Star.
London, England, 1818-03-17 00:00:00

HIGH BAILIFF OF WESTMINSTER.

Mr. MARSH moved for she grant of a sum in
favour of the High Bailiff of Westminster. This he
stated to be a case of pure unmixed justice, which
he should but impair if he spoke on it at any length.
He begged to remind the Committee, that a grant
in favour of this Gentleman had been recommended
by a Committee of the House four years ago. 'The
High Bailiff, in the elections which had occurred of
late years, had taken the course which had been in-
variably pursued by his predecessors in office, by
erecting hustings ; and had not this been done, scenes
of riot must have occurred that would infallibly have
proved utterly subversive of the Right of Election.
The High Bailiff had been refused payment by one
of the persons elected. He had, in consequence,
brought his action, but the Court deciding against
him the action was lost, and the High Bailiff was
left 1,5001. out of pocket. He now came to that
House, not for that sum, but merely for the sum of
8001. which he had lost by the election of 1812. The
loss which had fallen on the High Bailiff had beer.
caused by a blunder on the part of that House in its
Acts, which had not privided for the contingency of
an involuntary candidate, if he might be called a
candidate, who did not offer himself as such. Before
he appealed to the liberality of that House, the High
Bailiff had sought redress in a Court of Justice. The
expense he had incurred was incurred under a Bill
which had originated in that House. Through the
use there made of the word " candidate," he had lost
the power of enforcing that right, which it was ob-
viously the intention of the Legislature to give. He
moved that the sum of 8001. should be granted to
re-imburse the High Bailiff of Westminster, for ex.:
penses thrown on him by the Election of 1812. -

Mr. BANKES caid the motion was so irregular,
so differestfroni any he had ever heard before, that
on the ground of order alone he must oppose it as
untenable. He must object to a grant being tleig
'moved, for such a purpose as a matter of supply,
even if the expense which had fallen on the indivi-
dual had been the consequence of a blunder of that
House, which he utterly denied. He wished to ask
the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the consent ofthe
Crown had been obtained to this grant, as from the
time of Queen Anne no such resolution could be pro-
posed, without the consent of the Crown. The impor-
tance of such a guard on the inconsiderate liberality
of Parliament he strongly insisted upon, and without
it he was satisfied that House would be tea times more
prodigal than ever the servants of the Crown were.
Mr. BROGDEN apologized to the Committee fee
not having stated the consent of the Crown to have
been obtained.
Mr. BANKES still objected to the form.
Mr. BROGDEN thought the objection of the
Right Hon. Gentleman might perhaps be obviated
introducing the words "granted to his Majesty."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
the consent of the Crown to have been obtained four
years ago.
Mr. N. CALVERT wished to know what were the
emoluments of the office of High Bailiff? These
might be so considerable as to make it but reasonable
that he should bear the expense, which had beenl
thrown on him by an unexpected contingency.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought the claim that of,jus-
tice, and did not see that any reason could be given
why the expense of the election should be thrown on
the High Bailiff. The blunder under which this ex-
pense had been incurred, it might be said, was not
peculiar to that House, as the Act which contained
rt was the Act of Parliament. It was however more
peculiarly theirs, as it was found in an Act for regu
lating elections, with which they had no wish that
the other House should frequently interfere. He
thought there was a strong claim upon the House.
Mr. WYNNE thought it would be desirable that
the Report of the former Committee should he printed
and put into the hands of Members. He much
doubted whether the words of the Act would oblige
the High Bailiff to erect hustings, in such a case as
that for Westminster in 1812. (Mr. Brougham here
said that the words were imperative.) If the words
really were imperative, then, instead of beginning
with a vote in the Committee of Supply, they should
pass an Act declaring by whom the expense of erect-
ing hustings was to be borne. He could not under-
stand how, in the caw of Westminster, the expense
of erecting the hustings could amount to 8001.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, lie happened to be the
Counsel in the case of Westminster alluded to. He
could assure his Honourable Friend that every item
of the expenses in that case was completely made out
and proved. The expenses did not consist merely in
the timber, and labour of putting it together, but re-
tainers to poll clerks, and a thousand other items.—
The existing Act was only a temporary Act, and
would expire either this year or soon after.
Mr. C. WYNNE wished to know whether the mo-
tion before the Committee was confined only to the
case of 1812? lle still could not: understand how,
in the few hours that the election in 1812 lasted, such
an expense as 800/. could be incurred
Mr. BROUGHAM assured his Honourable Friend
that every item in the charge had been scrupulously
examined.
Mr. WYNNE said the total amount of the charge
was 1,600/. but as there was a nonsuit in one of the
actions, in the other the recovery was only against
one of the candidates, and of one moiety of the whole
expense. Why, if there was only one candidate
against whom the plaintiff could recover, did not he
recover the whole sum against that one ?
Mr. B. BATHURST read an extract from a legal
opinion by Mr. Richardson, stating the legal reason
why only 8001. could be recovered at law. The Re-
port alluded to by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynne) might
be had by any Member who chose to apply for a
copy of it.
Mr.BARCL AY trusted that if this grant was agreed
to, the House would make up the loss sustained on
like occasions by the High Bailiffs of every large town.
Mr. C. CALVERT concurred in what
was said by
the Hen. Gentleman who spcke last.
Mr. LOCKHART said, if the Hon. Gentleman
who spoke last would take tlr2 trouble of examining,
they would find that this grant would be a precedent
for no other grant whatever. The High Bailiff of
Westminster was, by Act of Parliament, liable to be
proceeded against by information, or indictment, as
an enemy to the public peace, if he had not erected
the hustings in such a case as that of 1812.
The CHAIRMAN suggested, that the technical
objection of the Honourable Member for Corfe Castle
(Mr. Bankes) might be removed by framing the mo-
tion thus—" That 8001. be panted to his Majesty,
for the purpose of enabling ins Majesty to indemnify
the High Bailiff."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that this case was completely distinguished from any
other. The charge in this case was thrown upon the
High Bailiff in a way that never was intended by the
Act of Parliament. Although lie had a great ob-
jection to indemnifications of this kind, the present
ca,e was one of which Parliament certainly ought to
make up the loss.
After a few words from Mr. N. CALVERT, the
Gallery was cleared for a divison but none took place,
and the vote was agreed to. Report to-morrow.

NATIONAL MONUMENT.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the Order of the Day for the House taking into
consideration that part of the Lords Commissioners'
Speech, which related to the Building of Churches.
Mr. TIERNEY gave notice that soon after the
holidays he would move, that the Sum granted by
Parliament for the erection of a Monument to com-
memorate the Victories by Sea and Land, be laid out
in the erection of a Parish Church for that purpose.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQL ER said, •1
that the subject to which he was about to call the
attention of the House was not connected with that
alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman, in as much
as an economical arrangement for the building and
enlarging of Churches throughout the Kingdom, was
very different from the erection of a Monumental
Church upon a great scale of ornamental architec-
ture. At the sane time ha was far from being dis-
inclined to coincide with the-view of the Right llon,
Gentleman on this suliicet—(bear, hear, hear,)—tier

he thought that if the Right
do him the favour to commit)
subject, it world be found that
His own opinion was, that notl
than that National Monument
applicable to purr:es of gent
Mr. TIERNEY expressed
what had fallen frum th• rig',
man on this subject. It was so
view had been adopted in th
could be molt advantagccu:l2
into execution, that he ccAlcl
the I louse upon it.

BC:LDING AND ENLARSTNI

On the motion of the CHA
CHEQUER the House they,
Committee on that part of the
Oteech•whicll related to the bu

The CHANCELLOR of
Perhaps no communication
made by the Crown to Partial
as having given more generai
don at large, than that conti
under the consideration of till
was considered, that so long
Parliament had found it i.et.e
large scale, with the same v'
then voted by Parliament ha,
erection of no more than el.
was considered that since th

done by Parliament, it waq m
the public should look with a
tude to a proposal of such a
have justified the delay whit
the circumstance of -..he count
in a long and expensive `A.
the exetuun of i*.s utmost ener
the war much had !seen done '
the Ecclesiastical Establishm.
berality had always been In:
ions. But any liberality of

inefficacious, if there was no
tion for the population in pI
Within the period which he I
mense increase in the popula
concentration of the populat;
there was a total %sant of

greater part of those inclined
—The inadevacy claccom
arose from the great cite :<
nally marked out ;
tration of the population, i
provements in agricultural,
facturing districts. In c,
the population of Englitt.l h
increase had taken place pt.-,
and in the ]urger towns. Fr(,
the table of the House,

Regent, it appeared that th,
in the parishes in the sever:a
those parishes of which the
thousand, and the church.ts
modating half the parishig)
11,600; in York, 8,709; in
ford, 2,422. So that the prof
in the larger parishes in Li
Oxford, m the ratio of foth
the expedience of the ',rope
to make on the general nom
Nvould be better to introd
striking cases. From the Item
tioned he might select 27 pari
raged excess of the populatic7
datien was 20,000 persons.

were in the metropol;s. In t
in the Fields, in which the de
some others in the metropot
sons for whom there WAS no
parish in Liverpool the whole
and there was accommodatii
ing a deficiency of 73,000,
accommodation. In Man
persons, there was accommi
leaving 68,100 unaccommi
three parishes which he ha(
210,000 for whom there w;
In stating this deficiency, 1
would he necessary to pro\
the whole number ; of course,
the whole amount of the deli
on account of those who, b'

or necessary domestic avocal
fiom attending Divine Secs
considered that if Service was
a day, it would render it
accommodation for the v. ho
fore thought that Par Lamer
supply the deficiency comp
for the accommodation of o
pulation. Much useful inf.,
was contained in a public:
first sight, it might appear
pulation beyond the accomm'
that every effort must be um
an accurate abstract of the st
the accommodation in place
—The population of Loud<
.1,129,000, and there was
1.51,000, leaving an c.ccss
modation of 9,7,000. In tl
from there being any part oi
ded with accommodation, ti
in the churches than was
nience of the inhabitants.
all the ancient large towr.s.
man origin contained ampls
in those since built, and espee
Reformation, that the greate
From what he had before st
ficiency in the Diocese of
was less striking that in La
York there were o: it c
720.000 inhabitants. and :11
commodation for 140,000, 1
modated. In the Diocese
parishes and ‘..7(28 cl.urchc
was 1,250,000 ; the churc:
240,000, leaving a deficienc
therefore appeared that the
were in the Dioceses of Ls
House must be aware how
most careful clergyman, ht
curates to attend to 40,01 n
poses—for instance, to adi
nwnt.—To give the House
I 91 duty was upon the Clerg•