The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-22 00:00:00

Mr. FOLEY 'presented a petition from Barnard Castle
I against the Insolvent Debtors' Act.—Laid on the table.
Mr. HOBIIOUSE presented a petition from the inhabitants
of the City of Westminster, praying that some alterations may
be made in the present Insolvent Laws. The petitioners su
gested that the decision of three fourths of the creditors should
be binding on the debtor. The Hon. Member contended at
sonic length on the necessity that existed ofrevising this branch
of the laws.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition from Durham, pray-
' ing for the Abolition of Slavery.
The LORD MAYOR presented a petition from the City of
London, against the repeal of the Spitalfields Act.
Mr. CALVERT supported the petition, observing that the
petitioners must know their own interests.
Mr. RICA RaDO thought this petition only supported the
proposers of the obnoxious measure.
After a few words from Mr. W. SMITH, the petition was
read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. S. WORTLE I presented a petition from Whitby,
Yorkshire, for the total abolition of Slavery.—Laid on the
table.
Sir T. ACIAND presented a petition from the Farmers and
Occupiers of Land in Devonshire, complaining of Agricultural
Distress.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. HART DAVIS presented a petition from Bristol,
praying for the remission of duty on coals carried coastways.
Captain WEMYSS presented a petition from Fifeshire,
praying for a duty on the importation of foreign tallow.—Also
from the operative Weavers of Fifeshire, in favour of the Bill,
for altering the laws relative to the linen trade of Scotland.—
Laid on the table.
Mr. HUM presented a petition from persons concerned
In the manufacture of oxyinunatic acid for the linen weavers
of Arbroath, in Scotland, praying for a repeal of the duty on
sulphur, which affected their trade.—Ordered to be printed.
SILK TRADE.
Mr. F. BUXTON presented a petition from the Silk Wea-
vers of LOndon and Westminster, expressive of alarm and
dismay at the proposed measure affecting their trade, and pray.
ing it may not pass into slaw ; and to be permitted to be heard
by Counsel at the Bar.
Mr. HUME ex' tressed his conviction that the Bill in ques-
tion was calculated to benefit the whole country and the peti.
tioners in particular.
Mr. BUXTON contended the petitioners were at least en-
titled to their prayer to be heard by Counsel.
Mr. ELLICE supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. HALDIIIIAND gave his opinion decitleilly in favour of
the measure for the repeal of the Spitalfields Bill.
Mr. RICARDO pointed out the error of the notion that this
Bill contributed to the welfare of the petitioners. It was clear
that their trade would entirely leave them for other places, if
the Act in question were allowed to continue.
Mr. S. lI7ORTLEY hoped the House would allow a COM-
mittee to be appointed on this subject, which he thought would
be the best means of convincing the parties that the proposed
measure was for their benefit.
Mr. PHILLIPS deprecated unnecessary delay, even of a
single day.
Mr. HUSKISSON assured Hon. Gentlemen that if they
thought delay would tend to allay the feelings which had been
excited against this measure, they were mistaken. It was not
a new question, and had been often discussed. The sooner
the final judgment of Parliament were pronounced on the
subject, the better for the petitioners. To appoint a Com-
mittee would be considere 1 as a virtual abandonment of the
measure. At this very moment the masters an 1 weavers were
disputing amongst each other. The Magistrates could not
settle so complicated a point, and it belonged to that House
to step in.
Mr. CALCRAFT thought the parties in question entitled to
indulgence in the request they had made. All that he asked
was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would allow such an in-
terim in his Bill as would allow of their being heard in their
own behalf.
Mr. S. RICE saida few words in favour of the petition.
Mr. F. BUXTON, In moving that the petition be printed,
begged to say, that an Hon. Fnend had just pointed out to him
an Order of the House, which required that a Bill like this
affecting trade should be sent to a Committee up stairs.
The Hon. Gentleman handed over the Order Book.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the order to which the Hon.
Member referred was, " That no Bill regulating the conduct
of any Trade, altering the laws relative to it, affixing any
works, or requiring any pattern, can be passed without being
referred to a Special Committee." He remembered the intro-
duction of this order, and in his view its meaning was, that it
should apply only to Bills intending to establish regulations
which never existed before, and it was intended us a check upon
measures interfering with trade, or any attempt on the part of
Parliament to tell the trader how he should carry on his busi-
ness. Whatever were the words of the Order, that he felt con-
vinced was the original intention of it.
Mr. S. 'WORTLEY thought this was a case falling within
the meaning of the Order, which applied to any measure offer.
ing either to do away or to introduce regulations into trade,
and the intention of the Order he took to be, that the parties
in such cases should have an opportunity of being heard.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the Order sprang out of an objection made by the Lords to
pass a Bill laying restrictions on trade in which sufficient no-
tice had not been given to the parties. He considered it to
apply to a Bill for laying on restrictions, but not for taking
them off.
After a few words from Lord MILTON,
Air. ELLICE said, he perfectly well recollected the origin
of the standing order in question. It arose out of a Bill respect-
ing the trade at Leicester, which Bill was afterwards rejected
in another place. The consideration of the present question
might, very conveniently, be postponed, until the Right Hon.
Gentleman had considered whether he would grant the inquiry
solicited by the petitioners.
After a few words from Mr. D. BROWNE, the petition was.
ordered to be printed.
Mr. F. BUXTON presented another petition from the
Traders of Spitalfields and its neighbourhood, not connected
with the Silk Trade, against the Bill referred to by the. last pe.
tition. He wished to impress on the mind of the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite that there was no likelihoocl of the Session
being lost by his acceding to the request for delay.
After a few worth from Mr. PHILIPS respecting the stand-
ing order,
Mr. ELLICE said he trusted the second reading of the Bill
would, at all events, not be pressed to-night.
Mr. WALLACE said the obvious meaning of the standing
order was merely to prevent precipitancy in any measure at.
fecting trade. He believed the standing order now referred to
was brought forward merely for the purpose of defeating the
Bill. And if the standing order were to be interpreted as
the petitioners wished, the Bill would certainly be lost this
Session.

Mr. MAXWELL thought the Magistrates ought to have a
power of regulating a minimum of wages.
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that it' there was a doubt as to the
mcaning of the words of this standing order,. it ought,
maintained
• '.".., ,
4.- •
:a ..