The Sun.
London, England, 1802-03-16 00:00:00

PARISH APPRENTICES.

Mr. W. BOOTLE rose, in pursuance of his No-
tice, to call the attention of the House to the subject
of Parish Apprentices. He said, the present mode in
which these Children were put out Apprentices,
was highly objectionable : from its not being known
where they were, it was often impossible for their
friends to see them ; and from its not being known
where they were, these poor Children were deprived
of property which they might otherwise acquire.
lie should therefore propose, that the Overseers of
the different Parishes should be compelled to keep
Registers of the Names of the Persons to whom
Parish Children were apprenticed, the natures of the
Places where they were sent, Stc. under certain
penalties. He had been urged to embrace, in this
Bill, some other parts of the Poor Laws, which re.
quired alteration, but he had thought it better to
confine it to this point. He then concluded with
moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the purposes
above-mentioned.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
PRIVILEGE.

Sir W. ELFO.kI) rose to call the attention of the
House to a subjea of great importance, anti one in
which it was materially concerned. The subjea to
which he alluded, was a misrepresentation of what
fell from a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to him
(the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER), in the
course of -the Debate on Friday last. The misrepre.
sentation of which he complained, appeared in one
of the Morning Papers : it stated, that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had expressed a decided intention
of proposing to repeal the Income Tax. He was
present at the Debate to which he alluded, and
he did not hear the Right Hon. Gentleman express
any such intention. He' had merely exprwsed a
wish, that an Hon. Gentleman who had made a
Motion upon the subjea, would withdraw it, as it
was his intention to propose to submit some Papers
to the House respeling it. Sir WILLIAM then read
the mis-statement of which he complained. •He was
then proceeding to state another misrepresentation
of much greater importance, when he was called to
order by
Mr. BANKS, . who said, that the House must
see the extreme disorder, impropriety, and incon-
venience that must tesult from discussing subjeas of
this kind, in this way. There was not, at present,
any Question before the House, nor had the Hon.,
Baronet intimated any intention of concluding the
observations he was-making, with any MOtion. In-
deed, the Hon. Baronet could not make any Motion
grounded upon what he had now stated, unless it was
a Motion founded upon a Breach of Privilege. If the
Hon. Baronet would say, that he had an intention
of making such a Motion, he certainly would not
interrupt him ; but if the Hon. Baronet did not ex-
press that to be his intention, it would certainly be
disorderly, and contrary to the best proceedings and
praaice of that House, for him to proceed. He
trusted that. the SPEAKER would give the sanaion
of his authority to what he (Mr. BANKS) had ad-
vanced respediniihepoint of Order..

The SPEAKER salci, he thought it is duty to
explain to the House why he had thought it right
to permit the Hon. Baronet to proceed. He thought
he was bound to give credit to an Honourable
Member who was making a complaint, so far as to
suppose that he would conclude with making a
motion. It certainly was in the Hon. Member's
power to bring A-hat he had said, in order, by con_
eluding with a Motion; and therefore he thought it
was his duty to presume that he would do so.

Sir EL FO D said, that it was not his inten-
tion to submit any 'Motion to the House..
TIeCHANCELLOR ofthe EXCHEOUER said,
he really could not avoid taking some notice of this
last misrepresentation, which had produced
pressions directly the reverse of those he meant to
convey. Certainly a more gross misrepresentation
of what fell from him on Friday could not be made.

M. DICKINSON moved the Order of the
Day for the third reading of the Clergy Non-
Residence Bill. The Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Mr. CORRY moved, Odle Order which had
been made for bringing in t'Bill pursuant to the Re.
solutions of the COmmittee,.,to whom certain ac-
counts respeCting the Irish Revenue had been referred,
should he read. The Order having been read,
Mr. CORK Y said, he should move to discharge that
Order, for the purpose of proposing another, with
this alteration, viz, that instead of '' a Bill," that
" a Bill or Bills," should be-ordered. to be brought
in, pursuant to the said Resolutions.
The original Order was then discharged, and the
new one, proposed by Mr. Coarty, was agreed to.
Mr. CORRY moved, that the accounts present-
ed by Mr. CRoFToN, respecting the Revenue
Ireland, should be printed.—Ordered.
General GASCOY NE said, he was aware I:iat
objedions had been made to the -prad;ce of asking
questions of Ministers resveding their intentions
about bringing forward public business, hut he
wished to ask a question respelling the Bill for
bonding Sugars, which would soon expire. He
wished to know whether it was the intention of
Ministers to propose to continue it ; and- it would
also be important to know whether it was true, as
had been, reported, that Ministers meant to extend
the bonding system to other articles of West India
produce ?.
The CHANCELLOR of tlie EXCHEQUER said,
that with regard to the 'first part of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's question, it certainly was the intention of
the Government to propose to continue that till,
and they also had it in contemplation to propose to
extend the Bonding System.