Star.
London, England, 1822-05-31 00:00:00

w

PP

~ ~ ;,~

alllgmfaNfokiew•""rrarrars, -
▪ We*nisi be pv4 Mae that he should take the sense sl
Se lease upon it.
Mr. L 1 it.
said, that be hoped the Han. President
a the Committee of Foreign Trade would not bring on se ins-
. =rot a Bill OR a night when, from dratmstaaces not Pa-
ntry to mention, there Was sore not to be a full attend-
nom of those who were swims to speak their nentiments
the subject.
Mr. DAVENPORT Mewled the wishes of the Hon. 0,11
damn wholsad spoken last.
Mr. WALLACE said, he knew nothing to prevent his bring-
ing on the consideration of this Bill tornight. He put it off be-
fere the baydays, upon an express understanding that it should
on bother be postponed.—The Petition was then read, and or-
: Awed to be printed.
Mr. I'. WILSON presented a similar Petition from the Silk
Throweters of the Oty of London. He eetirely concurred in
The Hon. Gentle-
the sentiments expressed against the Bill.
man (Mr. Wallace) seemed resolved, notwithstanding the repro.
sentations whirls had been made to him of its interference with
a Charitable Institution, fixed for that night, to bring on the
third reading of the Navigation BilL He Moult certainly, them-
'lore, attend to give his dissent from it.
Mr. WALLACE agreed, in consequence of the bar
ing of the House, that it would be inconvenient foe VREMM.
ben to atterd there, to postpone the third mak; Ordis
• odors BilL—The third reading of the Bill was Orimlirmenemed
till tti.anorrilw.
Sir F. ENATCH BULL presented a Petition• free the
Churchwardens of Greenwich against present!
Poor Removal Bill.
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from the County of Lints-
rick, praying for some remedy against the importation of Dutch
Butter. The Hon. Member stated, that the low duty at which
this article was mpoited, operated most prejudicially to his
countrymen engaged in the manufacture of Butter.--Ordered
to be printed.
Sir It. WILSON stated the ease of some Grocers, of the
name of Hickson and Co. Welbeck-sueet, who had atey been
served with a notice from the Excise 'that they hacurred
the penalty of 2400,000, from the sale of Cocoa Paste, which
has lately been discovered to be illegal. He expressed a hope
that the Bill about to be brought in by the Hon. Secretary op-
posite. would be made retrospective, in order to protect those
who, unknowingly, had been engaged in an illicit trade in this
and similar articles.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said, that his Bill would provide
against the evil set forth by the Hon. Member.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from Biddulph, in
Staffordshire, against the clause in the Navigation Bill for per-
mitting the importation of thrown Silk.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. FLE al IN G presented a Petition from the Ministers and
Churchwardens of Southampton, against the Poor Removal Bill.
Ordered to be printed.
A I't tition was presented from the Occupiers of Land in the
eastern part of Sussex, complaining of Agricultural Distress.—
Ordered to be printed. . •
Mr. CON. E presented a Petition from Din, and from one of
the Hundreds in the County of Norfolk, on the subject of Agri-
cultural Distress.—Ordered to be printed.
WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a Petition
from the Merchants and Manufacturers of Woollen
Cloths of Leeds and its neighbourhood, against the
tax on imported foreign wool. He took that oppor-
tunity to observe, that al! the predictions of Honour-
able Members relative to the operation of that tax
la.! failed. It was neither serviceable to the agricul-
turists, nor to the manufacturers of the commodity it-
self. With regard to the latter, it was found impos-
sible for the British manufacturer to compete with
the foteign ma ken, so long as the tax continued.—
The greater proportion of cloth made in this country
was mixed with foreign fine wool. It followed there-
fore that a tax upon that article must operate very
grievously upon the British manufacturer. The Pe-
titioners were also much alar med least they should
be affected by the Warehousing Bill, permitting fo-
reign cloths to be warehoused. They complained
that the effect of this tax was to prejudice all the na-
tural and acquired advautages of their districts, by
reducing their trade to the limits of Great Britain and
her colonies. That it was not beneficial, as had been
held out to the British wool-grower was plain, from
its having been the means of contracting the trade
with the Continent; in consequence of which the
consumption of British wool was by so much dimi-
nished. lie bad been informed, upon good autho-
rity, that the Americans had forsaken our market,
and gone to Silesia for cloth. He was convinced that
a worse measure never was resorted to than putting
that tax upon wool. It had disheartened and greatly
prejudiced the manufacturers of that article. He was
sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
hi his place, that he might have heard what he had
to say in explanation of this tax, which had produced
a falling trade, not answering the purpose for. which
he had imposed it. He hoped for a repeal of the tax.
Mr. BURRELL had expected that the Hon. Mem-
ber for York had been going to advocate the pin-
ci,les of free trade in supporting a Petition for the
removal of restriction. If he would do that he would
be ready to agree with him. But he could not eons
sent to the repeal of the tax upon foreign wool, which
r. ould be prejudicial to the agriculturists. 'The tax,
according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was
se produce £270,000 a year, but for the year 1821
it yielded £367,000. Su much for a falling trade.
Mr. COKE was of opinion that the trade of wool
had been declining year after year, and that in con-
sequence of this tax.
Mr. CURWEN concurred in the opinion of the
lion. Member for Yorkshire, that this tax was ex-
tremely oppressive on the British grower.
Mr. J. BENETT thought that the manufacturers
and persons interested in this trade, came before the
House with a.very ill grace to ask a repeal of this tax
at a time when the agriculturists were so much dis-
tressed. He was convinced that if the tax upon fo-
reign wool were to be repealed, the manufacturer
would not be much benefited ; at all events, he
thought they ought to wait till they were in a state
similar to that of the Apiculturists, before they asked
for such a boon. A drawback of sixpence, or even
threepence per pound, would be the best protection
for their trade.
Mr. T. WILSON said, that the produce of the tax
was upon fine wool only ; and therefore the produce
of the tax Was no proof either that the trade had not
suffered from the imposition of it, or that the agricul-
turist was benefited. He was of opinion that the
British manufacturer worked at the rate of 2d. a
pound higher than the manufacturer abroad. He
entirely concurred in all that had fallen from his
Hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire, on this sub-
ject. He thought that agriculture was not protected,
to the extent stated by this tax, and he thought it a'
very proper one to be repealed.
Mr. ROBERTSON compared the situation of the
foreign msnutUcturer with the British, and maintained
that the latter worked at a great disadvantage. In
France they had the same machinery, and labour was
lower. He hoped Government would remove it.
M. S. WORTLEY, in moving that the Petition
be read, observed that his constituents would be quite
satisfied with a drawback ; but Oat he was sure they

_ ';~:`

• . . • • .
could never prielil ape 4 tablOPllll4to
the idea of it, me it *lot th_erdinv
Bat he contended, with **Pet" the *VI..
cukurist'would w lose by the of tax. If
he could not mob this out, he adinittet fie should
be wrong in presenting the Petiticos. •
After a few words from Sir C. Buitasu., Mr.
Plans, and Mr. Bram in explanation, the pat;
tiou was read, and ordered to be printed..
SCOTCH MHZ&
Mr. ABERCROMBY presented a Petition from
the Bankers, Merchants, and others, of the City of
Edinburgh, in favour of the Bill for altering the
mode of selecting Juries for Criminal Cases in Scot-
land. These Petitioners stated that they had given
great consideration to this subject, and it was their
opinion that the law would be much improved by
the proposed alteration in this Bill. It was consi-
dered by them more satisfactory shat fifteen Jurors
should be chosen by ballot, and named or selected
by the presiding Judge, than according to the pre-
sent mode. It would- add to the confidence reposed
in Jurors, and had always.been done in civil eases,
and found beneficial It was to be remarked that
these Petitioners were of the class of persons among
whom the larger portion of Jurors for civil and cri-
minal cases were chosen. These Petitioners compre-
hended the principal Bankers, the principal Mer-
chants, and most opulent Shopkeepers in Edinburgh,
many of whom were as enlightened, as firm of pur-
pose, and as loyal as any class of subjects in the
empire. He particularly called on the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Secretary of State, to give the sub-
ject his most serious consideration. He hoped the
Right Hon. Gentleman would not be misled by the
mistakes of others, and he could assure him that the
measure now called for could not be resisted without
diminishing the respect of the people for, and their
confidence in, the administration of justice. The call
was a clear one—it involved no subtleties, no nice
points of law, of which the Petitioners could not be
judges. It had been fully discussed in Scotland; all
saw the evil, and concurred in calling for the remedy.
.—The present Bill would of course be successful, if
favoured by the Right Hon. Gentleman and his col-
leagues ; but, whatever might be its fate now, he was
confident that, sooner or later, the measure must be
carried—(Hear).
Mr. PEEL was unwilling to be considered as re-
garding this subject with indifference. He consi-
dered it to be his duty to give it fair and impartial
attention, nor would he suffer the ideas of others (if
these appeared to be erroneous) to have any influence
on his conduct. It was for him to inquire whether
the Judges in Scotland ought to retain their present
power or not, and whether or not the mode of admi-
nistering justice in Scotland ought to be chinged.—
New could he limit his view of the subject to the con-
sideration of the particular amendment which had
been proposed—he must compare the advantages en-
joyed in Scotland with those which grew out of the
system acted upon in England. He must inquire
what was the effect of the mode preferred in Scot-
land—whether it was satisfactory or not—whether
injustice was sustained under it or not—and whether
the criminal law of Scotland, as it now existed, ought
under all circumstances to continue. If he found
that a variety of advantages were enjoyed under it,
and that the system worked practically well, he should
be slow to abandon it, to adopt any theoretical im-
provement, however favourable he might be to the
principle of such improvement. If the mode of se-
lecting Jurors might be advantageously changed in
Edinburgh, he was by no means convinced that such
a change of system could be generally adopted in
Scotland with advantage. He, -however, repeated
the assertion, that he would give the subject fair and
impartial consideration.
Mr. KENNEDY begged to ask the Learned Lord
opposite, if the rumour was true that he was about
to leave London to perform a public duty elsewhere?
He put this question now, because a subject was to
come under the consideration of the House on Mon-
day, which had already been repeatedly postponed,
but which he was unwilling to postpone longer; and
if the rumour he had alluded to was true, lie felt it
his duty to bring it forward in the absence of the
Learned Lord.
The LORD ADVOCATE answered affirmatively.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
MR. PI NUN T.

:~
a

1

. • `~' .

Sir T. LETHBRIISGE presented a Petition from
Mr. Joseph Pin,ent, praying for the appointment of
a Committee to inquire into the comparative value
of all British interests, with a view of ascertaining to
what degree of attention each was entitled. The llo-
nourable Baronet had eignsideied the Petitioner hid
a right to have his Petition laid on the table of the
House, and as he made the agricultural interest the
basis of all the other interests—the source from which
all must be enriched—the hinge on which everything
must turn, he thought his principle sound, and wished
it to be fairly discussed. He hoped therefore that the
Petitioner would have an opportunity afforded to him
of communicating the information which he described
himself to possess to a Committee of that House.
Sir W. DE CItESPIGNY spoke in favour of en-

tertaining the Petition.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW said, Mr. Pinsent's ideas
were not new. They were similar to those on which
Bonaparte had acted, end which had led to his ruin,
when he determined that nothing should be consumed
in France bat what could be produced from her soil.
The Petition, proposing that a Committee should in-
quire into the comparative state of all British interests,
proposed to institute an endless inquiry.
Mr. FIUME should not oppose the bringing up of
the Petition, but wished the principles which it con-
tained to be examined. If that system which Mr.
Pinsent recommended were adopted, it would put an
end to all foreign commerce. It had been truly de-
scribed to resemble the plan of Bonaparte, and would
go to persuade us to grow sugar and make wine in
England, instead of producing those articles which
better suited our soil and our habits, and which might
be so beneficially exchanged for other commodities,
the growth of other countries. He wished the subject
to be discussed, that it might be fully understood,
and the absurdity of the scheme exposed.
Mr. MAXWELL wished to afford every facility
to those who had information to communicate, and
therefore wished the Petition to be received.
The Petition was read and ordered to be printed.
SALT TAX.

Mr. H. BRIGHT presented a Petition from certain
Merchants and others in .the neighbourhood of Bris•