Star.
London, England, 1816-05-09 00:00:00

BANK PROFITS.

Mr. GRENFELL said he should move, in the
course of thi. Session, for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act of the 4Sth of the present reign, for
the purpose of causing the Bank to make a consi-
derable reduction in its profits for the management
of the National Debt. He should also make another
motion, on the subject of the unclAisintai <fielders*,
unleis the Right Honourable Gentboons opposite
brought forward the plan wl.ich he intimated he bad
in contennilation upon this subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
stated, that on Friday next he should submit a nos-
sure to the House on the last-mentioned subject.
On the Motion of the COAKCELLOR Of the EXCHIE-
QMILitt the farther consideration of the Report ots the
Busk Restriction 11 was postponed till this day
se'unight.
COMMUTATION OP TITHES.
Mr. CU R.WEN, on rising to move for certain do-
cuments relative to proceedings in the Court of Ex-
chequer in Tithe Causes, prefaced his motion by a
series of pointed observations on the injurious ten-
dency of the present Tithe System, which was in-
applicable to the distressed condition of agriculture,
and had ,a tendency greatly to degrade the character
of the Clergy .them.elves, and thus to injure the
4stablisliment. No persons had so great an interest
In tie commutation of Tithes as the Clergy, and be
hoped that what he had to propose to the House
would tend to lessen and prevent those litigations
which were now too frequent. The object of his first
motion would be to bring into view the conduct of
the Court of Exchequer respecting Tithe Causes,
which he thought to be iontrary to the esublished
lases, and injurious to the security of property. The
Honourable Gentleman took a review of the dissen-
sions which- prevailed on this subject between the
Court of King's Bench and the Ecclesiastical Court,
in the reign of James I. when it was determined that
all Tithe causes should be decided by a jury. but
tin present assumption of deciding on Tithes by the
Court of Exchequer was contrary to law, and at-
tended with injustice and oppression, while it encou-
regal litigatiust. He believed diet !hove one hun-
dred' Tithe causes were now depending in the Court
of Exchequer. These disputes were of the most
pernicious tendency, as they not only created divisions
an parishes, where the Clergy ought to be respected,
but gave rise to caiumnies against them, and thus
afforded to the Sectaries a very great advantage.—
Could the House imagine that pine-apples had ever
bean a subject of litigation with respect to tithes ?
They were no snore the produce of the earth than
the web in the mannfuctory. But such was the con-
duct of the Clergy, in many instances, that it became
high time for the House to interfere, in order to ye-
store the Tithe System, to what it was by law origi-
nal); intended. He should therefore move, a That
here be laid before the House a Copy of the first de-
cision made by the Court of Exchequer, in the year
1687, on the subject of moduses or composition for
Tithes. Also for Accounts of the number of Tithe
Causes instituted by the Clergy, and now_pending in
. the Court of Exchequer, distinguishing the time when
they vivre commenced, as well as an account of the
number decided within the last seven years.
The Motion, after a fewwords from Lord Cum,-
stain's, who did not oppose is, was agreed to.
Ria'aßM IN PARLIAMENT.
f. BURDETT moved for leave to present a
Petition from Eifbarchass, in Rtnfrewshire, on the
subject of Reform..
Lord MILTON said be could not omit this op.
roluetity of mills a fcw reactisks on the sob acct of

a Petition of a silleeier ottluer
Jews nighty ego, from the I."
which time he did not liappeit to
was stated.t• hers been signed by
respectable persons, inhabitants
had been requested by many of
inhabitants of that town, to deny
their part, of the Petition. Althonio . nut
.go the length of saying that the contents of the Pau•
tion mightnos deserve the attention of the House,
yet he must state what had come to his knowledg
respecting its. origin. In the year 1812, that part of
the country was in a state of great alarm and agftao
lion. from which it was now-happily relieved. ' At
that time. a venerable patriarch in the cause of top
form (Majdr Cartwright)visited Huddenfield,haviog
with him several printed copies of the very Petition
that was now presented to the House. This was its
origin, and it was singular that it should be presented
to the House three years after the time when the sig.
DAWNS were first solicited fot it. All he wished was
that it ehould not be considered as coming fromthe
most respectable inhabitants of that populous town.
Lord LASCELLES bore testimony to what had
been said by the Noble Lord, with regard to the uri.
gin of the Petition. He held in his hand a letter,
which he read, by permission of the House. It was
signed by. twenty-four of the most respectable inha-
bitants of that towni•who, after adverting to the nn•
happy outrages that bad convulsed it, stated the ar-
rival of Major Cartwright amongst them, at the very'
time when the bodies of the murderers of the late
H4rafall had ban brought there; that he col.
hated see or twelve persons of similar sentiments with
himself, and on being taken before a Magistrate. on
suspicion of his visit being of a seditious tendency,
he had stated that he had a bundle of printed peti-
tions, with which he was going about the country.
for the purpose of procuring signatures. The main
object ot• the letter was to declare that those who
signed it, knew nothing ,of the Petition that had been
preheated to the House, and declaring that nu public
meeting had been convened for.the purpose.
Sir FRANCIS BURDET r said, that all lie
knew of the subject in question was, that the petition
had been seat to him to present, signed by 10,30 g
persons, and he had used his discretion in presen-
ting it.
The petition from Kilbarchan was then ordered to
lie on the table.
Mr. H. AUDINGTON brought up a Bill to
amend the Acts of the 59th and 4t)th of his present
Majesty, respecting the custody of detained persons
charged with offences, which was read a first Um,.
LORD PIIASIDENT Of SCOTLAND.
Sir FRANCIS BUR.DETT said he had soother
petition to present of a totally different nature. It
eras against the conduct of the Lord President of the
Court of Session, in the case of a Lady of high re-
spectability. who prayed the interference of the
House ; she having been deprived by the decisies of
that Court of the guardianship of her children. It
Was a case of great importance, as involving the ad-
ministration on justice. and therefore, if received, it
WAS not likely that it would be long suffered In lie
on the table without farther notice.
The. SNEAKER. having asked the Hen. Baronet
what was the prayer of the petition
Sir FRANCIS 81111.4.)Err said he could not.
irate the particulars from meeneey, but this pre y-.
peered to be, that the House would interfere to bring
back the guardianship of her children, so that they
might be placed under the protection of the Court of
Chancery iu England.. It also accused the Lord
President of injustice and oppression.
Lord OSSULSTON seconded the motion, that be
.might have an opportunity, when the petition bad
been read, of refuting the calumnies it contained.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said the House ought
to be cautions how they lent themselves to a moose
which would mislead the sobject. If it was supposed
that the House would inteifere in the administration
of the course of justice, that course would become'
disturbed and contused. It there was no charge in
the petition of the great Law Officer in question
having committed malversation or oppression in the
exercise of his high office, and if such charges were,
not borne out by a statement of facts in the petition.
the House ought nut to interfere. it, however, it
were allowed to be read, he begged he might MI be
'understood as giving his suppbrt to it.
Sir JOHN NEW4ORT contended that its com-
plaining of great injustice and oppression on the. part
of a high Law °Cheer, was a sudicient reason for its,
being attended to.
Some farther conversation ensued, in which Mr.'
BROLIOLIAII, Mr. W. Dusthait. and Sir A. Hon par-
ticipated,
it was agreed that the petition should be
brought up nnd read.
It began by stating, that Melinda, widow of the
late Colonel George Colebrook., was left by her bus.
band in 1809, sole guardian to their two daughters,
with a jointure of Et2tlo a year, besides property to.l
the amount of £lB,OOO in the New River Company,
and £5OO a year for the education and support of
.each of the children: that she afterwards soarriitl.j
again, and, at the suggestion of her present hatband)?
prayed the Court of Session to remove her childrenl
from her guardianship. It then accused the Lord '1
President of using coarse and calumnious language to
her, and charging her with being such %corrupter ofj
the morals of her children that it was proper eend1
them under better costronl ; that he carried his per-,
secution so far as to prevent professional gentlemen
from affording her assistance, that he threatened.her
with five years imprisonment, and afterwards commit-
' bid her from March till Novemeer ; that he called
on the children to give up their mother, as•she was
an abandoned woman, and that she' was finally' com-
pelled not to correspond with them. The petition,
after many.otber details, went on to argue on the in-
justice and oppressions of this conduct, delaying the
truth of the allegations against her, and praying the.
interposition ofthe House to procure for her redress.
Lord OSSULSTON strongly reprobateil this con-
duct of the petitioner... The interlocutor stated that
she was not a proper persqp to be intrusted with the,
guardianship of her childsen, and the children bad tie
desire to return to the custody of their usetherl . 'She
was justly attached and punished for comp* of
Court, having made,in defiant* of, the Order of the
Court, as attack, by force Of arms&and at.aight.oon
the house in which the children wore, for the piarii+
of taming them out of the kingdom. •• •• •• -
Mr. GRANT staioure-the Mouse srooldoot
suffer is *am to lie an the table; 'Um argued

,

adored tortulitting
pinitifted the wandua of
, could not act on his own
that there was not one word
authorized the inference of ,cor-
was nothing of more impor-
to bpen u doors to the pi-
felt themselves aggrieved,.
~es they arraigned the Aficial administration of
justice, without bearing nut their charges by facts.—
But it ought to shut its doors against all loose alle-
gations of this nature.
Lord BINNING rejoiced that the Noble Lord and
the. Honourable Gentleman, had been beforehand '
'with him 'in did jusacatiun of the conduct of the
lord President, who, he was proud to say, from the
knowledge he had of him through his near connexion
with Hasa*, was totally incapable of any of the
allegations aide against him ; but, above all, be
knew him to be at utterly incapable as any man who-
*vlr lived of exercising oppression over an unfortu-
nate and defenceless woman. The Huuse of Lords
was open to the appeal of this Lady, and he wasalmost
sorry the Petition had been brought up and read.—
He should now move, " That the Petition be re-

jectecl."
•Lord COMPTON said, the Petitioner, by her se-
cond marriage, had, according to the law of Scot-
land, given up the guardianship of her children.
Mr. HORNER stated, the impression on his mind
was, that the Learned Judge, who had had a diti-
, cult task to perform, had not only done his duty, but
had appeared aninsatect by an affectionate conceru tot
tlsq welfare of.the petitioner and her daughters. He
thought it right to state this an the present occut:on,
and the more so as he should on a future day have
to animadvert on the tone of a report made by that
person to the House, which to ham (Mr. Horner)
appeared by no means what it ought to have been.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL took this oppor-
tunity of saying, that printed papers on • the subject
of the proceedings in Scotland on this question, had
beer. forced upon him. ft the practice which he had
mentioned were continued, he wished the parties to
understand, it would not be suffered to pass un-
noticed.

Sir F. BURDETT, in reply, asserted nothing
had been advanced that proved the Petition ought to
be rejected. He contended the facts brcught before
them made in favour of the character of the Lady,
and thought the only question on which they had to
decide was, whether the petition contained any alle-
gations, true or false, that came properly under the
cognizance of the House? Suckanegations he thought
it contained, and therefore he could not help being
of opinion, the petition ought to be received; and it
it were permittkd to lie on the table, he should cer-
tainly move that some other steps should be taken on

the 'batter of it.
Mr. BROUGHAM made a few observations on
the reply of the Honourable Baronet, which were
briefly answered by Sir F. BURDETT ; after which,
the motion for the Petition being laid 6:1 the table was
negatived. The question on the rejection of it was
then put and carried.
Lord COMPTON presented a petition from Nor-
thampton against the Leather Tag. Ordered to lie
on the table.
A new Writ was ordered forWarmick, in the room
of LOrd Bruelio vatted up to the House of reefs.

• • ,tabwCeart was folly
of neawh~ak • .preilioner forflegogempt
, •
bir in the Lord Presiient, who c
sy upwards of I • • isbority and insisted th4l
snt that tows. He, the petition which author
the most respectable rapt motives. There was
ny all knowlcclige, on ,taneethsn for the Holum ti
though he would nut titian of all persons-who