Star.
London, England, 1821-03-22 00:00:00

PARIfIAMINTARi PROCEEDINGS.

.004. Z, MARCH 21.
In the Appeal u Knox o. Nesbit" from a decision of the Irish
Court of &chequer, Messrs. Haat. and J. P. Gamer yrere
beard for the a On account of some irregularity ik the
proceedings, the LoanOnaacn.wapostponedthefurtherbearing.
The Mary.la-Bomse•Citurch Brtilding Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
bar. Ewe brought op the Irish Attorneys Fees Bill from
the Hosteetif Commons, wills* was read a first time.
ihtene Pritate Bills were brought up from the House of Com-
mons by fir. BLACtIVIN and Mr. DICKINSON.
Mr. Bascom brought up the Bill for the Dispatch of Busi-
ness in the Court of King's Bench, which was read a first time.
Tke Earl of SIM FT RSBU Rlf presented a Petition from
the Tenets of Bedminster, in the County of Somerset, against
the, Catholic Claims.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN presented a Petition from
the Town of Dureley, in Gloucestershire, praying that some
measure might be adopted for the cheap and speedy recovery of
Debts under ,fig.
The Flax and Cotton Encouragement Bill was read a third
_
time, and passed.
The Motley Bißs were read a second time.
The Marquis of LA NSIJOW N said he bad intended, and it
was his wish, to put some questions tespecting the present trans-
%them es tbe Cominest of Europe; but as the Noble earl at
the head of the Treasury was not then present, he should not
miter ea the subject; and as it was not likely that my business
wail be done to-morrow, es account of the Drawing-Boom,
'be gave notice that on Friday nest ke should put those ques.
tiems:—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Petitions were pre tited from the County of Nairn, praying
a repeal of the Mak Tat; front the Ship-owners of Sunderland,
on she subject of the Duty oa Coals ; from the Queen's County,
praying the House to take into consideration the present state of
the Distillery Laws in Ireland; from Strathmore, in Forfar,
praying a repeal of the Malt Duties; from Fife, praying a repeal
'of the Mak Duties ; and from Canada, praying the House to
take late consideration the present state of the Timber Trade.
Mr. CALVERT moved for as Account of the Wharfs be-
longing to the Corporation of London, between London Bridge
and the Temp:e.—Ordered.
Mr. LUSHINGTON presented Accounts of the Expendi-
ture in detail of 415,400, charged in the Civil Contingencies, for
lulls drawn by Governor Macartky, and others.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON brought% the Ale and Beer Duties
Ell, which was reul a brat time, and ordered to he read a se-
cond time to-morrow.

PURCHASES OF SILVER.
Mr. GRENFELL referred to a Paper which had
been lately laid on the table of that Hotise; containing
a Return of all the Purchases of Silver which had
been made by the Mint since 1816, up to 1821, and
admitted that it appeared from this paper, that,
during the three first years of the period, the prices
were in general conformable to the market prices.—
But he observed, during 1820, that a variation had
Liken place between the prices which the Mint paid
and the prices in the market, for which he was at a
loss to account. • In that year it appeared that the
Mint had purchased silver at a price which was be-
tween four and five per cent. above the market price.
Now he wished to ask the Right lion. Gentleman
opp,site, who were the parties from whom the silver
had been so purchased ?—(Hear, hear)—and why it
was that a price so greatly exceeding that of the
market had been given to them ?—(Hear, hear).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
tliat at a former period the Bank consented to receive
from the Mint a large amount of silver at .ss. 2d. per
ounce, on which occasion it was stipulated, that at a
subsequent period the Mint should take back from
the Bank an equal amount of silver at the same price,
no matter what the price in the market should be.—
The silver alluded to was taken at the price men-
tioned in consequence of that stipulation.
Mr. GRENFELL said, he looked upon the whole
of that contract as one of a very suspicious nature—
(Hear, hear).—He gave notice, therefore, that on an
early day he would move for a Return, stating the
l
terms of the contract, and the circumstances which
gave rise to it.

SCOTCH BURGH OF INVERARY.
Mr. UU\IE moved the Order of the Day for re-
suming the debate on the Petition from the Royal
Burgh of Inverary.—The Order being read—
The SPEAKER said, the question was, that this
Petition be referred to the Committee on Scotch
Burghs.
Mr. ABERCROIBIE said, that this Petition
turned not on a question of fact, but of law, upon
which there could not be two opinions. The princi-
pal complaint was, that the Magistrates of the Ilo-
tough had received a great deal of money for the
sale of corporate property, of which they had given
no account to the Burgesses. The Petitioners could
get no redress in the Courts of Law in Scotland, and
in his view it was peculiarly incumbent on that House
to pass a Bill for the remedy of this evil. He saw no
use in having this Petition referred to the Committee.
The LORD ADVOCATE admitted that the
Courts in Scotland had no jurisdiction in the case.
Several Members rose to address the Speaker.
Mr. %V. COURTENAY said, that he had given
precedence to this motion .upon the supposition that.
it would not take up more than a few minutes. As
he saw several Members anxious to address the
House, he feared that he must insist on having his
own motion first disposed of.
The question was then pat, and the Petition was
referred to the Committee on Scotch Burghs.
NEWINGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL.
Mr. H. SUMNER ntoved the further considera-
tion of the Report of the Committee on the Newing-
ton Select Vestry Bill. The Order of the Day having''
been read, the Honourable Member stated, that the
Committee had, without going into the merits of the
Bill, on the first question put, decided that the Stand.
ing Orders of the House had not been complied with.
Be must confess that this Resolution surprised him.
The irregularity complained of was as follows :
The Standing Order required, that notice should be
stuck on the Church-door three days. The notice was
put up, but when it had been up two days, it was
discovered that the word "-increased" was wanting:
and the word was then added to the notice for the
third day and it was contended, that this Was such
an alteration, as 'destroyed the notice altogether, by
rendering it irregular. The Hots. Member now con-
tended, that this Was not such an irregularity as
would destroy the notice; and, therefore, the deci-
sion ofshe Committee was erroneous. He concluded
by moving that the Bill be re-committed.
Mr. S. C. WHITBREAD was sorry the 'Honour-
able Gentleman had thought fit to bring this Bill for-
ward again. Ire considered it as a Bat unjust in its
principle ; and one which, if carried, must prove dis-
,istitt to the great majority of the Parish ; and
lithe ~shoeld consider irright to per-
sist ha is *Odom for re-committing the Bill, he

should consider it the do r of those who opposed elle
Bill, to take the sense of the House:
Mr. DENISON also opposed the motion, aid re-
peated his former arguments against the Bill.
Mr. C. CALVERT also opposed the Bill on prin-
ciple. The rental of the Parish of Newington was
£184,000, of which Abe- supporters of the Bill paid
only about 0400.
Mr. ELLIS was in favour of the Bill being recom-
mitted. The irregularity was a mere technical one,
and therefore the House were called on to overlook
it, and to suffer the Bill to go to a Committee, to
have its merits inquired into.
Sir J. NEWPORT thought the irregularity one
which must prove fatal to the Bill.
Mr. E. PRICE supported the going back to a Com-
mittee, and was proceeding to discuss the merits of
the Bill, when he was called to order by
Mr.,BENNETT, who submitted the merits were
not now before the House.

The SPEAKER said, as this was a question for
the re-commitment of a Bill, it was difficult to say
I that, strictly speaking, the merits were not open to
discussion ; bat as the question now regarded a point
of form, it would be obvious to the House, that the
convenient course would be to confine the discussion
to the point of order.
Mr. C. WYNN wished to know from the Chair,
what had been the practice of the House on this point?
The SPEAKER said, many things were done in
transacting private business, by consent sof parties,
which could not be reconciled with the Standing Or-
ders of the House. if the House was of opinion the
irregularity now complained of should be fatal, it
was time they should declare it, since it occurred in
innumerable instances. If, however, there was any
doubt, he thought the preferable way would be to
refer the Report to a Select Committee, to inquire
into, and report to the House on the subject.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was of opinion, that the Com-
mittee were bound to see the Standing Order com-
plied with.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE thought the stlgiestion
thrown out by the Chair should be adopted, and he
would move, as an Amendment, that the Report be
referred to a Select Committee.
After a few words froth Mr. 11. Suss NER, the Amend-
ment was agreed to, and the Report referred to a Se-
lect Committee accordingly.
CLAIMs OF AMERICAN LOYALISTS. • I

Mr. COURTENAY, in rising to bring forward
the subject of the American Loyalists' claims, was
aware that in doing this it would be necessary for
.him to go into detail, to slew the House the founda.
Lion of claims arising in 1783, and contirrued up to
the present time. The Americans used every effort
to induce all to join in what was then called the
Standard of Rebellion. On the other hand, the Bri-
tish Government made similar efforts to induce a
junction with the Royal Standard. The different
States had attainted all who had joined the British
Standard. At the peace, two Articles were intro-
duced ; one that regarded persons living in England,
who had sustained commercial losses, and it was sti-
pulated that the claims of creditors should be at
tended to. That formed the second Article. The
fifth was a clause, by which Congress was to re-
commend the restitution cf the prcperty of persons
attainted, &c. for their conduct during the war. It
was at the conclusion of the war, that the House was
of opinion that the Loyalists should not be left wholly
to the mercy of the American Government. He
contended that it was the opinion of the Parliament
of that day, that full compensation should be given
to the American Loyalists. '1•o that effect he quoted
the opinion of Lord Thuilow, in the House of Lords;
and of Mr. Townsend, in the House of commons ;
and also of the late Lord Chief Baron Macdonald,
then Solicitor-General. A full compensation had

not been made by the American Government. The
House, by the vote of 1783, was bound to make good
the deficiency. A Commission was subsequently ap-
pointed to inquire into the losses of the Loyalist., of
whatever kind they might be. The Commissioners
of 1783 admitted the'claims of those who had lost
their lands and, possessions; but would not admit
the claims of those who had vested their money in
mortgages and securities, and referred them to the
American Government. In 1789, Mr. Hammond
was sent out to America on the subject of the claims
of British creditors ; and, in 1794, the American GQ-,
vernment allowed the claims of the British creditors.
But the American Government never recognized the
claims of the American Loyalists. The first demand
made by a Loyalist was opposed by the Attorney-
General of the United States, on the ground that the
claimant had been attainted before the peace, and
had no claim on the American Government. In
1797. Mr. Pitt contended that all classes of American
Loyalists were entitled to compensation, and urged
that claim on the American Government. In 1802,
the subject came under the review of the Govern-
ment of that day, and the amount was fixed at
4:600,000 by the American Government. In 1811,
the last report had been made ; and as the former
lapses of time had not been allowed to operate
against the claim, so neither should the time that
had elapsed from" 1811 to the present period. The
Honourable Gentleman proceeded to read the opi-
nions of the American Courts of Law, all of which
held that compensation was only due to the British
subject claiming a real debt from an American li
debtor; but the restoration of landed property, even
to a real British subject, much less an American
Loyalist, who had been attainted, had never been in
the contemplation of the Treaty of 1783. He must
make a motion that would bring the whole case be-1
fore the House, as it had never been decided upon byl
Parliament. A dangerous precedent might be drawn,l
not from the application, but the refusal of it. He
should move for copies of all communications be-
tween the British Government, and the American
Loyalists since the 4th of April, 1812, to this time.
Mr. DICKINSON knew that the AmeriCan Lop-
alists had made the greatest sacrifices on account of
their attachment to the British Government, and
were well entitled to have their claims considered.
Mr. WM. SMITH would postpone most part of
what he had to say till the papers moved for should
'be laid before the House. The time that had elapsast
was. one of the greatest hardships of the else. Had
the money been paid when due, forty years ago, it
would have been trebled by the operation of interest.
Compensations" had often been made for no claims,
and no* was refused to tbc.justest claints. He was.
the more iodated to say this, as he had'been most.

decidedly hostile to the principles of those men. He
*as one of the Committee of 18111 and could state
that the sum of £6004100 had. never been accepted
as an equivalent for heir claims. He had stated to
one of the.claimants, that he bad been itirprised at
their patience; and the answer was, a Sir, there have
been several suicides among us already.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that the American
Loyalists had tasted the very dregs of hope deferred
He would recommend the case earnestly to the con-
sideration of the House.

• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
it was a painful duty that a servant of the Public was
compelled to look at many things with a stricter eye
than he would do in his private and individual capa-
city. From the communication he had had with the
Loyalists, he at some times had entertained a more
favourable opinion of their claims than upon recon-
sidOration they appeared to him to deserve. The
length of time, he admitted, formed no bar to these
claims, and it was rather an argument in their fa-
vour. Though a partial compensation had been
made, he admitted that it had not been accepted by
them in bar of future claims. But a much larger
deduction had been made from the compensation
which had been awarded to the families of Penn and
Hartford than had been taken from the Loyalists.—
The breach of faith on the part of the American Go-
vernment had not been confined to•the Loyalists, but
had extended to the British Creditors. The total
claim admitted by the American Government'
amounted to £1,450,000, of which £2.50,000 had
been paid to the Loyalists. In consequence of the
conduct of the American Government, a portion of
territory ceded to that country had been withheld;
and' it was not restored till the American Govern-
ment agreed that all the claims should be fairly ar-
ranged. At Philadelphia, in 1794, a Commission
had been appointed, and the Loyalists had preferred
their claims there, as well as the British Creditors.—
' That was an important fact, and seemed to have
been unknown to his Honourable Friend. By the
joint Commission at Philadelphia, the claims of the
Loyalists %vete admitted. He should not then enter
into the causes that rendered that concession una-
vailing, as be did not intend to oppose the produc-
tion of the Papers ; reserving to himself the right to
oppose any future motion. By the Convention of
1802, the sum ,of £600,000 was accepted by the Bri-
tish Government in lieu of the claims that were
settled by the Commission of 1794 ; neither the
' Loyalists nor the Merchant Creditors accepted of
their sham of that sum as a full compensation for
their claims. It was a most painful duty to be com-
pelled to refuse the claims of an unfortunate and
meritorious class of men ; but they must be regarded
as suffering from the. fate of war ; and to such a
class of sufferers it had not been the practice to allow
compensations. He was anxious that the case should
he brought fairly before the House, though he could
nut hold out the hope of complete relief.
Dr. PHILLIMOHE thought that the present was
one of the stionost cases of strict justice that had
ever been brought before the House. There was a
wide distinction between the Amer ican Loyalist, who
had sacrificed all for his attachment to the British
Government, an'il the Merchant, who had merely
carried on his trade.

Mr,LOCKII ART concurred with the last speaker,
that the claim of the Loyalist was tar paramount to
that of the Merchant. He understood that the Loy-
alists who now claimed compensation, did so in con-
sequence of mortgages or bends on American pro-
perty ; but those ►ndividuals might have all the time
resided in this country. If that was the case, they
were not to be placed in a better situation than the
British Merchant. He wished for information.

Mr. COURTENAY felt the distinction made by
the last sperker ; but the class of men whose claims
he advocated, was that of men who had ranged them-
selves under the standard of their King, and had
sacrificed all for their loyalty.—The motion was then'
put and carried.