Star.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Sir J. GRAHAM presented a Petition from the TnhtlAtznts
of the Parish of St. Pancras against the Metropolis Roads Bill.
Laid on the table.

Sir ELM ti HARVEY presented a Petition from the F.
habitants of West Ham agaiust the Metropolis Roads Bill.—
Laid on the table.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a similar Petition frem
the Inhabitants of St. George's, Southwark.—Laid on the table.
Mr. CALCRAFT presented a Petition from certain Coach
Proprietors against the Metropolis Roads Bill.
Mr. P. MOORE presented a similar Petition from the Pro-
prietors of tbe regular Stage Coaches. The lion. Member then
moved the re-committal of the Metropolis Gas Lights Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Ilotstas and Sir J. GiAIIA.K,
the motion was agreed to.

Mr. 1101.51 - SUMNER brought up the Report of the
Newington Vestrf Bill, which stated that the parties with whom
it had originated wished that the Bill should be withdrawn.

DINISON expressed his satisfaction that they had
viewed the question in the proper light at last, and hoped that,
in future, cordiality and mutual kindness would prevail among
the Parishioners, instead of the asperities in which they had re-
cently indulged.—Leave was then given to withdraw the MIL
POOR RATES.

Sir J. GRAHAM presented a Petition from the
Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Mary-la-bonne, in
favour of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.

Mr. SCAItLETT expressed his satisfaction that
so important a Palish as that of St. Mary-la-bonne
concurred in the measure he had proposed. It Was
his intention, should the 13111 go into a Committee, to
propose certain Clauses, which would obviate some
Inconveniences that were expected to result from it.
Mr. CURTIES supported the Petition.
Mr. MANSFIELD objected to the principle of the
Bill, as most injurious to the interests of the country.
Mr. CUItWEN hoped the Bill would not, be
pressed, as the state of the country was such that it
would be quite impossible to carry its provisions into
effect at present.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. ASTELL presented a Petition from the In-
habitants of Bridgewater, praying for an alteration
in the Corn Laws. They wished. the non-importa-
tion price to he reduced from 80s. 635. and stated
it as their opirlion, that a free trade in Corn would
tend to the encouragement of industry, and the pro-
motion of comfort among the labouring classes.—
The lion. Gentleman then proceeded at some length
to comment on the evils arising from the fluctuation
in the prices of Grain, occasioned by the Corn Bill
of 1815.
Mr. CURWEN thought the Petitioners had taken
but a %uperticial view of the subject. No man who

inquired at all into the circumstances and condition
in which the farmers of England were placed by the
burdens to whic i they are subject, could for a mo-
ment suppose that a free trade in Grain could at all 1
exist in this country.
Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the Petition.
The reduction sought for was only equal to the dif-
ference in the value of money. He also supported
the observations of the Hon. Member for Bridge-
water on the evils of the fluctuation of prices:
Mr. T. WILSON contended, that it was impos-
sible to regulate the non-importation price of Grain
by the value of the Bank-note, which seemed to be
the idea of the Hon. Member, as long as the Taxes
remained undiminished. •
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. •
LoxiioN WHARFS BILL.
Mr. HUME moved, that the minutes of the evi-
dence taken before the Committee on the London ,
Wharfs Bill be laid on the table; not with a view to'
their luing printed, but that they might be open to
the inspection of Members.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the minutes could not be
• printed in less than a fortnight, and if they were
not to he printed, their production would be of no
use at all.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. C. CAL-
VERT, Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. Hums, and Mr. ELLICE
took part, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and
the house divided on the motion—
. Ayes - • . -
Noes -

. . -

- Majority against the motion - —St
POOR LAWS AMENDMENI 1311. T..
Mr. BIRCH presented a petition from the Minis-
ter, Churchwardens, and other Inhabitants, of the
Parish of St. Mary, Nottingham, against the Poor
Laws Amendment Bill. The Hon. Member said, he
should oppose the Bill in every stage.
Mr. BERNAL wished to know from an Hon. and
Learned Member (Mr. Scarlett) at what time- he
meant to proceed with the further stages of the Bill?
Mr. SCARLETT said, he did not mean to urge
the measure with precipitancy. He could assure the
House, that from different communications which
had been made to him, he found that the Bill was
likely to give more general satisfaction than he could
in the fit st instance have anticipated. The second
reading of the Bill was fixed for to-night, but if the
other business should occupy the House at too great
length, he should propose that it might be read to-
night pro, forma, and that the discussion should take
place in another stage.
Mr. JENKINSON thought that the Honourable
and Learned Member deserved the cordial thanks of
the country for having brought forward the measure.
'The abuses in the system of the Poor Rates in the
county of Sussex, with which he was connected, were
so glaring, that he was only surprised how they
could have existed so long without due notice being
taken of them.
Mr. CALC RAFT said, if the second reading should
take place to night, he should certainly feel it his
duty to discuss the merits of the Bill.
Mr. LAWLEY was convinced that a very strong
feeling existed against the measure in some popu-
lous places.
Mr. LOCKHART remarked upon the severity of
the Poor Rates on the Landed Interest.—Though the
amount of the Rates this year was considerably re-1
duced, as compared with the last, yet there was nol
actual decrease, for the number of paupers had re-
ceived a peat accession.
Mr. D. BROWNE said, that the pressure of the
Poor Rates was intolerable. The country now paid
not less than 1:10,000,009 to the support of the Poor.
A sum equal to the whole expense of the Government
at the time the late King came to the Throne.
Mr. F. PALMER said, that in the part of the
-country with which he was connected, ,the people
were by no means satisfied that the Bill would pro-
duce the favourable effects which some anticipated
from it, and there was a general desire that the mea-
sure should not be pressed this Session.--The Peti-
tion was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. SCARLETT should have acceded to the re-
quest of his Honourable Friend for postponing this
Bill, if he had not been fully impressed with the con-
viction, that the principles of his measure had been
already amply discussed and well understood, Loth
without and within the walls of this House. As to
the opposition of certain great towns, he had expected
that—he was prepared for it. There was never any
great measure passed which did not produce some
partial opposition. The Public would save £.500,000
a-year alone by the decrease of litigations which this
measure would effect—(Hcar, hear).
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT. DUTIES.
Mr. CREEVEY rose, in pursuance of notice, to
submit his motion to the House concerning the Four
and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island
Duties. Ile referred to the objection which he had
made on a former evening to a vote for the repair of
the fortifications in those Islands, because his opinion
was then, as it was now, that those Islands had sup-
plied a fund themselves, which was applicable to
these purposes. He was aware, indeed, that this
opinion was opposed as bad law, by those Ladies and
Gentlemen in the country who derived their pensions
from this fund; but he would nevertheless contend,
that the four and a half per cent. supplied by Barba-
does was applicable, among many other charges, to
the building and repair of the fortifications of that
Island; and he grounded his argument on an Act
passed by the Colonial Legislature, dated the 12th
of September, 1661 He saw nothing in that Act
which authorized the payment of that fund, or any
pit of it, to any Ladies or Gentlemen in this cows-
t,ry, particularly such Gentlemen as were Members
I of that House—(Hear, hear).—Tbe Journals of the
House chewed, that, in 1702, an Address was pre-
sented to Queen Anne, to restore these funds to their
original purposes, they having been taken as part of
the hereditary revenue of the Crown for some years
previous to that time. The Ween did restore them,
in pursuance of the Address: and he contended, that
though since then a contrary custom had grown up,
yet that that custom did not affect the law of the
question at all. The opinions of Lords Godolphin
and Somers were in favour of the view which lie took
of the Colonial Act. It was true, that Lord Chat-
ham and Mr. Burke had, in the last century, large
pensions from these funds, but that did not make the
misapplication of them law. And here was seen the
force of bad example, for no sooner were such great

•

.l