Star.
London, England, 1822-07-23 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

C •

The SCEACER was summoned to the House of Peers. On his
return, be informed the House that the Royal Assent had been
given by Commission to the Loan Bill, the RI-Treatment of
Cattle 13111, and other Bills; for which see the Lords.

A Person from the Commissioners of Sewers presented Ac-
counts of the Sums received and expended by the said Corn-
micsion.—Ordered to lie on the table.
_ _

A Lill for regulating the Duties on Stamps in Ireland was
breugbt in, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time
to-morrow. .

Colonel DAVIES begged to creams on. the House for a few
moments, in consequence of a misrepresentation having been
put forth in some of the New.;,apers, of what he had said
on a former evening. He did not know that he should have
noticed the circumstance if comments had not been made on
what he was supposed to have stated. • Those comments would
have been just had he said what he was supposed to have said,
but this not being the case, in order to set himself right it be-
came necessary to say that the comments in question were founded
on a mistake. What he had said was this, that he had been
on board the Turkish frigate in the river, and had spoken with
the person who was second in command. He had stated that
the frigate mounted 58 guns, not that she had them mounted.
Ile bad never said that she had 250 British sailors on board, but
that' be was told she was•to sail with 250 English seamen, who
were wanted to make up her complement. He had said that
this was intended, and to this he adhered, for he had no doubt
that if Government had not interfered, an attempt would have
t to a gallant Att.
such 11sterference

Was ieeeseary? He called the attend's of the House to the
subject now, because If he allowed it to appear that be bad made
the assertion imputed to him, it must be thought that he had
stated what was not true.
On the mosion of the Loan Anvocara, the Amendments
made by the Lords to the Scotch Jury Bill were agreed to, and
the Bill sent back to their Lordships.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition front Ensebius
Mackille-
curry against the. Irish Coronereßill.—Ordered to Ue on the table.
The Report of the Committee on the Means of supporting
Irish Commercial Credit was brought up and agreed to, and a
Bill ordered.
The Report of the East India Company's Loan Bill was
brought up and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a
third time to-morrow.
The Brimstone Drawback Bill, the Smuggling Prevention
Bill, and the Greenland Fishery Bounty Bill, were severally
read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The Reports of the Silk Bounties, and Queen's Servants' Pen-
sions Bills were brought up and agreed to, and the Bills ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Malt Duties Collection Bill went through a Committee,
the Report of which was received, and the Bill ordered to be
read a third time to-morrow.
Mr. GOULBURN presented an Estimate of the sum which
might be necessary to enable his Majesty to take such measures
as the exigencies of the affairs in Ireland might require.—Or-
dered to be printed.

ORPHANS. FUND.
Mr. T. WILSON brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Orphans' Fund Bill. The Report
stated the Committee to have inquired into the alle-
gations on which the Bill was founded, and they con-
sidered them to be true.. They had gone through the
Bill, and made some amendments.
Mr. H. SUMNER could nbt consent to let the Bill
pass in its present state. He described the circum-
stances which had induced him to bring this subject
before the House two years ago. He regretted the
absence of an Honourable Baronet who held the si-
tuation of Receiver of the Coal Duties to the Orphans'
Fund. He had objected to the large balances left in
his hands ; and it had been ordered that he should
only hold the balances for two months. The Hon.
Baronet, however (though in two months the ba-
lances would only amount to about £8000), had everl
since retained balances to the amount of. £10,000.1
Ile (Mr. Holme Sumner) did not see, while the
duties of that office were correctly performed by the
deputy for £lOO, that it was necessary to keep up
the situation, continuing to him the advantages he
now enjoyed. He did not now make any motien,
understanding it to be the intention of one of the
Members of the City of London to submit to the
House a.proposition on the subject.
Mr. BROGDEN was surprised at the course taken
by the Hon. Gentleman, after the inquiry which had
taken place, and ‘shich, in his judgment, proved that
there was nothing to impeach the conduct of the Ho-
nourable Baronet who had been alluded to. If what
had been said on that subject did pot amount to ca-
lumny, it appeared to him (Mr. Brogden) to go very
far that way. The ffrrangement made with respect
to the Orphans' Fund, he considered the inquiry to
have proved, was the most economical and beneficial
that could .be adopted.

Mr. Alderman WOOD said, at the proper time he
had a clause to propose, which had been put into his
hands by his constituents, the object of which was to
provide th it the payments on account of the Orphans'
rund should be made weekly, instead of quarterly.
Mr. LUSHINGTON suggested the pi opriety of
postpon:ng the clause.
Mr. I3ROG DEN wished the clause po,,tponed, and
for this additional reason, that he had understood that
it was the intention of the Hon. Member for Surrey
not to offer any further opposition to the Bill.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, the Hon. Gentleman who
had just spoken made a very broad assertion with re-
spect to what had fallen from him on the conduct of
an Hon. Baronet. It surprised him to hear that he
was Lot expected to oppose the Bill, as, in the pre-
sence of that Hun. Gentleman, he had distinctly stated
that he would not give up his opposition.

Mr. BROGDEN remarked, it had been said that
he made a broad assertion ; his assertion was so broad
as this, that if the Honourable Gentleman stated him
to have known that it was his (Mr. H. Simmer's) in-
tention on this occasion to oppose the Bill, he stated
that which was iintrue. Pe put it to his Honourable
Friend near him (Sir J. Graham) whether it had not
been understood that the Honourable Gentleman

intended to decline offering any further opposition to
the measure?

Mr. H. SUMNER said, the Hon. Gentleman bad
applied the word " untrue" to what had fallen from
him, and he thought it necessary to call for an ex.
planation—(Hear, hear).

Mr. BROGDEN—...And I will give it. I say,
that if the Honour able Gentleman asses is that I knew
it to be his int mtion to oppose this Bill to-day, he
asserts that which is untrue."—(Hear, hear! Cries
of Order! Chair, Chair ! )
The SPEAKER could only excuse himself for not
previously interfering, by saying he was sure what
had been said was uttered under a mistake. It grew
out of a subject on which he was afraid that there
had been some warmth elsewhere. He was sure the
Hon. Gentleman would admit that he had used
language which it was not his intention to use.
Mr. BROGDEN had not wished to offend the
House in any way. He had stated that he did clot
expect the Hon. Gentleman would oppose the Bill
to-day. He did not expect that he would do so, and
therefore when he saw him get up, and open the
whole subject, he had expressed surprise. Upon this
the Hon. Gentleman had said, that he made a broad
assertion, and in answer to this, he had only said,
that if the Honourable Gentleman declared him to
have known of its being his intention so to oppose
the Bill, he had stated what was incorrect—what
was inconsistent with fact.

The SPEAKER was now quite satisfied that what
had been said, was uttered under a total misunder-
standing of what had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Surrey. He had attended to the Hon. Member,
and was sure he understood him. When he talked
of a broad assertion having been made, he alluded to
the remark of the Hon. Gentleman, that if.what had
been said with respect to an Hon. Baronet, did not
amount to calumny, it came very close to it.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, the Speaker had correctly
understood him. It was to that remark that his ob-
servation applied.
Sir J. GRAHAM spoke to the correctness of the
statement of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Brog-
den), that on Friday he had not expected the Hon.
Member for Surrey intended to offer further opposi-
tion to the Bill.

Mr. T. WILSON said, if the conduct of the Hon.

Baronet (Sir W. Curtis) was bad. that of the Cor-
poration of London was equally bad in suffering him
to hold them. But he had a palliative to offer.—
When the office was given to the Hon. Baronet, the
balances were small, they had increased by degrees,
and the-interest on them, though of importance to
an individual, had not been considered an object to
the Corporation. A former Receiver had to pay
four or five thousand pounds out of his own pockets
for sums which would otherwise have been lost to the
Corporation. It was therefore necessary, as what
had happened once might occur a;ain, to obtain
good security. The Honourable Member for Surrey
always took advantage of mention being made of the
Orphans Fund or the City Lands, to bring forward
charges against the Corporation of the City of Lon-
don, as if those funds were only appropriated to fa-
vouring jobs, as the Public derived no benefit from
them. He would ask if the Public derived no benefit
from the buying off the toll on London Badge, the
building of Blackfriar's Bridge, and the purchase of
the toll on that bridge ?
Mr. H. SUMNER remembered that a hope had
been expressed on a former day, that nothing would
be said on the bringing up of the Report. He had
then said, that if nobody else took it up, he did not
know that he should offer any observations on the
subject. -He was convinced that what had been said
was said under a misconception. But he had not
pledged himself to support, or not to oppose the Bill,
and if he bad done so at that time, enough had since
occurred to justify him in altering his determination.
Mr. BENNET said, that he thought the office of
Receiver unnecessary.
Mr. HUME was of the same opinion.
Mr. Alderman WOOD moved, that the word
• quarterly" should be struck out of the Bill prepara-
tot y to the introduction of the clause which he had
announced it-to be his intention to move hereafter.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,
For the Amendment
Against it
_

Dlajutity in favour of the Clause as originally worded —23
When strangers were re-admitted the SPEAKER
was putting the question that the Bill should be en-
grossed. On this Mr. H. SUIVER moved as an
Amendment, that the Bill should be engrossed on
that day six months.
The House again divided, when the numbers were,
For the Amendment - - - 12
Against it - - - - 30
nijority in favour of the Bill - —lB
The Bill was ordered to be read a third time.
MR. WOOLER.

Sir F. BURDE•TT presented a Petition from Mr.
Wooler, at present suffering imprisonment in War-
wick Jail, on a most important subject—the practice
of packing Julies.—The Petition set forth that great
abuses prevailed, similar (though they had not yet
risen to so great a height) to those complained of be-
fore the Revolution, and which had cost Charles his
life and James his crown. The Petition prayed the
House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the
manner in ss hich Juries were nominated by the Master
of the Crown Office, and to afford him an opportunity
of laying before such Committee the evidence he had
it in his power w produce.
Mr. C. W. WY NN did not rise to oppose the Peti-
tion. It was perfectly competent for the Hon. Baronet
to bring before the House a complaint against any
public officer. He would only beg to ask, if the
Master of the Crown Office had been informed that
such Petition was about to be presented?
Sir F. BURDETT said, not that he knew of.

Mr. C. W. WYNN would not say that it was con-
trary to the duty of the Hon. Baronet to bring for-
ward such a charge under such circumstances, but
he might be excused if he said that it was rdther
hard on the individual not to have been informed of
it, as in that case he might possibly have answered
the charge at the time of its being made.
-Sir F. BURDETT had thought it his duty to pre-
sent the Petition, and did not see that it was likely to
do injury to any one.

Tli-e Petitionwas then ordered to lie on the table.

On the motion that it should be printed,
Mr. C. WYNN appealed to the Hon. Baronet if it
would be fair to send forth such a charge printed,
without any opportunity having been afforded of
giving an answer to it? If the Hon. Baronet intended
to make a motion on the subject, he thought it would
be better to defer printing the Petition till he was
about to bring forward his motion.
Sir F. BUItDETT said it was his intention to
bring the subject under the consideration of the
House. He, however, consented for the present to
withdraw his motion for printing the Petition.
IRISH CORONERS' BILL.

The Report of this Bill was brought up.
Mr. SPRING RICE moved that the clause re-
specting the qualification of Coroners be omitted.
Mr. R. MARTIN thought it desirable that the Co-
roner should possess the qualification required by this
Bill. It was said this was an es post facto law. He
did not know that it would be wrong to pass an ex
post facto law to effect an improvement in the admi-
nistration of justice. He, however, contended, that
in point of fact this was not an es post fade,' law, as
several Acts required that such officers, both in Eng-
land and Ireland should be capable of such amerce-
mints as might be inflicted en them for their mis-1
conduct in office. To omit this clause would be to
defeat the object of the Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN thought that the mere fact of
a Coroner not being worth 2001. a-year in property
ought not to be a disqualification. He hoped the
clause would be withdrawn without a division.
Mr. DAWSON said it was desirable that the Bill
should pass with unanimity, and he hoped his Hon.
Friend would not press the clause.
The clause was then withdrawn.

After a few words from Mr. R. MARTIN, the Re-
port was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read
a third time on Wednesday.

SCOTCH PRIM&

Mr. ABERCROMBY rose to withdraw the mo-
tion of which he had given notice, for copies of the
correspondence between the Lord Advocate and Mr.
Hope, relative to the case of Borthwick. He said
that his conviction was, that nothing short of a Com-
mittee could be satisfactory. Though he postponed
the subject for the prestnt, he was perfectly resolved,
and he pledged himself to prosecute the matter in the
next Session with all the zeal and ardour he possessed.,
The LORD ADVOCATE noticed the motion for
all correspondence, which, though of an extraordi•
nary and unprecedented nature, -he did not mean to

oppose, is atiler tSit di I whole Twain's might be
brought under the consideration of the House.

Mr. ABERCROMBY added, that he was satisfied
that it had been the intention of the Learned Lord
to support the motion ; and he repeated that he woul4
lose no time in the neat Session in bringing fat ward
the motion for a Committit to investigate thoroughly
the question.
COMMITTEE OP 11/UPPLY.

Mr. GOULBURN moved the Order of the Dig
for going into a Committee of Supply.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee,
a Resolution was proposed for granting a sum eif
OM for defraying the expense of building Churches
and purchasing Glebes in Ireland.
Mr. HUME opposed the vote. He thought that
the Public had no light to pay this money when the
Church of Ireland was overflowing with riches. and
the object was to increase its numbers. There had
been an order made for returns, moved by the Itivht
Hon. Member for Waterford, as to the enotmons re-.
venues of thaeChurch, and until they saw what thost
revenues were he would not consent to a vote like the
present. The property of the Church of Ireland had
been computed as equal to the whole revenue of ce
Clergy, independent of tithes; and at a time of su-.11
public misery as the present, he could not conveive
how the Public could be asked to pay the expense of
building new Churches. He hoped that in the nett
Session an inquiry would be gone into, in order to
bring a portion of that property to meet the erne?,
gencics of the State. With these views he would not
grant a shilling from the public money for sue, a
pupose ; and he therefore moved the reduction of the
whole sum proposed.
Mr. GOULUURN said, that he nayshould not n.
enter into the subject which the Hon. Mernber
thought proper to open. Whenever he should
forward his motion, he should be prepared to meet
whatever arguments might be !nought in suppoit of
the proposition that the Church devoured the pioper:
of the country. The present vote was not to be pa. ,1
to the Clergy, but for building Churches ; and wl.:1
the Hon. Member conceived that the Church was (.;:7
for the benefit of the profes,ors of religion, he x‘ell
not find many to support him in hi. extraordip
opinions. The Church was intended for the be,
of the People, and for that reason it was suppoi:,i.
With regard to the distress in Ireland, the vote
been reduced two-thirds on that account. Last ;i:.7
it was thirty thousand pounds, now it was un,:er t:i
thousand pounds.
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY opposed the Resolui-.r.
Mr. S. RICE, without entering into the T.:esti:a
of the Church property, was of a different opiaion
from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. con•
damned the policy of building Churches in renr't
parts of the country, where the mass of the popula:ici
was Catholic. Nothing could so mw-eriallv
the progress of the Reformed Religion a- to huil.
Protestant Churches in the midst of Catholics, ar,i
then tell them they must pay for their support.
Mr. C. WYNN could not agree with the
able Gentleman, unless he could persuade himself rhi:
because in a particular place there were only a :ow
Protestants, they must be without a place of wor,: '
Mr. H. GURNEY supported the Amend e.
Mr. G. BENNET agreed with the Right 11
able Gentleman, that wherever there were riti:. -,ii;;E
• they ought to have the means of public worship ; b.:
the question was, where the funds for providing
should be obtained ; whether a sum of A:10.000 st
' be advanced out of the public money, or v het!.r7::
' should be supplied from one of the richest Cluirc'!;s
in the world, and one which did less duty and pa:
less to the support of the poor than any other? F.:
should oppose the vote, until the Returns move:,
by the Right Hon. Member for Waterford acre be-
fore the House.

Mr. HUME read a letter from an Under Sec:c!.:7
for Ireland, written some time ago, complai
the conduct of the Commissioners of First Fruit,, .1::1
asked if any man of common sense would trust .iny
more money in their hands?

Mr. GOULBUUN did not know, and was eic.i:e
indifferent upon knowing, the means by
Hon. Member had obtained this letter. He knee
whether the Hon. Member had the answer to t:l4t
letter in his pocket, or whether he was aware of :::!
measures which he (Mr. Goulburn) had taker. ty:a
that subject. If he was acquainted with tho&e cir-
cumstances, it would have been but fair to have ,:.1.! .
them. It would then have appeared that the cor.:-
plaint of the letter was fully answered and expl.c.x....
Mr. MONCK differed from the opinion of th,:11,,-
nourable Member for Aberdeen, as to appropii.i:
the property of the Church to the expenses of
other branch of the State. But at the sense rime !It
thought it applicable to the building of Church
and Glebe•houses.—The Committee divided :

For the Resolution -
For the Amendment -
Majority

f.ti
17
_9

Upon the re-admission of strangers to the Gallery.
Mr. S. RICE was found speaking upon a Resolution that 1%1
been proposed before strangers were admitted.

Sir G. HILL said, that the tranquillity and prosperizy
North of Ireland depended upon the encouragement
the Linen Trade, and no funds could be ill empl
applied to so important an object.
Mr. HUME contended, that if these establisin
supportel by the public money, they would
upon so extravagant a scale. Ile did not belies
of the support given to them was that which had
He thought the infant manufactories alette ought
by bounties, but those which were estaMished
Ireland should be left to themselves. He sboi

sense of the Committee upon this vote.
Sir G. HILL said, the whole of these matters
the consideration of the Linen Board.
The Grant, which was for £19,000, was then
On the motion for £276 10s. sd. as an addit
to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Navigal
Mr. HUME objected to It, as there were
£6OOO a year each.
Mr. GO ULBURN said that was not correct.
Mr. HUME said, the Public had no right to
nagement of this ruinous establishment upon itself.
as well take on themselves the management of Wa
The Grant was then agreed to, as were 516,000
of Works in Ireland.

Mr. HUME contended that the work done
rection of this Board was charged SO per cent.
other public Board.
£17,500 for Stationery in Ireland.
£7OOO for publishing Proclamations there.
Mr. BENNET said, t►is was an unblushing
of the Irish Government that it kept so many
pay. It was only the obscure Journals tbit

tuitions to, and kept in pay. These were net gii
of the widest circulation; anti were often put

te
e
' 4

~i

I
1

a

beentuade7•lfri4e appealed
alkali if he had not eaprened an opkgan that
-
• !:

-
:3
• 3
I
I

.4
a
flaii

"
:

prosperity
iralge.medwthtir.ht7.:::
p
lishments Were 01_,
not be snainran'r`i
i„ that the etr.'•
ad
bbeendescris4
near to be "14-
,d in the North
Sould not take t—
sv
ers had been urs'-‘: •
1. •
hen
agreed to.
ri
n
ec
it
e
ts
e"l:gtht ivli.ettaelev°l;irrotyw:wma.ui n°fttsnag°l:etaaPldirarr:lioelevrio ate;tirtlhtl'o Bh.r::.
n
a
e ptn
riven to the Papas t
.'h
in raperwhh