Star.
London, England, 1823-06-04 00:00:00

• • •

.+

.

_
-4041RaltilEAtiR Y P !lOC:EEL) 1.% (1 S.,

• -
HOVSI3 OF LORDS, JUNI'. 3.
This day their ,Leedthips met within a quarter of fire
ThesEarl of A RDWICKE.moved the 'third re.icliorof the
El Ten Drainage
Lord CA LTHORPE presented a Petition from several
Parishes in the County of Cambridge, prayin,:4 tliat the above--
mentioned Bill might not pass into a law. He was not prep 'red,
he observed, to come exactly to the same con:lo,imi with the
Petitioners, but the Bill deserved the mast serious consideration
ottheir•Lordships before they came to a final conclusion with
regard to it: If it became a law, lands not drained were likely
to heretempted from their full quota of contriburi. In to the Poor.
rates. This appearerL to him to he an innovation on the-syeem
of the law, of Puor-rates. He therefore thought it would be bet-
ter to recommit the &11. •
The Earl of lIARDIVICHE, in-reply, was 3atis!ied that
thoegh undrained, it would not be exempted from contributions •
in the manner bow apprehended by the Noble Lord. When in
the Committee, two Counsel were lieut.: 3r.:11".t Vie Bid, and
only one for it ; which inferred that it had not passed through
without seine opposition.
ARerain eisplanation , from Lord Gat.ssioars the question for
the necommitment was put and negatived, after which the Bill
was read a third time, passed, and returned to the Commons.
. Some conversation tech place between •the Earls of Gnaws-
non and" Ltvanroat ow the subject ot.sinecures.wben the tatter,
In -reference to the Eke of Uerk of Parliament in Scotland,
was willing that a Committee of Inquiry should be empowered
to inveiaighteit.
'The Earl of SHAFTESBURY reported the Turnpike Trus-
tees Meeting Bill as amended, when the amendments were
agr.'ed to. •
Earl POWIS presented a Petition front Ludlowaraying for
the repeal of the Insolvent Debtors' Act.
Sir Jahn Gaanam, Mr. STRING Rica, and others, brought
up a message from the other House, requesting their Lordships
to communicate the Returns made in cases of Appeal ; and the
Members were informed that their Lordships would send an ads
swer by messengers of their own.
The same Deputation brought up the Shannon Bridge Bill, the
Tay Ferries Bill, and the St. Botolph (Aldgate) sad Sr. George's
in the East Lighting BEI; which were afterwards read. first time.

wow..
The Earl of II ARE WOOD said he had some PeCtions to pre-
seat, which he conceived to be of some importance at the pre-
sent time. The Petitioners were merchants and manufacturers
of wool in the towns of Leeds and Huddersfield, in the County
of York, who prayed for the repeal of the Duties now payable on
else importation of Foreign Wool into this country its it. raw .
state. At a period when a Bill had passed through Parliament
which offered such advantages to the foreign trader in wool, it
certainly did not appear too much upon the part of the people
of England to claim an exemption from the payment of duties on
the raw materiaL Foreigners, in consequence of this advantage,
were, enabled to expose goods, manufactured here, in foreign
markets, at less cost than ourselves, and therefore with what de-
triment to ourselves their Lordships might e oily judge. Foreign
cloth was preferred in even our own market. IVe were pre-
vented from working up our native wool with the lower descrip-
thns of foreign wool; and though we had found out new markets
for our goods in different and distant parts of the world, we no
longer could occupy the markets we formerly did. He under-
stood that there remained no Objecton on the part of Govern-
ment to remit the tax upon the importation of wool. if our roa-
nufaccurers would consent to a free trade; but he hoped th..t
their Lordships would not be hasty in adopting the proposal.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said,he certainly had no manner
of objection to laying these Petition on the tab': of the *use.—
It was also quite true, that a Noble Friend of his, sodse yeat s
ago, had proposed the duty now stipulated on the importation of
foteign wool, wl:lth was then estimated at only .6•200,000 ; but
that duty now produced no less than £400,000a-year, and was
easy to collect. So touch, there fore, for the argument as it re-
greeted the Revenue, which should induce their Lordships to
pause before they parted with the tax. • The next question to be
considered was, svhether the dirty on foreign wool imported hail
hurt in any &pecan,. woollen manufactures; and here, again,
if their Lerdships:svoule only look at the papers now upon the
table of the Unease, they would discover that.our manufactures
bad increased. With respect to the loss of some markets, this
alteration wastiot unlike, as to cattiest the depreciation of agricul-
tore; and must.he imputed to circumstances nut affecting in the
result our national prosperity, but rather to changes in the posi-
tion of countries as connected with the vicissitudes of commerce.
If, therefore, the tax were ascertained to be productive to the
Revenue, and if, upon the miler hand, its operation was not in-
jurious' to manufacturers, why should Parliament on a sudden
give up causelessly this particular tat? Though, In conic-
' queuee of these cirCumstance:, he should regret the giving
up of a tax which produced the suns or .C 400,000 a year, and
where the substitution of another must- occasion great inconve-
nience to the Public, yet he would not object to the prayer of
the Petitions now before the House, if,
.he return, our own ma-'
nufacturers would consent to arm the free export of British
wool; but if that alteruitivo mufti,* Womb' it was propar to
possess a countervailing duty on the importation of foreivs leo&
As to the question whether the trade in wool should 'altogether
be thrown open, or be suffered to remain in its present state, he
was not disposed to meddle with it.
THE MARRIAGE LAW. ..
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY here moved •
the Order of the Day, upon which their Lordships
had been summoned, for this Hou:e going into a
Committee on the Marriage Lew Amendment Bill.
• The Earl of WEBTIVIORELAND said, upon the
question' tieing put from the Woolsack; that his object
in risin so early was really to save their Lordships'
time.* The principal clause likely to create the most
opposition, was:that respecting the voidance of mar-
riages once seemnized; and therefore he wished to
move, 'that it should be an instruction to the Corn-
' mine* to omit the voidability clause listened in the
Bill: He did not object to that clause npon.tlie:
ground of his undue exertion of parental *rigtiti' ink'
because he believed ii would prove nugatory., itle
objected to many of the provisionVas altering the
L• w of the land i and he could not help rereiting the
answer that wastiven by the English Barons, on an
occasion not much unlike 'the present; they ex-
'claimed, with united voices—A'olumuc Legre Anglia:
Mktari, inlonner times, and their Lordships ought
to hold exactly the same language in the present day.
1
On what ground was it attempted to defend the Bill?
When Lord Hardwicke brought in his memorable
Bill, there were guar grievances -to be complained
of. They were about -to alter the Act passed last
Session, which, while providing for 'the improper
granting of licenses, had enactetli that marriages
when once solemnized should stand used by law.—
It Was urged, that fresh guarinteep were wanted for
the doe celebration of the marriage rites; but if only
the 102 d and 103.1 Canons of the Church were at-
teaded to, respecting licenses and matrimonial so.;
lemnizations, there could be no difficulty at an; aid,
until thii wits done, it was escheat° make such a law
as that proposed to be Iliadic'. He objected to the Bill
upon strict mot* grounds, upon*religious irotittdi,
and upon legal grounds; and he objecteel.to it, shistly,
as nugatory to any beneficial end. Surely sem* Nobio
Lords: must recently have, olimogod their irpliiletais.—
He recollected that 'oaks hotisocolioasioa•be had tot
- J
r. • .
. . . . . . .
.. •
.-.. . . •