Star.
London, England, 1822-07-13 00:00:00

I

hived that the number to be provided far would not
be found considerable.
Mr. S.-WORTLEY professed his determination to
bring forward the question in some way or other.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that of those who had
held higher places, there were ottlposit persons whom
he shotild feel himself justified in recommending as
entitled to some provision. When.lia considered that
there were among these_ladies of rank, who had for-
feited everything for hei Mtrjestyi_eten charmer it-
self—who had adhered to her with Uirshaken fidelity
through good report and evil report, he thought it
would be extremely hard if they did not receive a
compensation worthy of such devoted attachment.
Mr. W. WYNN said, there was no instance upon
the Journals of the House originating a proposition
for granting pensions to the Royal Household, as
such a measure had always come from the Crown.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
LOTTERIES.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
brought ,up the report of the Lotteries Bill.
Mr. BENNET and Mr. Monca, spoke briefly
against the measure.
Mr. HOME wished to know why a Government
Office was"not established for the sale of Tickets ?
As the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) was a Member of the Society for
the distribution of the Scriptures, and also of the
Society for the Suppression of Vice, he thought that
'the distribution of Lottery Tickets might be placed
under his special care, with great advantage to the
Public!—(A laugh).
The Report was received, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a third time on Monday next.

MR. ARERCROMIY.
Mr. W. COURTENAY, understanding that 6.!
Hon. Member. for Caine (Mr. Abercrornby) would
most probably attend in his place that evening, wished
to call the attention of the House to the proceedings
that had taken place in his case. The obvious views
taken by the House of the papers referred to on
Tuesday last, shewed them to be an infringement on
its privileges, and also sheaved that the House was
theguardian of those privileges, and not any particu-
lar individual. But it was impossible to.conceive that
the Hon. Member for Caine might not feel himself
personally injured by the transaction in question, and
it was therefore the duty of the House to see that such
transactions did not lead to consequences which it
might prevent. He found, on referring to the Jour-
nals, precedents to shew that when a personal feeling
was excited in the breast of a Member in consequence
f any circumstance, the .House took care that that
should not be made a personal matter which be-
longed exclu,ively to them. He found that the llotre
enjoined the Member by name net to engage in a
personal quarrel, and not to accept or send any chal-
lenge in consequence of anything growing out of the
particular transaction. Ile proposed, that in the
present instance, this course should be adopted ; and
should first move that• the Resolutions passed by the
I louse on Tuesday last be read, after which he should
submit a Resolution which he had drawn up for the
ptirpose in question. On the motion of the Honour-
able Member, the following statement from the pro-
ceedings of Tuesday last, was then read by the se-
nior Clerk :

18. " Complaint made to the Home au printed letter, signed
John Hope and addressed to the lion. James Aberernmby, a
Member of this House, taking notice of a speech made by the
said :\ leniber in his place in this Mouse; and also a letter, signed
W. Menzies, and addressed to the editor of the Courice News-
paper, and published therein on Ilronday, July 8, containing a
correspondence between the said W. Menzies and the said Ho-
nourable James Abercromhy, in relation to the same speech, in
breach of the privileges of this Houses The said printed letter,
in the said Newspaper, were delivered in at the table, and cer-
tain passages in the said printed letter were read.
" Resolved, n: m. con. That the said pt inted letter is in breach
of the privileges of this (louse.
" Ordered, That John Hope, Esq. do attend this House to-
morrow se'nnight, the 17th day of this instant July.
" Ordered, That the lion. James Abercromby do attend this
House in his plac.,. forthwith.
" Then the letter addressed to the editor of the Courier News;
paper was read. .
" Resolved, twns. cm. That the said letter is a breach of the
privileges of this house.
" Ordered, That William Menzies, Esq. do attend this House
to-morrow s'nnight. the 17th slay of this instant July."
Tise lion Member nest quoted the precedents from
the Sessions of 1765, ninth vol. of Journals, and from
the Session of 1769, to show that in such cases as the
present, the House prevented Members from either
sending or acceptinge challenge. He concluded by
moving the following Resolution :
" Resolved, That as the said papers have been voted by this
House to be a breach of privilege, the House enjoins Mr. Aber-
cromby not to prosecute any quarrel, in consequence of any
transaction that may arise out of such breach of privilege, by
seeding or accepting a challenge."
This Resolution was carried nem. con. and
The SPEAKER then observed. that if Mr. Aber-
cromby was in town, he would probably feel it his
duty to attend. It would, therefore, be for the House
to consider whether any other Resolution should be
proposed till the present one was communicated to
the Hon. Member.
Mr. C. FORBES observed, that it would be ex-
tremely convenient if Hon. Members would not say
anything in the House that they would- not say out
of it—(Hear).—He thought, also, that Gentlemen
who felt themselves aggrieved ought to take some
other means of redress than the public press.
It was then moved that the Speaker do communi-
cate to Mr. Abet cromby, in his place, the Resolution
which the House had just passed.
Mr. BROUGHAM deprecated the observations
made by the Hon. Member under the gallery (Mr.
Forbes), as calculated to frustrate the object which
the House had in view. He hoped the Hon. Member
did not intend to set up his judgment against the
unanimous feeling of the House on the present occa-
sion, but if he had any such intention he could not
have taken a more effectual method thin that he had
adopted. The Hon. Member had flung out invidious
remarks which were altogether uncalled for. He
would ask if any man placed in the situation of his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Abercromby), who had come for-
ward as a public accuser, could have acted otherwise
than he had done ? His Hon. Friend had not thrown
out random charges, which he could not support—
no ; quite the reverse; for, having come-forward as a
public accuser, he placed certain individuals on their
defence, and gave them an opportunity of vindicating
themselves, it they could. He (Mr. Brougham) was
sure that, as nothing could exceed the distinguished
ability, so also nothing could exceed the temperate
and gentlemanly tone of his Hon. Friend on the

- 4.- - -77

Lord BINNTNG then rote to address the Hou_",
but was caned to order by Mr. H. Smarr.
Mr. FORBES, in explamstioo, said that the ahast*.
vations hi had madesveregesseral, not specific.
Mr. BROUGHAM was rejoiced that the Boa..
Member had given so satitfactfry an explanation to
the House.
Lord BINNING did not rise to prolong the dip
cussion, but he did not hold himself disposed to
sanction all that had fallen from the Hon. and Learned
Wither (Mr. Brougham), respecting a transudes?
which involved the conduct of individuals who were
shortlt to appear at their bar, and whose case ought
not to be prejudiced.
The SPEAKER then addressed Mr Abercromby,
whop s
of Tuesday, and the Resolution which
stood up in his place, and read over to himth e
roceeding
the House had now passed ; after which the Hon.
Member bowed and resumed his seat.
beeLon.trhdeApeLrtoTHn OwhlloPsethadenvicreoseandanaidssia,tiadn,
ctehwatahs Navin
by his lion. and Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby)
relative to this transaction, he felt the responsibility
he had incurred, and perhaps the House would per.
mit him"to explain why his Hon. and Learned Friend
had not earlier attended in his place, in obedience to
the order which had been made for that purpo.e—
-(Hear).—llis Hon. and Learned Friend had left tows
before that order was applied for, and had followed
him (Lord Althorp) into Northamptonshire, and
thereby incurred some delay. As soon as they met
they pursued their course to the North as fast as they
could, and, upon arriving at Ferrybridge, information
reached them of what had taken place in that House
on Tuesday last. Feeling that, under such circum.
stances, it would be quite impossible for them to ac-
complish any object which they had in view, and also
as the order directed by that House to be served on
Mr. Menzies rendered it still more impossible to ac-
complish that object, he advised his Ilon. and Learned
Friend lo obey the order of that House as promptly
as possible, even though it had not been formally
served upon him—( Loud.cries ff " Hear !" front
both sides of the House).—lle advised him, without
delay, to return and take his place in pursuance of
the resolution of the House. -He was anxious to state
this for. the purpose of strewing that no unnecessary
delay had taken place, either in his Hon. and Learned
Friend's returning to his seat, on being apprised of
what had occurred, or leaving town in the first in-
stance in pursuit of his original intention. This ex-
planation he owed to his Hon. Friend, and he should
not trespass further upon the attention of the House
—( Hear, hear).—Here the subject dropped.
EAST INDIA TRADE.
Mr. FORBES presented a Petition from certain in-
dividuals interested in remittances from India, pray-
ing that no further restrictions might be imposed on
the trade with that country, and no additional duty
laid on East India Sugar. .
Mr. BERNAL wished that an opportunity for in-
quiry might be afforded to all parties who were inte-
rested in the discussion on the subject.
Mr. MONEY observed that English monopoly,
sanctioning as it did a system of heavy duties, affected
materially all East India produce.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the Petition. The impor.
cation of sugar was of little importance to the East
Indies. The manufacture of cotton was already de-
stroyed by the impoi tation of cotton from the East
Indies, and he hopzd the House were not about to
sanction the destruction of the commerce of the West
Indies by favouring the East Indians—(Hear).—No
country in the world enjoyed a greater commercial
monopoly than the East Indies. Justice would be
best done to the white and black inhabitants of the
West Indies, by protecting them from so unequal a
competition—(Hear).
Mr. H UME said he protested against the statements
of the lion. Member, and should have another oppor-
tunity of shewing their fallacy.
The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Mr. lIUME said he held in his hand a Petition,
which was given to him to present to that House six
weeks ago, but he had delayed it partly to inquire into
the allegations it contained. He was not personally
acquainted with the parties whose Petition he under-
took to present. The petitioners complained of the
conduct of the jailer of the Jail of Shepton
where their son had been confined for having laid
snares for hares. In order that the Right Hon.. S-
ecretary for the Home Department might obtain the
proper information on the subject, he would detail
some of the allegations of the petitioners, who were
a person of the name of West and his wife. They
stated that their son, Isaac West, was confined in the
prison of Shepton Mallet, for the offence ke had ,
stated—that he was subjected to the usual discipline
—that, besides that, his hair was shaved off, and his
head washed in cold water, in consequence of which
he got cold—that he was afterwards denied all me-
dical assistance, although he had often petitioned for
it—that he received some money from the jailer to
hush the matter—and that he died soon after in con-
sequence of the treatment he had received. The pa-
rents alleged also, that a Coroner, who .resided in the
neighbourhood, and who was related to the jailer,
being requested to hold an inquest on the body, ab-
solutely refused, which refusal they ascribed to the
influence of the jailer. Those were some only of the
allegations of the Petition he begged leave to bring up.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he hail made some in-
quiries into the statements contained in the Petition.
It was usual to wash and clean all the prisoners on
their being received into prison. The prisoner was,
according to custom, washed in cold water. Tire
affidavit of the surgeon who visited the prison, satis-
fied him that the death of the prisoner did not arise
from that treatment, but from drinking. With re-
spect to the three shillirigi he had received from the
jiatani
%Aide,
ari
After
drri
.tuaßeuf- money
in,,
the
et
kitchen.becse
erntitironr. uH.kyureea,
dMart.idDoatwdesroeda,'
to lie on the table.
PETITIONS ON THZ SIARRIAOII ACT.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a Peti-
w
tion hod) Arthur Chichester, E • •
zaet ln otito,prgdrt iihsys prisoner
froth
ra sf hr u
assistingsh
Esq. against the Mar-
riage Act, which • had before passed. the . House of
Commons, but which had.received some amendments
in the House of Lords; and was again
the sanction ofsthiHotise. The . petitioner stated that
the Marquis of Donegii had not any legitimate issue,
and in the event of his death .without such •
issue, by
the existing laws, arid by the tl set ements of his grand-

'Wier. he (Kr. chiciwita)wes the Lingo the titles end
property of the Marquis. The Petition tecited the cit--
eutnstances and the settlements by which the property
was to descend. The petitioner added, that he should
be aggrieved by the Act t it was ant: postfado law in
its operation on him, and would deprive him of his
vested rights: he, in conclusion; prayed that he might.
be heard by Counsel at the Bar of the House against
the Bill. The Hon. Mid Learned Gentleman added,
that the Bill was in violation of the'law.. s of the land,
because it went to strip the petitioner of 4 vested
estate itt remainder: Although it was not an estate
in possession, yet it was spelt as might be conveyed
by will, Or brany other deed for tvaluable consiaer.
ation. He referred the House to a case of a similar
nature, in which a person named Wright sought to
recover penalties, by instituting three or four hundred
actions against Clergymen, who had performed the:
marriage ceremony contrary to the Act of Geo. 11,-
The house had brought in a Bill to legalize those
marriages, and to exempt the Clergymen from t1:0-
penalties. Wright having instituted theactions, anc
being entitled to the penalties, petitioned the 110.1,,e•
to be heard by Counsel against. the Bill ; and 1:i;
prayer was granted, although the House ultimately
decided against him. He apprehended the kiouT
was is the present case bound to grant the prayer of
hthe petitioner. Although the Bill was not directed
against him, yet he was affected by its operation.
Mr. SCARLETT said the object of the l'etkion
seemed to be only for delay, whereby the Bill would
be lost for the present Session.
Dr. LUSHINGTON supported the Petition, and
said the petitioner should be at liberty to state his
case to the House, and to chew how he would be af-
fected by the Bill.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH opposed the Pe.
tion. The retrospective clause, of which the Petition
complained, was moved by himself; and the Bill was,
after the amendments by the Lords, less retrospec-
tive than it was when that House passed it unali-
mously.. There was ample time during the seve:al
discussions to have petitioned against it. There w.:s
a Petition, indeed, to the Lords; but the prayer of
that was not to be heard by Counsel. On the whole,
it appeared that the object of the Petition was to
create delay, whereby the Bill would be defeated !cr
the present Session. He thought it was most
taint that the Bill should pass in the present Sessicz,
or be thrown out entirely.
Mr. B. BATHURST agreed with the Hon. Mem-
bers on the other side, that it was too late now to be
heard by Petition against the Bill in its present stice.
He believed also that the Petition was ditecttd
against some of the amendments which had been sent
down to them from the House of Lords; and in that
case, he believed the Chair would inform them that
such a course could not be taken as that prayed fur
by the petitioner. He rather thought, too, that it
was too late for a Petition to be received now.
The SPEAKER. said that Petitions might be re-
ceived in that stage; but he said that Counsel could
not be heard against the general subject of the Bill
now: and as to their being heard against the amend-
ments of the Lords, he knew of no instance whv:e
they were admitted to be heard.
Mr. WETHERELL thought it hard that an op-
portunity was not open for Counsel to be iieard
against this Bill, which was substantially a new Ili!),
retaining but a small portion of the original draft.
The Petition was laid on the table.
Mr. BEIINAL presented a Petition from William
Pritchard, Proctor in Doctors Commons, on bella:i
of Samuel Blythe, against the Marriage Act.—Laid
on the table.
Dr. PHILLIMORE presented a Petition from a
Proctor of Doctors' Commons, on behalf of Sara::
Blythe, the wife of the former petitioner; in favour of
the Bill. She stated that Mr. Blythe had obtained a .
license for their marriage, upon swearing that he tea
twenty-one years of age; that she was at the time ci 1
their marriage pregnant by him, and was now prez-
nant by him.--Laid on the table.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that the last petitioner
Was a servant woman in the family of Mr. Blythe:
,that she was twenty-eight yeats of age at the time
when Mr. Blythe, a youth of eighteen years, el:-
tained a license, by making false oattiihat he wits of
age, by via tue of which they were married at Dove:.
As soon as the father Beard of the marriage, he
stituted proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court.
• After a few words from Dr.'_Puttramoas, the 1),:-
tition was laid on the table.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Dr. PHILLIMORE moved the Order of the Day
for considering the Lords amendnients to the Mir
riage Act Amendment Bill, which being agreed to,
the Learned Gentleman proceeded to discuss the
amendments, stating that he considered them entitled
to the support of the House. The Learned Gentle-
man went on to contend, that upon grounds of jus-
tice to individuals, and safety to property, some
teration should be made in the law as it at prese::t
stood. It was now five years age since be first 1,70•
posed this Bill, and he then endeavoured to mike
the House sensible of the extent of evil to which he
calculated it would be a remedy. Every circumstance
which happened since did but confirm what he thet
stated ; he therefore besought the House to adds
these amendments. The evils of the present lAa
were great, and were not denied. Here was now c.-
fered to the House a remedy pregnant with great be'
nefit, and attended with no mischief, and Which inig't
therefore be safely adopted.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he hoped that as the stei
which the House were now called upon to td4
would have the effect of ,repealing all the laws r,e,
rating to marriage which had passed since 175+. -`
should be indulged in expressing shortly what I;i4
opinions were upon such a measure. He was
more anxious for the indulgence too, as this svas:.'
only occasion on which he could oppose a Bill aff,.c!
ing a great share of the property, and comproini,i
the respectability of many families in the countr,
for, by the rules of the House no new clause wi'l'l
be added to a Bill coming from the other Howe.
His first objection to the measure was, that it w•ls
essentially different from, and contained but yor
little of the Bill which passed this House. There were.
not twenty lines of the original Bill remaining. whibt
full ten pages of new matter had been introduced.--
He could not look upon the Bill as it stood, other;
wise than as a heap of inconsistencies. He challenged
any one to say they understood every part of it ea'
dray ; and in # measure of this important nature, h 1
contended that not-only every clause; but ever/ 643.