Star.
London, England, 1818-05-26 00:00:00

_.~

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. I
• I
HOUSE OF WEDS, MAY SIS.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a Petition frovo the
Parish of St. George's, Bloonnbilry, in &your of the Poor Laws'
Amendment Bill.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented two Petitions in favour
.1 the Cotton Manufactories' Bill, which were referred to the
Committee thereon.
On the motion of Lord ERSKINE, the order for the second
of the Libel Law Amendment Bill to-morrow, was &s-
-and renewed for that day se'unight.
The Irish Fever Hospital, the Grand Jury Presentments, the
Highways' COnviction, and a few other Bills, were brought up
from the Commons, by Sir J. Nrwmar, Mr. Homers, and others,
and read the first time.
Mr. Lomax, from the Tax-office, presented some accounts
relative to the redemption and sale of the Land Tax • end Mr.
Mammas, from the East India House, an account respecting the
Sales of the Company's Goods.—Laid upon-the table.
The Earl of DERBY presented two frees the town
' Liverpool against the Poor's Laws and Amendment Rill, and
praying the Petitioners may be heard by their CounseL

CUSTODY 01 THE KING'S PERSON.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the-
Bill for amending the Regency Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had several clauses
) propose. In consequence of the objections made
iy some Noble Lords to the mode of increasing the
Queen's Council as originally (=Tided in the Bill, he
had already intimated Lis willingness to agree to the
nomination being made by` Parliament, as was ti*
case with respect to the first conncil appointed under
the Regency Act. He should, therefore, now men-
tion the names he intended to propose for insertion
in the Bill, subject to the approval of their Lord-
ships. • To the present number of the Queen's Coun-
cil, which consisted of eight persons, he would pro-
pose the addition of fours making ie whole of that
body now twelve. If any of the persons nominated
'sy Parliament should decline to act, or if any va-
:ancy should otherwise occur, he would propose that,
her Majesty should retain the power she has under
the present Act of filling up the vacancy. He then
proposed the following names, on each of which the
question was put, and,carried in the affirmative with-
out opposition :—GEORGE, Earl of MACCLESFIELD ;
WILLIAM, Bishop of Losoos ; ALLEYNE, Lord ST.
HELEN'S; FREDERICK MORDEN, Lord HENLEY.
On the first quest of the sill being read,
Lord HOLLAND rose and observed, that the
House ought not to proceed with the enactments of
this Bill, without a strict examination of its neces-
sity. There was nothing stated in the preamble
which in any way accounted for the clauses that fol-
lowed From the nature of the clauses in the Bill it
was to be inferred that his Majesty's recovery was
no longer an event to be anticipated. But if they
were now, for the first time since the passing of the
Regency Act, to legislate on the principle that his
Majesty's recovery was not probable, the measure
ought to be preceded by an inquiry into that fact,'
If that probability no longer existed, why bring in a
Bill merely to remedy the inconvenience which it
was the object of this Bill to remove, when there was
) many circumstances which rendered the revision
of the whole Regency Act necessary ? That Act
was passed with a view to the probability of his Ma-
jesty's recovery. Every measure then adopted, on
the suggestion of the Noble Lords opposite and their
friends, had a reference to that event. Their Lord-
ships were told, as an excuse for the expense o± the
Windsor Establishment, that it was proper his Ma-
jesty should, on his recovery, find again about him
all that state to stiich he had been accustomed.—
But if the probability of recovery had now ceased,
ought not their Lordships to proceed to a reconside-
ration of the whole subject of the Regency ? He,
therefore, could not agree to the first clause of this
:ill, unless it were to be followed up by many other
provisions, which were, in his mind, equally neces-
sary and urgent.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL reminded their Lord-
ships of the circumstances under which the Regency
Act had been passed. There had been then great
differences of opinion on the question of limitations,
and one of the grounds on which those limitations
were defended, certainly was the probability of his
.Majesty's recovery. When, after a year had elapsed,
and the state of that probability was to a certain de-
gree altered, the limitations were removed. He
should be sorry to say, at any time, that the proba-
bility of his Majesty's recovery had ceased ; but Par-
liament, in enacting any measures relative to Cie
Regency, must necessarily legislate on the greater or
less degree of that probability. With regard to as-
certaiwng the nature of the probability, there could
be no necessity for any measure ; for their Lord-
ships must be aware that a quarterly report of the
state of his Majesty's health is regularly made by the
attending Physicians. Would it be advisable, then,
to subject the country to the chance of the inconve-
nience which this Bill was calculated to prevent, in
order to an inquiry, for which there was no necessity
whatever?

Earl GREY, in reply to what had fallen from the
Noble Earl opposite, on the subject of the limitations
in the Regency, should only observe, that he held
zlle whole of the regal powers were given for the
lublic benefit, and that they should, therefore, be
fully and entirely vested in the person who was
placed at the head of the Executive Government.—
With regard to the present measure, in what case
'id their Lordships find themselves? They knew of
,o difference in the situation of his Majesty since the
?assing of the Act, except by a longer continuance
of his malady. But the Noble Earl had said that no
report was wanted, because a quarterly report was
made by the Physicians. Their Lordships had, how-
ever, no information on the important question of
the probability of his Majesty's recovery. Why had
never before now been proposed to alter the Re-
gency Act?—(Hear, hear.)—The Noble Earl was
of opinion, that the country might sustain much in-
convenience if this Bill was not agreed to ; but the
-ountry had been exposed to that inconvenience,
whatever it was, ever since the passing of the former
Act. That Act, which provided for the reassembling
of the old Parliament on the demise of the Queen,
vas passed with a view to the security of his Ma-
jesty s person ; but if that important provision was
now re ed, it must be admitted that the measure
on the ground, that his Majesty is now in
a state which requires in a less degree the care and
anxiety. of Parliament. If they legislate on this prin-
;pie, it was obvious that the provisions of the Bill
ought to be far more large and extensive. There
were many things to be provided for, but he should
at present mention only one. In the ease of the

King's death, after a dissolution, the Parliament re-
assembled, and the Regency Bill placed the demise
of the Prince Regent on the same fasting; but as the
Prince Regent exercises the authority in the
name and on the behalf of #lattjesty, it was pos-
sible that some difficultyinight arise if the writs for
anew election were issued. It was his opinion that
in such-a case the writs would be abrogated ; yet,
doubts perhaps would arise which might create con-
siderable embarrassment to the returning Officer.—
He would therefore propose, that, in case of the de-
mise of the Prince Regent after a dissolution of Par-
liament, the writs issued for a new election should
cease and determine.
The LORD CHANCELLOR adverted to the
quarterly report, which, he observed, was drawn up
by the Queen's Council, and was never made with-
out taking into consideration the opinion of the Phy-
sicians on the probability of his Majesty's recovery.
These reports were laid before the Privy Council,
and might be call‘d for by Parliament. The Noble
and Learned Lord then read over various clauses
which he wished to add to the Bill. They contained
provisions relative to the proceedings to take place
in the case of the demise of the Queen during a dis-
solution of Parliament, and one clause appeared to
relate to the ceasing of the writs in the case of the
demise of the Regent, as pointed out by Lord Grey.
After these clauses were added, and several verbal
amendments made, the Bill was ordered to be en-
grossed and reported to-morrow.

POOR LAWS AMWDMENT SILL.
The Earl of HARDWICKE moved the commit-
ment of this Bill ; in doing which, his Lordship went
over the various clauses, and stated the object of each.
He observed, that the present Bill was not to be con-
sidered as a solitary measure, but as part of a system
intended for the reform of the Poor Laws.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN had, when his No-
ble Friend.moved the second reading of this Bill, de-
clared his opinion that the measure was essentially at
variance with the most important principles of public
economy and private morals, and that opinion he still
maintained. The measure came recommended by
the Committee of the other House on the Poor Laws;
but he must say, without any disrespect to that Corn
mittee, that the Public were far more benefited by
the principles they had laid down in their Report,
than by the Bills they had thought fit to found upon
it. In legislating on the Poor Laws, one principle
ought to be kept in view: if their Lordships could not
venture to cut off the springs of that inundation of
' evil which had overspread the land, they ought at
,least to take care not to legislate on the same vicious
principle, the force of which had increased with the
duration of the system. That system was better de-
scribed in the Report of the House of Commons than
it could be by any words of his. The passage in the
Report to which he alluded stated the infallible effect
of compulsory contributions for the maintenance el
the poor to be the abatement of those exertions and
that industry in the labouring classes on which the
happiness of mankind depend, and the checking of
the impulse of natural affection. This principle, so
ably and truly stated in the Report, was totally irre,
concileable with the provision in page 6 of the printed
Bill, which made it lawful for Overseers and Church-
wardens to take from parents, reduced to the neces-
sity of applying for relief, their children under twelve
years of age. Nothing was more likely to increase
that want of foresight in parents, which was the great
evil of the present. system, than this provision, uhich
held out to the inconsiderate that their children were
to be taken from them and maintained at the public
expense. It might lead to that effect which an emi-
nent writer on political economy had pointed out as
the consequence of infanticide being permitted by
the laws of China, and which was the great cause of
'the misery to which a vast portion of the overloaded
population of that country was reduced. This Bill
created the certainty of getting rid of the burden of
a numerous family, and therefore removed all that
prospect of difficulty which ought to be taken into
consideration on contracting marriage. Its effect
would be to foster new generations of paupers, who
would look to the workhouse as their inheritance,
and who would rely on the public (not on their own)
industry for their maintenance. The expense of this
mode of providing for the children ought also to be
considered. A child could not be maintained by the
parish for less than 201. but it was needless to ob-
serve, that a much less sum given for the relief of
the family to whom the child belonged would be suf-
ficient. What too would be the moral effect of the
separation ? Any system of education which was not
founded on the interchange of the domestic affections
was vicious. Goo and Nature had rendered the che-
rishing of these affections as necessary to the strength-
ening of moral character as hralthy exercise was to
the physical constitution of children. This Bill then
went to establish a system which would counteract
what had hitherto been with pride regarded as the
distinctive character of Englishmen. At 12 years of
age, the children who had been separated from their
parents were to be returned to them; but would the
parents, whose affections the law will thus have en-
deavoured to extinguish, receive them? and if they
refuse, what will the Parliament do with them?—
He was aware it ought to be said, on the other hand,
that many parents would be averse to part with their
children, and mike every exertion to retain them;
but the temptation to improvidence was so great,
and the distress occasioned by that improvidence so
pressing, that few would be able to act on such pleas-
ing impulses. The only true remedy for the evil was
to breed up the lower classes with the idea that they
must depend on their own exertions alone for their
own support.—Another clause to which he felt a
great objection was, that which enabled Parish Offi-
cers to buy land, for the purpose of employing those
who could not find work. If the land were poor, it
could only be cultivated at a loss, and the poor-rates
must be increased to the amount of that loss. If the
land were rich, the cultivation of it with parish funds
would be an injury to those who laboured for their
own support. The whole enactment was the result
of that unfortunate principle that held it out as pos-
sible to create a demand for labour, whatever the
circumstances of the country, or the state of manu-
factures and commerce, might be--a principle so ab-
suid, that it was at once subversive of itself. If this
principle were not abandoned, wages must be brought
to use lowest limit that human misery could endure.
In fact, the Magistrates at Birmingham had actually
on this principle lowered the wages of the nailers,
and told them that they must make up the difference

with relief out of the poor rates. He, therefore, en-
treated the House to consider whether the perseve-
rance in this system would not plunge the commu-
nity into an irretrievable danger, which could only
end in a convulsion. On these grounds, he thought
it his duty to take the sense ofthe blouse on these clauses.
After some observations from the Bishop of LoN-
vox, the Marquis of BUCKINGHAM, and the Earl of
LIVERPOOL, the clause relating to the provision of
children separate .from their parents was withdrawn
without a division.

The Marquis of Lorsnoww, the Earlof HA RROWBY,
and Earl Gitosvnicsa, having made some observa-
tions on the other clauses of the Bill, and several ver-
bal alterations having been agreed to, the House di-
vided on the clause for rating the landlords of houses
of above 4/. and under 201. annual value.—Contents,
'l7—Non-contents, 7—Majority, 10.
NEW CHURCHES DILL.

The consideration of the Report of this Bill being
moved, '
Lord HOLLAND moved the introduction of the
clause of which he had given notice on a former night.
He observed, his proposition flowed purely from the
principle of the Bill itself, and did not go an atom
beyond it. By the operation of the Act of the 22d
Charles IL called the Convention Act, those who
adhered to the Church of England were obliged to
take out a license for the erection ofChurches cr Cha-
pels for celebrating the service of the Established
Church ; and without which the Clergy who offs •
elated, and those who attended divine service, were
liable to the infliction of certain penalties. Though
the Act may originally have been proposed for a
very different object, yet such was its present effect.
Indeed, by the operation of the statute of William
In. these penalties now attached only upon Members
of the Church of England. To do away such an in-
jurious and discouraging regulation, was the object
of his clause, which, being read by his Lordship, went
to provide, that from and after the passing of this
Act, no person in holy orders should be liable to the
penalties imposed by the said Act ; or that no per-
sons who attended the performance of the service of
the Church of England should be liable to the said
though the said required licenses were not
had and obtained. And the Noble Lord moved that
the clause be added to the BiU.

The Earl of HARROWBY argued against the
adoption of the clause ; first, as entirely superfluous,
inasmuch as by an Act passed in 11+12, every atom
or particle of the Act referred to, which went to im-
pose the penalties complained of, was positively re-
pealed ; and in other points of view, as such a legis-
lative provision would afford too great a latitude w ith
respect to places intended or pretended to be for
public worship, he conceived its tendency must be
not a little injurious.
- _ .

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY objected to
the clause. The Bill did not affect Dissenters so as
to make this addition necessary. If adopted it would
go to overturn all the Canons of the Church. He
hoped the present system would not be disturbed,
and that the clause would be rejected.
Lord HOLLAND briefly replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion the
clause was unnecessary, and that if adopted it would
authorise the performance of divine service id a par-
lour or shop.
The clause was negatived without a division, the
Report was agreed to, and die Bill ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMDONS.

A Petition was received, signed by Sir F. Alderson and
others, respecting the Bill pending is to the rating of the Lead
Mines.

Similar Petitions were received, presented by Sir C. Mosca,
from places in Northumberland, Cumberland, &c.
The lion. Mr. Lvercurom presented a Petition from a place
in Worcesterdaire against the Poor Settlement Bill.

Similar Petitions were pri.seuted and received from Exeter
and Plymouth.

The Highway Penalties Bill was read a third time.
The Fast India Shipping Bill, and the East India Marriages
Bill, were ordered to be committed, and the reports were or-
dered for Wednesday nest.
The Negotiable Securities Bill was read a second time.—
Committee to-morrow.
The Widows' Prize Bill was read a second time.—Committee

The Clandestine Marriages Bill went through the Committee,
with some observation:, front General TuoutroN.

The Irish Fever Bill was read a third time, and passed.

LEAD MINIS. ASSESSMENT.

On the order of the day for the second reading of'
the Lead Mines Bill—
Mr. BROUGHAM made some observations on
the modes proposed for the ratio of assessment. He
objected to the passing of the Bill at so late a period
of the Session, and also to its extending liability for
paying to the Poor Rates, instead of narrowing that

Mr. MORRIT argued that the object was not to
occasion an extension of the operation of the Poor
Laws, but to prevent the evasion of payments from
those who were Proprietors or persons interested in
Lead Mines, who sometimes paid on the value of
ore, and sometimes by money from rent. He ad-
verted to former Petitions on the subject, and main-
tained the necessity of preventing undue evasions.
Mr. D. GILBERT said, that no personal interest
of his own swayed him, for he thought that the lia-
bility of the Mines to the Tax was fair in principle;
and, also, that the question had, in some cases, been
got rid of by a mere legal quibble. He, therefore,
should support the measure. There was no view of
affecting the adventurers in mining, but only to
touch upon the use and permission of mining, so as
to make the arrangements of the Poor Rates fair
and equal. On the subject of Peor Rates he remem-
bered that, twelve or fourteen years ago, when he
was almost left alone in his opinions, he was adverse
to the existing system. Upon this very important
subject it would be found necessary to adopt some
vigorous measures, or else the evil would absorb the
means of the country, and lead the way to destruc-
tion. He hoped that measures recently proposed
would, when adopted, lead to very beneficial effects.
In Cornwall, the assessments to the Poor Rates had
proceeded, as in other great Mining Districts (inde-
pendent of Coal Mines), on the ground of what was
received by the Lords. A quibble had been set up
about a reserve of rent ; but it could not be thought
right that there should be a difference between re-
ceiving in kind or in money. One mode should not
be freer than the other. There was nothing particu-
larly new introduced on the subject, but he thought
peat skill and knowledge had been shewn in fram-
ing the Bil. On a question at law, a decision had
been given, which made a difference between the

receiving in ore or in rent. 'Me prepositkin *pre*.
ed to him a fair one, as it left the interests
Lead Mines the same as they had been before, a.;
only endeavoured to amend the regulation at
Assessments.

Sir CHARLES MONCK objected to the PilL Ic.
cause it rendered the owners instead of the °topic:,
of mines rateable.

Lord LASCELLES observed, that all pat •
were agreed as to the fact of the great d;ct,„
vailing in those districts where the principal 424
Mines were situated. The burden of the Nor RA%
in those places was such as almost to at5,,,,,k
rent. It was manifest that much of this C
from the exemption of the occupiers et
from the payment of the poor rate.
doubt that the leases contained covena
with a view to this question of liability, ,
Bill, therefore, if it should pass into a rr
create no practical difficulty. Under these
'rations, be trusted that the Bill, irr.rorut
admitted to be, would at least be .C.lwsul
a Committee.

3 I.

If:

Mr. STURGES BOURNE contcndvd
priety of putting lead mines cm the same •
ing as coal mines, with regard to thair
the poor rate.
After some further conversation between
MORPETII, Mr. Lono, and Sir J. r;RA:IV4, the !
with a.view to the postponement GI tic
the next Session of Parliament, moved, t!.at
be read a second time that day <ix mretth..
The House then ditided—for the
tion 74—Against it E2—Majority 22.
On our return to the gallery, we font••
engaged in considering cn wha: dz.:- the
be committed, which was order&l for Wedriesd.r.
CROWN PROPERTY.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved an irtntb!e A I.!-e
the Prince Regent. for a copy of a:l Fula, rt-.,:v
by the Crown, tinder the will of re •
Towson, Esq. The Honourable a It:
ber said, his reason for makir.g ,;;
understanding a large sun of money. tur.c.-1;:. ;
120.0001. had been bequeathed by -.'ae rata r
charitable purposes, and forfeited ti) t:lc l lc. •
consequence of some formal error iat:te .
considered that, it had happened very en
inasmuch as it might afford the means ti
the expenses of a commission (for educatio:n pr • •
ed by a Bill now in progress throw,;hanothcr
—Ordered.

PRIVI!.r.r.F

The SPEAKER expressed himself de,imns cid»
ling the attention of the House to a sulsject of cons.:.
derable importance, as it affected the order and die.
nity of its proceedings. The House was prohicir
aware, for it was matter of notoriety, that a trial hld
lately taken place in a court of law, in a ere of f,c
King against Merceron, to a circumstance in erh;.h
he thought it necessary to advert. This ciicum.
stance was the examination of the short-hand trim
to the House, with respect to the proceedings cirne
of its Committees. The reason of his not heing
before brought this subject under consi,!eratkn
that he had been unable to procure a correct state-
ment of the facts, the short-hand writers rtes au
being written out. In all former cases of a similar
nature, the House had considered it of import-L.lO
to protect its own witnesses, but this pririlette -s
evidently nugatory, without some restraint rn
proceedings of other Courts. By comfrr—i:l::. I
with Mr. Whittam, of the Journal Office,
that a practice had prevailed for many years, el
keeping that office open to the public, and of gram.
ing office copies of proceedings to any person she
applied for them, on paying a small sum of Trey
per sheet. He could only understand this practice
upin the principle that such copies were pm..mia
to be granted for good purposes, and that the Heat
held the parties responsible for the use made cf
them. But the proceedings of the House were never
publicly produced without its permission. He hal
discovered only one case in which it had been fowl
necessary to grant this permission, and there apyli.
cation had been made for it. It was to allow, ass
the present case, the short-hand writer to the Home
to produce his notes before another Court. It ar
geared also that Mr. Gurney, who was now, era
also at that time the short-band writer. He found,
however, upon communication with him, that be
was not till now aware of the exigence of this neces.
sary form, the parties in the preceding case having
made the application to the House without his kaoir-
ledge. This explanation certainly accounted for the
irregularity ; but it should be understood thn the
necessity of a permission, which applied to the pi*
duction of the Journals, extended to all evidence ekes
before that House or its Committees,
Mr. BATHURST said that he would move a re-
solution of privilege to-morrow.

1 *
........
il Thi
Parisi
4 Aim
Tit
of th 4
4 Cam
H on
1 =
1 : Thi
• Ilighl
from t
and ri
Mr
•
relatli
1 Maw
Bales
Th
of Lii
MTh
11
111 Tt
Bill 1
$ , .
1 Ti
I to ps
I by u
i , - Quee
- had
1 nomi
case
the I
1 • tion
in th
I ' ships
cil, I
pose
body
by F
, ! cans
her I
1 the 1
• prop
ques
out e
'Vu.
HEE,
01
Lc
l i Hots
this
1 , sity.
, whit
lowe
was
• no 1
were
Reg•
Mail
ougi
If th
Bill
was
so rn
of ti
1 .fi :
was
i jesty
the s
frien
. ship:
Win
jesty
all t
1 But
ougi
ratathey
Bill,
pros
nary
I T
ship.
Act
diffe
• and
were
Maj
and
, gree
shot
i bilis
Lim
Reg
less
cert.:
he i
ship
state
attei
to si
nien
orde
wha
E
Nob
in tl
, the 1
1, s publ
i . Llly
Witt ls''ic . 1
I slid 1
f rod
i pass
1 of hi
repo
mad
.
4 ever
the I
.1' I ' it ne
't
• I' gene
of oj
1. costs
cous
wha
Act,
of ti
I was
jest)
now
I, • proc
a st:
1 anxi
cipl4
) 1 ougi
wen
i•I at 1
. 1 .•
As
.
••. %
.N. • \