thought
the taking of any interest at all was a damnable heresy, and
ought to be punished. NOW, however- erroneous might be the
opinions of the Lion. Member for Grampound, they were at
Last more consistent than those of the present Hon. Member;
for he clainied to right to interfere with the rate of interest, but
gave no means for fixing it, With. any priligllCC to reason, At
any given sum. Some of the arguments against the Bill con-
sisted in appeals to the fears of country Gentlemen of the ex-
tortion of I.Tsurers. But if these arguments were well founded,
how did it happen that these moneylenders did not exact now
what they could by law Why did they not insist upon Fire
percent. ? The law allifweil of interest to this extent : it rvas
notorious that money could be obtained at three and four per
cent.; and yet Hon. Members were sinned that this Bill
wOuld.set the usurers loose•upon them. The answer to this was
obvious : it was founded upon coininon sense. The repeal of the
laws would encourage competition among
all capitalists, and the
borrower would reap the advantage of this competition. Ile
could not here refrain from noticing the abuse which had, on
the discussions of this measure been thrown out against monied
'
people, as if they were any worse than any other capitalists.
It was an abuse which did not deserve any great degree of at-
tention, though it was highly unbecoming. It was vulgar and
unmeaning, and was put forth only by those who were ignorant
of the subject. la conclusion lie repeated his conviction that
money, left to itself, would be regulated like every other COTII.
modity, and that the repeal of the present restraining laws would
he beneficial to commerce. For these reasonshe should support
the Bill.

Mr. LOCKHART opposed the Bill, contending that its sup-.
porters were hound to shew, by incontrovertible evidence, that
the repeal of the present laws would be beneficial, as well as
that they, had been originally founded on bad policy. Ile dis-
approved of the manner in which the argument of the Hon.
Member for Urampound had been treated. That Hon. Member
had properly referred to experience and history as safe guides ;
and this, his reference, had been ridiculed as if it were merely
pedantic. All history proved that where money became con-
centrated in the hands of a few, an evil use had been made of
:•Thisereport itself did not impute inconvenience to the
laws for the restraint of usury from the time of Henry the
Eighth up to almost the period of the lion. Member's making
his motion. The report said inconvenience had been felt of
late years. But if it were so, that was not to be a rule for le-
gislation; for it was to be remembered that this inconvenience
was the result of the direct necessity for a certain number of
years. During those years a greater number of loans were
made, and more money was borrowed than could ever be ex-
tracted from the bowels of the earth, or brought up from the
bottom of the ocean • and men were •prohibited purchasing
guineas, whilst the dovernment were the first to go into the
' market. Ile must allude also to the currency measure of 1018,
which, although it had done a great deal of good, had yet been
obliged first to trample upon the prostrate fortunes of a great
part of the landowners of the country. Under these circum-
stances, consideiing that this was a measure calculated to do
great injury to the landed interest, he must give it his most stre-
nuous opposition.
Mr. PHILLIPS supported the measure. All the evidence '
they had had upon the subject proved that the landed interest
would be the greatest gainers by the repeal of the Usury haws,
observed,tiflicu of
fty justice, heard i
notn
which, in fact, loaded with increased interest all loans what-
soever.
Mr. sarrwoora spoke in favour of the repeal, but in so
tone ohtisvwoiacse
atlqtautes Iticionw,alsie mwithi
ltoiwrilla tone of voice that he was with difficulty heard in the
uaflery.
policy, and all considerations of justice decided in favour of
thu repeal of the Usury Laws. Hon. Meinbers seemed to
think that the spirit of revolution was kept down in this coun-
try by the landed men in virtue of these laws. Now, what-
ever landed men gained by these laws, it was clear that the
monied men lost, and ay so much the laws were laws of injus-
tice. Upon no ground of justice could legislation interfere
between two individuals, one being the lmder, and the other
the borrower ;—between two parties, in short, for the benefit
or the one to the cost of the other, who was not better entitled
to the protection of the laws.
Another ground upon which
the Usury Laws were defended was, that Government were
enabled by them to obtain easier terms in the money market
than otherwise they could ; but he was at a loss to know
upon what principle it could be contended that Government
were entitled to assume that preference in the money market.
Was it just or fair, that in order to the Crown borrowing at a
low rate of interest,, the interest of every other man in the
kingdom should he reduced ? But, let the question be taken
on the ground of policy, and it would be folind that these laws
wei'e evaded ; and why were they evaded ? Because it was
necessary to the existence of commerce that they should be
evaded. The meaning of the Usury Laws was, that no man
should grant a loan of money at a greater rate of interest than
per cent. But the merchant would never risk his money in
any transaction uless he got more than 5 per cent. He had bet-
, ter withdraw his money from business than run any hazard fer
so small a stake. Such indeed was the nature of these laws, that
great mercantile transactions were daily carried on by houses
of business of the first character which were not known to be •
usurious ; nor could any lawyer tell whether they came within '
the penalties of the laws or not. It was obvious therefore
that the commerce of the country could' not be tarried on
without an open invasion and defiance of these laws. Every
species of legal trick and quibble was resorted to for the I
purpose of escaping their operation. The laws were so atro-
cious, that they could not be executed. When it was in-
tended to give a needy man protection against the wealthy,
that should be given him which it would be possible to put in
operation. Whereas, such was the nature of these laws
that the man who availed himself of them against his lender
would make himself infamous. No Jury would convict on
them, for they would rather violate the most sacred oath than
commit the greater crime of enforcing the laws placed at their
mercy, anti strip their neighbour of his property. The man-
ners of the people, therefore, arrested the vice of the laws,
which were tolerated only because they were contemned. They
were told that these laws were framed by the wisdom of their
accestors. Their ancestors framed laws according to the cir-
cuinstances which existed to require them. They were passed
by landed men who thought they were benefiting themselves
by them, and ensuring .a reduced rate of interest. No doubt
they would have taken all the money out of the pockets of the
.pews had they been able. He, •therefore, called upon the
House to imitate the wisdom of their ancestors in this respect,
by making laws conformable to the circumstances of the times.
Mr. JOHN SMITH spoke in favour of the repeal. lie said
it was a great misaake to
,suppose that the merchants of the.
City were the only friends of this measure. He had not spoken
to one person who was not favourable to it.
Mr. Alderman HEYGAT P; contended that the repeal of the
Usury Laws would be totally inconsistent with the present
state of society. So long as there were such things as entails,
mortgages, and marriage settlements, a restraint upon usury
was absolutely necessary. It was admitted that without the
Usury Laws the National Debt would have been twelve or
1,400,000,000/. Now he should like to know how the country
would like to pay taxes to a greater proportionate extent.—The
principal effect of the speech of the Honourable Member for
Gallington (Mr. Atwood) was derived from the picture he drew
of the penalties of these laws. But this ought to take no effect
upon the House, for if no One else would do so, he (Mr. Alder-
man Heygate) would introduce a Bill to moderate the rigour of
those penalties.' '

Mr. T. 11'11480'N thought the House ought not to make
this or any other alteration in the laws in behalf of the landed
interest, unless the landed interest called upon it to do so. He
confessed he heard nothing since he last expressed his opinion
to alter it. In time of war it would be absolutely necessary to
have the operation of these laws to keep down the rate of inte.
rest. He should certainly vote for tire amendment.
Mr. JOHN MARTIN slid that the very admission of the
Hon. Alderman (Mr. Alderman Heygate), that the penalties
of these laws ought to be modified, was an argument in favour
of their going into a Committee.

Sir. J. WikOTTESLEY observed upon the 'consequences
to those who were in the hands of money lenders, if this mea-
sure were not made retrospective. Their rate of interest would
be immediately raised, as that there would be no protection in
cases of improvident bargains.
Mr. Sergeant ONSI) NV said that the Bill was for the repeal
of the I aws generally. Ile did not think it necessary for him
to trouble the House with any observations, as every argument
used against the Bill had been alr.•ady satisfactorily refuted.
Mr. CA LCILI F'f denied that the arguments against the re-

peal of those laws which touched upon the landed. int.n.est, had
been successively answered. The observations of the Hon.
Member for Callington, were very ingenious, and if his repre-
sentation respecting their efiect upon commerce were true, he
would admit that the laws, so far as they affected commerce,
ought to be repealed. It had not been shown that the landed
interest would not suffer by the proposed repeal, and that it
would not have the effect of unfix:ng tie minds of all persons
engaged in money contracts. This had ot been refuted, notwi di-
stending the assertions of the Hon. and. Learned Gent. oppo-
site. It had been asserted that there were no Usury Laws in
France and Holland, but this he denied. In France it had
been tried to do without them, and the most mischievous effects
had resulted. If he thought these laws, as was contended, were
unjust, he should be the first to vote for their repeal; but he
really did view them as a wholesome restraint upon the passion
of avarice, which was proved by history, and experience to have
been requisite in every age and country.--The House then
d; vided—
For the Amendment 58
Against it - 74 .
Majority for going into the Committee —l6
Upon our return to the Gallery, we found the House in Com-
mittee ; and,
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW moving that the bank in the clause
(the only one we believe in the Bill) be filled up by the date
of January, 1825, which would bring the Bill into operation at
that period.
Mr. CA LCRAFT contended for a longer period prior to the
Bill coming into operation than January 1825. This would be
coming upon the country with a measure which should overset
all existing money contracts before they were at all aware of it.
Even the silk trade was more leniently treated, and if the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not propose a shorter time,
he should propose that it be on the very same day.
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW said it was not material to him
what day should be fixed for this Bill coming into opera; ion.—
It might be the Ist of January 1826, if the House wished.
Mr. ROBKRTSON assured the House that the Code Napo-
leon, which was in favour in France, restricted the interest of
money to five per cent.
Mr. LOCKH ART wished to know whether there was any
penalty imposed by this Bill on the pawnbroker, should he ex-
ceed the rate of interest which he was now entitled to take ?

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW said, that this Bill affected the
Acts relating to Usury only, and had nothing to do with the
Pawnbrokers' Act.

Mr. Alderman lIEVGATE renewed his opposition to
the Bill.

Mr. L. FOSTEB anticipated the greatest evils from this
measure, should war ever take place.
Mr. HUME assured the Hon. Member, that when the last
war broke out, the landed interest would have been able to
borrow money at 7 or 8 per cent., but for the laws which ob-
liged them to pay much higher.
Mr. DAVENPORT said, if the Bill passed, the landed in-
terest would be sacrificed. He expressed a hope, if it was to
pass, that Ministers would repeal the Duty on Mortgages,
which he had no doubt would be shuffled about the country
like cards.

Mr. PHILLIPS thought it would be justice to say the bor-
rower should not pay less than five per cent. on mortgage.
Sir J. WI(OTTESLEY wished the country might have
time to consider the Bill. It should not come into operation
for at least 12 months, in order that they might retrace their
steps in case it became necessary. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving to till up the blank with the 13th of January
1823, instead of 1025.
The House then divided.—Whilst strangers were excluded,
we understand the division took place on the question fur
leaving the Chair and reporting progress. The numbers were=-
Ayes - . - - .57
Noes - - -
We were then inAfoirarnjoerditythat Sir J. . WRO: fit
TTE-4SL EY with.
drew his Amendment, and the House divided on the original
question :
For the question - - GO
Against it - - - 59
Majority - - —1
The cruse, with the blank filled up by Mr. Sergeant Om-
SLOW, was accordingly agreed to.
Another division took place on the question for reporting
progress :.-:-

. _
Ayes - - - - 6.5
Noes - - - - 61
I'llsjority - —.4
The next division was on leaving the Chair
Ayes - - - 72
Noes - - - - 59
- - —l3
The Chairman consequently left left the Chair. •
The House having resumed, an appeal was made by Mr.
H. SUMNER to the Speaker, on some irrgularity stated to
have occurred on the Chairman of the Conirriutec leaving the
Chair.

The SPEAKER decided that the ChairrUan had been regu-
lar, and the question was rut, that leave be given to sit in the
Committee again on Tuesday next.
11Ir. LITTLETON then moved to insert, instead of Tues-
day next, this day six months.
The House accordingly divided.

For the Amendment - 67
Against it - - 63
Majority -

The Bill was accordingly lost for the Session.
The House went into a Committee on the Sugar Bounties
Bill. After some conversation the Resolutions were agreed to,
and the Report ordered to be received to-morrow.

RUM DUTIES. ,
In Committee on the Rum Act, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER proposed resolutions to take off the duty of
one shilling and one penny halfpenny on the gallon of rum in
England and Ireland. The duty of two shillings and two-
pence on rum above proof was also to cease and determine.
A fter'a com-ersation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hume, Mr. F. Lewis, Mr. W. Smith, and
Mr. Bright, the Resolutions. were agreed to.
Mr. GORDON wished the discussion on the Report to take
place to-morrow.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reminded the
House that the question respecting Churches was fixed fur to-
morrow.

The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received this day.

The Beer Duties was reported, the resolutions agreed to, and
a Bill ordered to be brought in.
The other Orders wet*/ disp:.sed of, and the House adjourned
at HALF-PAST ONE O'CLOCK.

LORD BYaoN.—Lord Bvitom, who for some
months had his head-quarters at Argostolo, in
Cephalonia, repaired at the end of December,
with a pretty numerous suite of adventurers of all
nations, to Zante, where he stopped but a few
'days, and on the Ist of January sailed for Misso-
longhi ; himself and a few persons in a small
row-boat, his other companions, his horses, equip-
age, money, and a considerable quantity of am-
munition, in a large vessel under English colours,
with simulated papers, for the little island of Sa-
lamo. Near Cape Papas, he was ;met by five
vessels of the Captain Bey, which had come out
of the Gulf of Lepanto. Lord Byron's little
vessel escaped by the exertion of the rowers
The transport was taken and carried into Patras.
The very next day an English brigantine saile;l
from Zante, and proceeded to Patras, to demand
the restitution of the ship, which was covered by
the English flag. To the astonishment of every
body, the Captain Bey, deceived, it is said, by a
Greek, who pretended to have saved the life o'
the Tuikish-Vice-Admirai, consented to rele; a
the vessel for a trifliug ransom. When the news
of this event reached the capita!, every body ex-
pected that it would go hard with the Captain
Bey. Instead of that, the Porte signified to the
Dragoman of the British Embassy, " that it fully
approved the conduct of the Captain Bey, though
it was well aware of the nature and des inram
of Lord Byron's expedition, and that it with
pleasure took this opportunity to convince Eng-
law! that it willingly postponed every other con-
sideration to the wish of maintaining its frieudly
relations with Foreign Courts."—(dustrian Ob-
server, March 26.)

During the present month, steam-packets will
begin to ply between Naples, Palermo, and Marseilles. That
intended for Marseilles will perform the voyage in five days;
the other will perform its voyage to Palermo in 24 hours.—
Prince Bute:a is at the-head of, this undertaking. •