Star.
London, England, 1824-04-15 00:00:00

lIOCSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKEL took the Chair at four o'clock.•
Colonel DA VIES presented a Petition front the (It), of Wer•
cesttr, complaining of the Town Dues levied by the Corpbration of
9ri-tol on all vestels navigating the River Severn.—Orilered to
be printed.
.1 Bill was brought in, and read a first time, to enable the bus.
tralian t oat Company of Edinburgh to sue and be sued in the name
of tl:eir Seri-eta, y.
Leave was given to bring in a Bill for incorporating an Equitable
loan Company in Ireland.—The Bill was accordingly brought in
and read a first time.
A Bill was broug in, and read a first time, to enable the Irish
Patrlnic Insurance Company to sue and be sued in the name of
their Secretary.
A Bill was brought in, and read a first time, to extend the power
of the Southwark-bridge Compirry.
A Bin for constructing Docks and Warehouses on the South
bank of the Thames, to be called the South London Docks; was
brought in and read a first time.
Sir W. CON G It EVE brought in the Equitablt Loan Company's
Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time.
Sir G. 11ILL brought in a Bill to prie.-ide for the present repair
and future support of the Cathedral of Derry, which was read a
first time, and ordered to be read a.secOnd time.
Lord STANLEY presented Petitions front the Master "Jana-
facturers of Blackburn and of Bolton-le•Muors, in the Coenty c•f
Lancaster, against the Repeal of the Combination Laws.
Mr. 11U ME said, he wished the Petitioners, instead of content-
ing themselves with petitioning, had gone before the Committee,
which had bean sitting now above a month, and had there stated in
evidence their reasons for opposing the repeal of the laws in ques-
tion, in order that the Douse might fairly see the reason of the case
on both sides.
Mr. sTA N LEI begged the Honourable Member to consider
the situation of the master manufacturers irr Lancashire, and to re-
collect the violent spirit which had been displayed by the combina-
tions of journeymen there on various occasions, and he would then
see that it was very natural that those Gentlemen should not like to
come forward and expose themselves to the hostility which would
be excited against them, by being held up as the- opponents-of what
the journeymen were so anxious to obtain.
111 r. \I AN SFIELD said he was sorry to hear that the disagree-
ments between the masters and journeymen in Lancashire were
of so violent a nature as had been described. Rot he could not
hdp viewing that circumstance as a strong argument in favour of
the repeal of the Combination Laws ; for it appeared to him that
that violent spirit, and even the spirit of combination itself, in
a great measure arose out of, at least it was certainly fostered by
those very laws; and of this tact he was certain, that in the part of
the country with which he was more parricularly connected, the
masters tully concurred with the journeymen in opinion as to the
effect of those laws, and in wishing for their repeal.
Mr. PHILLIPS detried that the Combination Laws had the
effect ascribed to them by the last speaker, and contended for the
necessit y of their b. ing continued.
Lord STANLEY supported the Petition, which, after a few
words ft .nn Mr. J. C. PELHAM, was referred to the Committee on
An tiaras.
Mr. if I:ME prtsented a Petition front the Journeymen Boot
and Sli..emakeri of Inverness, praying for the repeal of the Com-
bination Laws.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a Petition from the Cotton Ma-
nufacturers of the Town of Belfast, pi ay.tig that the laws Fre-
velating the exportation of machinery nusy not be repealed.—Re-
ferred to the Committee.
Mr. M A BERLY postponed his Motion for the repeal of the As-
sessed '!'axes, to the 5:1 of May.
Mr. MABEIt L Y presented a Petit.on front the lobabitaots of
West Cheap, in the City of Londou, praying fur the repeal of the
Iluuse and NVitidow
.Mr. DUN DAS presented a similar Petition front the incorpo-
rated Trades at Edinburgh.
Mr. BY NG presented a Petition front the Overseers of the Poor
and
of thetnheiin Househabltitas tid Windaw. .ix
of tke libertyaef. Sattron.hill.ptaying tor the
repeal
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a similar Petition from the
County of Somerset.—Ordered to be printed.
'flag SO I.ICITOIL-G.ENEit AL. •presented a PeFitiers from the
Solicitors tat the Palace Court, against the County Mutts Bill. •
Mr. }:§rcoußT presented a ['intim fi4u
sour of the County Courts bill.—Ordered to 1* printed.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition Iron the Town of Galway,
fur the total discontinuance of the Salt Duties.
1 •
pray i•
ng
' W,EN itre.lelltUtl a Petition fttnn the Town of V

•
in the

.•
at Curm

*Pratvgfortbs vital repeal of

lake, .ftntsq
the Salt Dutiesltgred tov.lsbiti as the table.
Mr. LAIRSTOK ptwented a Petition from the Tanners of Dar-
lint" against the Hides and Skins Doty.—Laid on the table.
Mr. CORTE'S presented a Petition from the ‘VI.oI Growers
Iludleigh, in the County of Sussex, against the Reduction of the
Dudes on Foreign Woul....Lsid on the table.
Lord LOWTHER presented Petitions from the County[
Cinftbodand, praying for the Abolition of Slavery. •
.Sr T. ACLA ND presented Petition:. from Kingsbrklp sod
• -11111kaford, In Doren, and Keswick, in the County of Cumberland,
tbp Abolition tti Slavery.—Ordered-to be printed.
HIDES AND SKINS.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said he rose, in consequence of
a notice which lte.had given, to move for leave to bring
in a Sig to reveal .certain Acts (the 39th and 40th of
• :GM* III.) relating to Hides and Skins. 1-1 is re tsons
foil having them repealed were simply these. Upon the
be* consideration which he had given the measure, he
satisfied that the Acts at present in existence, which
• '`extended to no less than ftrty-five pages, wet° qaite
tjinecessary, exttemely vesailus, and utterly unjust.
--1-letkaibted not that he should be able to make otti
that the Acts deserved all these epithets, and that they
aught to be removed from the Statute Book. With
• itspect to their being unnecessary, he should offer a few.
words. It was very unreasonable to suprove that a man
Weald injure his own property. The law had been in-
trodueed at •the expense of the butchers. P...thaps the
Hoosevisere not aware that a butcher in firyigg the skin
was liable to a fine of from 2s. 6dt. to ss. for any hole
he cut in the skin; and the law had 'lnokfunjustly given
a considerable part of the money to the inspector. The
effect of the law had been, instead of obtainin:.v, the ob-
ject for which it was introduced, namely, a better desei ip-
tiers of leather, that skins were now actually sold by
u,eishr, whether they were good or bad. The inspection
had this effect—it took from the butchers that which
was thei: own property. The vexation with which this
was attended was next to be spoken of. In the country,
butchers weir obliged to carry all their hities to an ap-
pointed place for inspection, under a penalty of .54 and
in many cases they were compelled to carry them six,
seven, or eight miles. They were obliged to attend the
iaspection, and were frequently subjected to a penalty
such ap he 'Lid named. Thus it would be seen that a
considerable expense was incurred in addition to the
inconveniency and tine, which was often imposed. He
would next offer a few remarks on the i::idstice of these
laws. The tanning interest at Liverpool got a law
passed, by which they were to have the appointment of
inspectors, and the butchers had no influence whatever
in that appointment. There was also an absurdity in
the law itself, for the London butcher who cut the skin
was only fined Id. whilst the butcher at Caciterbury,
who cut the skin in i tying, was fined 6d. An Act was
passed in the 15th George 111. by which the butchers
in London were entitled to have a voice in the appoint-
ment of the inspector; but in the country there was no
such privilege enjoyed. Feeling that the laws were
unnecessary and oppressive, he trusted there would be
no objection to his bringing in a Bill to repeal them.
Mr. JAMES, in seconding the motion, said, the laws
were so absurd on the subject that he could not suppose
there would be any opposition to the introduction of a
Bill to repeal them.

Mr. MABERLY was averse to the measure of the
Houourable Gentleman, because it was pai tial, and not
general in its operation. It took away many inconve-
niences, which at present distressed the country dealers,
but left thelondon dealers entirely without relief. Ile
admi.t.e.l that the exiting laws wanted considerable al-
%elation but before that alteration was made, he con-
ceived ;hat an inquiry ought to take place before a
Committee.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he concurred in all the ge-
neral principles which his Honourable Friend (Mr.
Lushingtiin) had laid down as to the impolicy of inter-
fering with the internal concerns of any trade or manu-
facture. He believed, however, that the Acts which his
Honourable Friend wished to repeal were not intro-
duced to the House as public, but as private Acts, and
therefore could not be dealt with as if they had been of
the former description. He suggested, in order to pre-
vent a protracted discussion on a subject which was not
easily intelligible to the House, that the best course
v ould be to refer the Acts to a Committee up stairs,
when the Bill arrived at a proper stage for that purpose.
Knowing that the rumour of the intended repeal of
those laws had created a considerable sensation through-
out the country, he was apprehensive, if tire course he
pointed out were not adopted, that a large portion of
valuable time would be lost in discussing the question
on the presentation of various Petitions, which, he had
no doubt, would be forwarded to the House. _ _

Mr. LUSEIINGTON said, his object was to avoid, as
much as pos,ible, giving the House any trouble that
could be prevented. He believed that the Bill to which
I. Right Honourable Friend alluded was brought in as
a public, not as a private measure. It was, however,
referred to a Select Committee; but no evidence was
taken before that Committee. His opinion was, that
the case was so perfectly clear, that • did not require
the production of evidence. lle could see no reason
why evidence should be adduceu as to the prOpriety of
repealing the Act, when none was brought forward to
skew the propriety of the measure Allen t was enacted.
General GASCOYNE opposed the motion. Gentle-
men complained that it was very hard to call on the
butcher to pay a penalty, if he injured a hide in re-
moving it from the carcass. Now he conceived no-
thin;; could be more just than that the person who twin
mined the error should be the sufferer. He denied that
the Honourable Gentleman had adduced any sufficient
season fo:. the repeal of those laws. When the 39th and
40th of George 111, were brought in, an inquiry was in-
stituted up stairs; and it was but fair, before the pro-
posed repeal was carried into- effect, that a similar in-
quiry should be instituted. Some few places, of little
note, had called for a repeal of those Acts; la); he had
not seen a single petition from any considerable town
in 'favour of the measure. Oa the coatrary, he kr.cw
that Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Wormter,
and Bristol, were decidedly against the repeal.
Sir R. FERGUSON was surprised to hear the gal-
lant General deny that the Honourable Member had
adduced no argument in favour of the repeal. Was it,
he asked, nothing to relieve a man froM the payment of
a penalty, because he happened to cot his own pr:perty
in an improper manner ? Would not the gallant Gene-
ral think it very hard, if, having cut a hole in his pan.
taloons, he was liable to be fined fur it ?—(Laughter).
As the Act at present stood, the tanner was pointed out
as the only person who did nut know his nun interest.
The risltt of judging was vested in other hands.
)1. r J MARTIN said the quevtion was, whether in
the fit 3t instance the subject should be referred to a
Select Committee, to consider of the propriety of bt inn-
ing in this Bill, or whether the measure should be m-
troduced at °not, and, at the regular stage, referred to

I a Committee? The former was the preferable mode.'
One point ought not tope last sight or—narnely,thlt they
had no remonstrance from the butchers on this subject.
Mr. BRIGHPiaId, the idea of abolishing one half of
those laws, and leaving the other half on the statute
bOok. teas really nonsensical. There ought to be only
one law on the subject throughout the country. He
thought the subject ought to he considered in a Select
Committee before the Bill was brought in. He was not
at all interested in the question. He wanted nothing
'but justice; and therefoie he was in favour of a full con-
sideration cf the subject.
Mr. LLTSHINGTON said he wished, in repealing this
Bill, to take the same course which was pursued when
it was enacted. If he found that the Select Committee
to which the subject was referred did not send for per-
sons, papers, and records, he thought it was too mach
to proceed with an examination of that kind now. If
evidence were gone into, and Counsel were heard, the
investigation would not terminate this year.
• Mr. CURWEN was in favour of the repeal. The
Act particularly alluded to was, in his opinion, an abo-
minable one. It operated against the interests of par •
titular individuals, without benefiting any person. He
recommended, however, that when the Bill arrived At
the proper stage, it should be referred to a Committee.
Mr. CURTEIS condemned the existing sy,tem, as
extremely vexatious. The Acts appeared to him to be
most preposterous. It was a very great hardship on an
individual to be compelled, as was often the case, to
send skint ten tp 20 miles to he inspected, which skins
were, perhaps/ obliged to be sent as many miles In an
opposite direction to be manufactured. The machine' y
of these laws,oas also objectionable. Even a pig c.
not he skin4,l-witliout the intervention or an inspector
—(A Ile was sorry.to descend to such minute
matte's; bat* they legislated on such trifles. sit was
necessary .to 'speak of themr-(Hear). •
Lord CLIFTON was of opinion that the Hon. Mem-
ber was fully justified in moviug for the repeal of those
laws.—The House then divided. when there ap; eared
For the motion, 52 I Against it,C Majority, 46.
New CHURCHES.

When strangers were re-admkted to Or gallery, Mr. HUME was
moving for the particulars of the expenditure of ijno,oops. under
the Acts for building New Churches.
_ .

Mr. LEICESTEI seconded the mot'

Nr. HUME also moved for a return of the number of Churches
and Chapels which belonged to the Erablishment in England and
Wales up to 1824, and the number of License► which had been
granted in each diocese for places of worship ap tat the same period.
—Both motions were agreed to.