Star.
London, England, 1811-04-06 00:00:00

••••

-

•
ROOM OP COMMONS.
The ;feral* of the Privately Stealing, the Navigable River)
Robbery, the Bleaching Ground Robbery, and Irish Bleaching
Ground Robbery Bills, were brought up, and the Bilis ordered'
to be read a third time on Monday.
SUITORS IN CHANCERY.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR gave notice, that he would, after the
mess (he thought on the ith of May), renew the notice which
he had brought forward some weeks since, respecting Suitors in
the Court of Chancery.
Mr. MARRYA'rr presented a Petition from the Ship Own-
ers of the Port of London, against the construction of Wet Docks
lin the Isle of Thanet. The Petition was laid en the table.
On the motion of Mr. CALCRAFT, the Weald of Kent In-
closure Bill was potoponed till the 30th April.
Mr. WHAR'I ON presented an account of the sums of money
granted by Parliament for the Colony of Sierra Leone ; an 4 also
of the appointment of Chief Justice of that island.
TRINIDAD.
Mr. B. BATHURST presented a petition from
the merchants of Bristol, praying that the British
Laws might be extended to the island of Trinidad. ,
The Right Hon. Gentleman observed, that the sub-
ject was already under the consideration of his Ma-
jesty's Government ; therefore, for the present, he
should naive, That the petition be laid on the table,
intending on some future day to call the attention of
the Howse to it.
Mr. MA RRYATT thought his Right Honour-
able Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) ought to have said something satisfactory on
the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
did not think it necessary to say any thing, as his
Right Honourable Friend had already stated that the
subject was under the consideration of his Majesty's
Government.
The petition was then laid on the table.
..
lIRISTOL COAL TEAM
On the Motion of Mr. H. SMITH, the House went
into a Committee on the BristolCoalTrade. The Hon.
minable Gentleman proposed to extend the exemption
from Duty on Coals to those Ports,E:tst of the Holmes.
To this proposition Sir Charles Morgan moved an
Amendment, which went to restrict that privilege,.
1 and to confine it to the Monmouthshire Canal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
disapproved of both propositions, as injurious to the
revenue ; and considered them as resulting from a
dispute between the two canal proprietors.
The Resolution proposed by Mr. H. Smith was
opposed by Mr. Rose, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Hall, Mr.
Whatton, &c. and supported by Mr. Bathurst. Mr.
Adams, &c. After considerable time, consumed in
discussion, Mr. Smith withdrew his Resolution ; and
the amendment of Sir C. Morgan was also withdrawn
upon an understanding that the subject would under-
go further consideration.
The House then resumed.
Mr. H. SNI LT li gave notice, That he would, on
the 25th of April, move to repeal so much of the Act
as gives to the Proprietors of the Monmouthshire Ca-
nal exemption from Duty on Coals.
PRINTERS REGULATION 1111. L.
The House went into Committee on the Printers
Regulation sill, and the clauses were read, when the
Attorney-General objected to the clause which went
to impose only one penalty on Printers and Publish-
ers, convicted of publishing any work, kc. without
the proper description of the Printer's name affixed

thereto.
Mr. H. MARTIN wished to remind the Hcrnonr- I
able and Learned Gentleman, that the Bill, in elect,
did not go to alter the penalties ; for that in fact
whatever penakk•s the former Act inflicted would :es
main untouched by this.. Bill. The Act alluded_ to
was passed at a time when there was reason to appre-
hend danger to the State in consequence of the meet-
ings of the Corresponding Society ; that danger was
now gone by, and therefore he saw no reason why
the heavy penalties which that Act had imposed,
should remain. It Was certainly a very hard case
upon Printers that for every paper they circulated of
this description, they should be liable to separate pe-
nalties, and the Legislature thought with h;m, for an
Act passed some time since for indemnifying certain
persons from the oppressiveness of that Act. If the ,
Honourable and Learned Gentleman thought ,C2O
was too small a sum, he had no objection, in order to
secure his approbation, that a larger penalty should
be imposed ; but he could not think that for every
paper published, a distinct penalty should attach.—
He could not see the degree of moral terpitude which
existed to warrant it. The Government had already
provided sufficiently for the security of the subject
against libels, by imposing niany restrictions upon
persons entering into business as Printers. In the
first place they were obliged to register their printing
presses and types at the Office of the Clerk of the
Peace for the County, and their names and places of
abode ; they were of course, as well known as any
set of tradesmen, and if they acted wrong were easily
made amenable to the law. The Honourable Gen-
tleman contended strongly against the injustice of
continuing a temporary Act, when the necessity
which authorised the passing it no longer exists.
Mr. D. GIDDY was of opinion, that the penalty
should be limited to a single copy.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
slid not think that the exaction of a single penalty
would in all cases be sufficient. It might be enough
to prevent those Printers who had good intentions
from violating the law, but the chance of being com-
pelled to pay sC2O would not deter men who were
influenced by criminal motives. He would propose
rather in the succeeding clause, to leave to the Ma-
gistrates the power of mitigating the penalties incur-
red, even to the amount of a single penalty, it they
should think fit so to do ; and to give an appellant
•inrisdiction in such cases to the Court of Quarter

Sessions.
Lord FOLKSTONE objected to the enormous
power which would be vested in the Magistrates by
the proposition of the Right Honourable Gentleman.
He regretted that the present Bill did not go altoge-
ther to repeal the 39th of the King ; an Act which
was introduced at a particular time for a particular
purpose.
The ArroRNETGENERAL could not coin-
cide with the Noble Lord in the opinion that it was
advisable wholly to repeal the 39th of the King.
He read a clause, which it was his intention to pro-
pose, by which the Magistrates, on conviction, would
be empowered to mitigate the penalty to a sum not
less than le 10.
Sir S. ROMILLY declarei, that if it were intend.
ed to leave the law in such a manner as to allow the
possibility of the accumulatico of penalties to the
I enormous amount of 20 or £30,000, it would be es.

-i!

•
tternely objectionable. Many tit the °genets against
\
the law must of course proceed from inadvertence ;
but even on the supposition of the greatest crimina-
lity, surely the House would not consent that the
publication of a libel should by possibility draw down
on the publisher such an enormous fine. A strong
objection which he had, to the existing law on this
subject was, that it punished indiscriminately those
who violated it inadvertently, and those who violated
it criminally ; although the fcrrier would necessarily
be detected with the greater ease. He concurred in
the regret expressed by the Noble Lord, that the mea- ,
sure had been made a permanent one. Before the
period during which it was enacted, such restraints
on the useful and honourable occupation of a prtnteri
had not been deemed necessary, nor did he think they
were necessary, at present.
Mr. LOCKHART agreed with the Noble Lord,
that it would be inexpedient and dangerous to leave'
Ito the Magistrates the power of convicting in penal-
ties to an unlimited extent. •It would be taking from
Juries the right of determining on libels of any de-
scription, and giving that right to the Justices and to
the Courts of Quarter Sessions. To this he could
never consent. Determined esemy as he was to the
licentiousness of the press, be could never agree to
vest such a power in the hand of the Magistrates
and the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The only cor-
rection which suggested itself to his mind was to li-
mit the extent of the penalty in which the Magistrates
should be empowered to convict. Perhaps one hun-
dred pounds might be found a proper limitation.
Mr. MARTIN begged the Conti ittee to consider
what would be the effect of allowing the excessive pe-
nalties which the present Act permitted. The penal-
ties did not belong wholly to the Crown. A moiety
went to the informer. If therefore the Crown were
disposed to remit its share of these penalties, a com-
mon informer might sue for his proportion, and this
would operate as a perpetual imprisonment on the
parts offending. Now it was well known that in cases
of libel the term of imprisonment adjudged by the
Court of King's Bench, seldom exceeded two years.
Let the Committee recollect the time, and circum-
stances, under which the existing Act pissed. Its
object was to prevent the gratuitous distribution of
papers of a seditious tendency, by certain Societies,
which were er.umerated in the Act. These Societies
had ceased to exist—the evil to be ,pprehended must'
therefore have ceased to exist—and he was at a loss
to.discover on what principle the continuance of such
severe enactments could be maintained. If continued
at all, the extent of the penalty should be limited.—
What he was anxious to establish was, that the of-
fending party.should be sued for only one penalty.—
..
If the single penalty at present enacted were insuffi-
cient, let it be increased. Although he should con-
sent reluctantly, yet he would agree even to the et
sent of the penalty being made £5OO, leaving to the
Magistrates the discretion of mitigating it to £5. He
would also propose that it should not be ia the power
of an informer, under any circumstance, it the Ma-
gistrates were so ill4advised as to levy the extent of
the penalty, to prevent the Crown, if it thought pro-
per, from remitting the whole. He adverted to many
cases in which the law might be, and indeed had
been, inadvertently violated ; and particularly in-
stanced one of an Hon. Member, a merchant of ex-
tensive dealings, who for many years had ignorantly'
I violated the law, in printing his Bills of Lading. &ea
and another of an Hon. Member, who when a Cast-,
dictate for the East India Direction had violated the
law in a similar manner in his addresses to the Pro-1
prietots of East India Stock. Would it be advisable
to leave to Magistrates the power of levying on per-
sons so circumstanced, or indeed on persons other-
wise circumstanced, the enormourfines, which, by the
existing Acts they had incurred ?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL to chew his Ho-
nourable and Learned Friend how disposed he was
to conciliate him on this subject, agrated to introduce
a clause by which no person should be liable to more
than '25 forfeitures. (8500.)
Mr. WILBERFORCE thought, that if secrecy
'were allowed to the operation of the printing-house,
no penalty could be too high to repress its licen-
tiousness.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE expressed his satisfaction
at the concession which .had been made with regard
to the limitation of the penalty.
An amendment to that effect moved by the At-
torney-General, was adopted, and the Resolutions
agreed to.
The SPEAKER having resumed the Chair, the Re-
port of the Committee, with the amendment, was co-
deted to be received on Monday.
FOREIGN MINISTERS' SALARIES SILL.
Mr. LEACH moved the third reading of the Fe.

reign Ministers' Salaries Bill.
Lord F. OSBORNE felt it his duty to express his
decided disapprobation of the Bill. No claims what-
ever had been urged which thus required the interfe-
rence of Parliament. Not 24 hours had elapsed since
that House refused to go into a Committee to consi.
der the claims of the Officers of our brave Army ;
and the money which they had refused to the claims
of these gallant men, they were now called upon to
vo►e to individuals who had advanced no claim what-
ever. He trusted that the House would pause before
they acceded to a measure of this description ; and
he would therefore m wil'as an Amendment, That
the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. MORRIS replied to the speech of the Noble
Lord. Individuals, he said, had not advanced any
claims to Parliament, because it was impossible that
they could do so, as such claims could not be made
a subject of consideration by the House. Before the
Act of last Session, although the services of indivi-
duals who had been employed in a diplomatic capa-
city had ceased, the Crown was enabled to continue
to them a portion of their allowances ; this 'Act,
however, deprived the Crown of this prerogative.—
The circumstance which distinguished the indivi-
duals to whom he had alluded from all others simi.
lady situated in other respects, was, that their retreat
from service was not voluntary, but depended on po-
litical accidents, over which they had no controtil.—
He heartily supported the Bill ; and he was persua-
ded that no man would suppose that he was influen-
ced to do so by the circumstance that an Honourable
Relation of his (we presume, Mr. Erskine), might
come within the scope of its operation. He As ac-
tuated by motives of a much more public nature.
Mr. BANKES observed, that the House bad no
sooner passed the first measure of reform, which was
founded on the report of their Committee us► that

unjust, imhject, than they were required to repeal it. Never
thele%s, if that measure could be proved
might to be repealed. That was the point
in
t which he
t
wished to examine.—Unquestionably there were pre-
cedents for the measure which it was proposed to re-
scind. Those who reci elected with him the Parlia.
mentary occumencesof 1783, would remember, that
a Bill was then brought in for the Regulation of the
Offices of the Exchequer, and for the Reduction of
the rmolhment of the Tellers. When that Bill came
from the Committee, there was a clause in it, provi-
ding that it should not operate against a grant in re-
version by his Majesty to Lord Thurlow of a Teller.
ship of the'Exchequer. To this clause the House
disagreed, notwithstanding the extraordinary exer-
tiont of a great lawyer (Lord Kenyon) who then ad-
vocated the rights of individuals as other lawyers
now advocated them, and as he ( Mr. Bankes) thought,
with too much eagerness. On a division upon this
clause, the number in favour of it was 49, that against
it 57. He Would repeat what he had stated in a for-
mer stage of this Bill, namely, that if Parliament
took one step in the repeal of the principle of the Act
passed last Session, they must take many more steps.
There were many persons affected by that Act,
whose claims were much stronger than lithe of the
diplomatic individuals to whom the pending Bill ap.
plied : for instance, previoni to she Act of last Ses.
sion, the old stores were vested in the Crown, which
had power to grant pensions to various Deistic offi-
cers on it; that Act (very wisely in his opinion) de-
prived the Crown of that power ; all, therefore, who
had what might be called an expectant right under
the former practice, possessed a better claim on the
House than the individuals whose cane was under con-
sideration. But a still stronger circumstance existed.
1 —There were individuals who bad been deprived by
the Act of last Session of the expectation of emolu-
ments to which they had a title under two former
Acts of Parliament. By the Act of the 49th of the
King, c. 36, and by an Act passed only twe weeks
before the Act of last Session, founded on the
'Report of the Finance Committee, the Crown was
empowered to grant allowances to certain Officers of
the Excise in England and Scotland ; it was em-
powered to grant those who had served ten years
three-fourths of their salaries. By the Act of last
Session, these allowances were reduced to one-half of
the salaries of these Officers. Had not the individuals
thus affected, therefore, ten times greater right to
complain than the diplomatic individuals who were
the objects of the proposed measure ? Did any ono
suppose, from this reasoning, that he (Mr. Bankes)
entertained any wish of opening agar h the Act of
last Session ? Far' from it. By that Act a proper
system of superannuati m had been established ; and
the relaxed habit in which Government had previous-
indulged on that subject was corrected. The Act
last Session had passed with the general approba-
tion of the country ; and it was nut to be disturbed
t
because a claim was made for two or three indivi-
deals, who, he had shewn, had not suffered by it so
I extensively as many others. Besides, the supporters
1 of the Bill asserted, that all they wanted was to put
these Gentlemen in the same situation as that in
which they were before the Act of last Session. Now
that was impossible. To agree to the proposed Bill
would be to give to the claims of tha Foreign Minis.
ters a sanction which they had never before enioyed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
contended, that whatever might be the merits of the
Bill before the House, it would not afford such a d in-
erous precedent as was apprehended by his P.r.O.
Friend. With respect to the operation of the Act of
last Session, on those individuals who had expectances
on the Fund of Old Stores, he did not believe that
the previous practice of Government had been such
as to induce any of those individuals to imagine, that
they had a claim on that fund to a greater extent
than that which remained alter the passing of the act.
And as to the Excise Officers, of whom his Hon.
Friend said, that the Act of last Session had deprived
them of expectant rights vested in them by two for-
mer Acts, the fact was, that in some respects the
claims were increased by the last Act,; for it was pro-
vided by it that, after a certain age, not three.fourthe
merely, but the whole of his salary should be allowed
to an Officer. It was obvious also that the number
who had the slightest shadow of justice for complaint
must be confined to those who entered as clerks is
that department of the public service during the short
period, a twelvemonth. between the passing of the
first Acts alluded to by his Hon. Friend, and the
passing of the Act founded on the Report of the Fi-
nance Committee. Nothing could be more clear than
that those who had entered the service before that pe-
riod were not at all entitled to complain of disappoin-
ted expectations. •
The House then divided—For the Amendmera.‘2l
-a-Against it 50—Majority 27. .
The Bill was then read a third time and paseaa
COSIIIITTYX OP SUPPLY.
Oo the Order of the Day being read for the Hose
resolving itself into a Committee of Supply,
' Lord FOLKESTONE rose. He wished, before
the House resolved itself into a Committee, to call
their attention to a subject which had already been
mentioneSby him once co twice in the course of the
Session, but on which he had received no satisfactory
information. He alluded to the case of a person car-
victed some time ago of selling guineas—a Mr. Pe
Young. This circumstance took place during the
last Session of Parliaman. The question, however,
had not wren finally decided Upon; a point being re-
served to be argued in the Exchequer Chambers.—
Early in the present Session, he (Lord Folkestone)
had inquired of the Attorney-General if any father
proceedings were likely to take place? To this tit
Auorney-General had replied, that he was ready to
argue•the case whenever called upon by thej Juda,es
to do so ; but as he had not been called upon, l'e
wished now to give ncitice, that if the point were net
decided in the course of the ensuing term. it was bit
intention to institute some proceeding on the wain:.
He did not wish to'dwell on the peculiar kardbhip ct
the case ; but lie could not laelp observing, that thii
man, who had no friends, had been selected as tl.e
subject of a prosecution for that which almost evt”,.
banker and principal tradesmen had been guilty el
for years. He had been convicted on an Ella Act
Parliament made in the reign of Edward VI. lie
could have wished to have entered more at large iata
the subject, and to have argued on the nature of tae
provisions of that Act, to ascertain if they weic 10'
ficiently comprehensive to reach such a cast. flare'
peated it was his intention to give orifice, that if al