Star.
London, England, 1817-07-05 00:00:00

CIUMNEY-SWEEPERs.

Mr. HART DAVIS presented a Petition from
the Master Chimney-Sweepers of Berstol, praying
that the Legislature would not sanction the disuse of
Boys, as many chimnies could not be swept wit!iout
them. They further spoke of their humanity to
apprentices, and, as a proof of the mild treatment
they received, stated that several of them lived to
be from 50 to 70 years of age. The Petitioners
prayed to be heard by Counsel at the Bar of that
House against the Chimney-Sweepers' Bill.
The Petition was laid on the table.
EXTENTS IN AID.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the third
ratding of the Extents in Aid Bill. On the question
that the Bill do pass, the Honourable and Learned
'Gentleman proposed that a clause be added, by way
of rider, empowering any person imprisoned under
an Extent of Aid, to apply to the Barons of the Ex-
Chequer for his discharge, on satisfying the Court
that be had surrendered all his property.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH was glad that at his
suggestion this clause was added to the BA several
parts of which, however, still required amendment.
He hoped that during the recess the operation of the
Bill would be attended to, and that the good sense
and good feeling of the country, the indignation ex..,
pressed at the conduct of those individuals who op
pressively exercised the powers vested in them by the
law, would prevent any repetition of such conduct in
future. P. however, his hopes should be disappoint.
ed. he would be one of the foremost to propose some
legislative measure to remove the evil: The Com-
mittee sitting on this subject had not yet reported ;
but be hoped they would be enabled to do so before
the close of the Session. •
Mr. HA RT DAVIS concurred in his Honourable
Friend's view of this subject, and was co, vinced that
the manner in which these Extents in Aid were acted
upon, created a great dm! of immorality thoughout
the country. The clause was then agreed to, and
the Bill passed.

NAN? INDIA SHIP OWNERS' BILL.
Sir THOMAS COURTENAY moved the third
reading o 1 tlw East India Ship Owners' Bill.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he had radical ob-
jections to this Bill, which countenanced a deviation
from the regular and established practice recognized
by the Act of the 39th of the King. That Act had
a very beneficial effect—it rendeted it imperative upon
the East India Company to procure a certain freight
for tonnage of shipping, by exciting a public compe.
tition among the Ship Owners, whose bidding' were
`ordered to be public with sealed off..rt. A fair re
duction of price arose out of this airangenient, and
in one year the Company saved £138,0u0 by it, and
since•that period there wrre years when perhaps it
neatly quadrupled that sum. By this last contract
with the Company..the Ship Owners, calculating on
the probable fall of the price of stores, &c. at the
peace, stipulated for a much smaller sum than they
'would otherwise have taken—it appeared that the
event disproved their speculation, the prices did nut
go down, their contract became a losing one; and
this Bill was brought in to enable the East India
Company to give them a large sum to recover this
loss. He had a strung objection both to the policy of
such a regulation, and also to the manner in which
it, was made. He ready disliked vesting a discre-
tionary power in the hands of the Company fur such
a purpose. It would have been, he thought, much
better to have fixed a specific sum for each particular
I toner, instead of leaving it open in this manner.
Mr. CANNING thought, that under aMI the cir-
sum:tances of this case the Bill was desirable to re-
lieve the sufferers by the contract from a ruinous
loss, The principle acted on was not to grant any
relief beyond i€8.:101. per ton ; and not to allow
even that, it, combined with the original contract, the
total amount per ton would be more than A 26. Here
there was a su 'Xing advantage over the Act of Ibo 3,
by which no limit was set to the amount of
Uncles the ',mum, Act the Ditetmt,