House Of Commons, Thursda...
The Times, 1824-05-28T00:00:00

Petitions were presented, pTaying the house to inquire into the trial of the late 11r. Smith, missionary at Denmerara, fromi the following places:-From Preston, Salisburv, Stockport, Birminghiam, Stratford eon Avon, Warwick, Tauanton, 'Tavistock, Shsrewsbury, G*illinghsAm. Stirling, Seaforth, Mlaidstone, Kingston-upon.Tham(n, Thames. Dittcon, Tooting, Gainsborough, Barton-upon.Huniber, Mlalton., Sheffield, Cleckheator', Hinclkley,.5firfield, Heathley, and rthei places in Yorkshire. A petition wa-s presented against the beer bil, from the victuallter and brewers of Fambarn, Surrey. The SPEAKER notified to the house, that the st'ate of private busines was such, that public business might, for the rest of the Seso,cmmence at a quarter past four o'clock: of course this =ol epend much upon the metiiberswho had petitions to present; and in& order to ensure to the house the adlvantage of com. mnencics.g public business, it was indispensable that he should be enable to enforce the regulation which had usually been adoptedl-namely, that upon his caUing the names of mermbers sel down to preent petitions, if those members dlidl not answer; they should not afterwards, in the course of that evening, be allowed te dea Ithe public business by being again celled upon. (Hear, hear.: MrZ. 'GRENFE[1,L presenteda petition from the Royal Bxcbanige Assu-nnce Company, praying to be heard by counsel against the bill for incorporating a naew Marine Assurance Company.-.Thie pe. titlor was wranted. Mr. F BUXTN preenteda peition from the operative silk. weavera of Loudon, against the repeal of the Spitalfields acts. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition ftrom the curriers and othcrs concerned in the leather trade of WVaterford, against the ex- tension of the new scale of leather duaties to Ireland. Mr. F. LEWVIS maid-the application of equal duities would faci- litate the commercial intercourse between the two countries, and rid the trade of thte pestilent effects of custom-house search. Mlr. CURWEN presented a petition from Whitehaven, praying for an inquiry inec the case of the Alissionarv Smith. Similar petitions were presenited by the same hon. member from 'Workington; bv Mr. Hl. DAVIS, from Bristol; by Lord AL. wisoets, from Kettering; by LordI STAN-LEY, from Bolton-le- Mloors and fromi Blackburn ; by Mr. DENMw?L-, from Nottinghasis. from Sutton-in-Asbfield, from Braintree, and from Bucking; b3 31r. D. GILBaEiT, from Bodmin; by Mlr. C. PELHAOr, from Os. westry; by Lord Ce.esTONT, fromn Gravesend; by Mlr. BEN'ST5 (Wilts), from Westbury, Trowbridge, and several other parishes.- Ordered to be printed. Mlr. M1. DAWSON presented a petition from Clonmel, agains ziegro slavery.-O~dered to be printed. AMr. CUJRTEIS presented a petition from the butchers of Lewes in Iftvour of the hide-s and skins' re'gulation bill.-Laid on the table Sir 11. W?. RIDLEY presentedI a petition from Newcastle-uipon Tyne, praying for the -repeal of the act by which certaiin companie enjoy a mnonopoly of sea.insurancts.~-Ordered to lie on the table. Led NUGENT presented two petitionis from Stoke Mlandeville in Buckinghanmshire, praying for the repeal of the leather-tax.-Or. dered. to b'e printed. Sir E. KERRISON Presented a petition from the tanners of Idle aant the',iides and skins' regulation bill. Mr.IANLNING presented a petition from the underwriters o Lloyd's Coffee-house, praying to be heard by their counsel agains the mnarine insurance bill. Mr. ELLAICE had no objection to hearing colsnsel, but he wishep the attendwio of thie house to be diriected to the subject,which was on of scrious, importance to thie miercantile interests of the country. Mr. M1ANINING said, in reply, that the house had already or dereli couns3el to be heard in the case of two other companies inter estea in this hill. M r. ORENFELL said, that the objec-t of the bill was not si much to (lo a-may with ans alleaed monopoly, as to deprive two coin poisof chiarters for which they hiad paid large sums of money.- Leave wiat theni givenl that counsel should be heard on thie secont reading of the bill. .11r. HUM1E presented a petition from the tanners of Stow. market, against else hides and skins' regtilation bill. The hon member took this otspo-,unity of asking the righat bhon. the Secretar3 for the Trexauryv what ]ho intended to do with this bill ? M5r. LUSIIIN'GTON said, that until th reotfthe conimittei on this subject Should be oni the table of the housr, he could no -nswer the hon. member's question. He believed that report woub( be ready infewas Lordnl A LHOR tPooe, for the purpose of presenting a petitioi to which lie wished particularly to call the attentioni of th iAqhtc 4asiqnxabl thLe A5ecretqr.oP9tJf. 1~ nva hroR~av purpoirting to be a Protestant catechism, whirls contained th, most scrandalous impntations against the Roman Catbolica. r stated among other things that Protestanits wvere regarded as here. tica by the Roaman Cathiolics, who loo ked upon it as lawfull to perse. cute and destroy them, being assured of abtOlutiOn bY the Pope fot so meritorious a work. This catechiism was now published by tbn Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, and was reprintee frOm a catechism. which 'was formerly used by the Protestani chartered schools of Ireland, but had been withdraiwn by their, mnany' years ago in consequenice of thle unjuist Drejudices whichl ii fwas tho!Ight to have excited. The petitioner 'expressed hiis tin. feigned regret thiat he was comapelled in his own defentce to point oul to the attention ofthle houise the attempt which had been thus made bv a Minister of the Christian religion to cherish, by mneans of fana. tical misrepresentations,that religious animosity which it was his duty to endeavour to root out. The Petitioner disclaimeLd in the most unequivorcal manner the tenets wkich in this pamphlet were imputed to the whole of the Roman Catholics; aind stated that he had taken that, oath of allegiance which had been Prestribed by the house to perons professing the same religion with himself. He Prayed the hOuse to express their strong disapprobation of such attempts to in. pute disloyal and unsocial principles to those whow had been declared by a majority of the house worthy of admnission to all constitutional xights.The noble lord thought nothing couild be miore wholly unjustifi- able than those atteMpts, biut they assumed even amore Objectionable character when they were made by a society composed of men who Ouzbt to know so much better, and who, he thought, wouldl be well advised to discontinue them for the future. On the bringing up of the petition, 31r. PEEL said,after the manner in which the noble lord had di- rected this petition to) his particular attention, he was unwilling to let it pass wvithout saying something. He could assure the noble lord, that to the best of his recollection he had never seen the pub- lica tion, nor had he ever before head the name of the individual 'Whose conduct was complained of; but if the object of the publica. tion Was really to excste religious animosity, he had no hesitation in nyn,that the circulation of it had his entire disapprobation. He reoleted that abouit twenty years ago, (he believed4 a catechiism had been used by the Protestant chartered schools, in Ireland, which it seemed was liable to great objection, and that cate- chism had been withdrawn, in his opinlion, very wisely. With- ouLt saying any thing fairther uipon the statemient which, being ex- -Pferte, the experience of the liouse would teach them the impropriety of adopting irmplicitly, he repeated, that it was imuposil oi toapprove of any attempts like such as were cliarged in it. Mir. PHI[LIPS bore testimony7 to the respectability of the peti- tioner, who waswell known, and mueh esteemed by many of the gen. tlemen about him. He deprecatedI the attempt which had been made to imp ute to Roman Catholics religious tewtes wvhich they had disa- vowedx upon oath. The public ought to be aware of ttie co)nduct which the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge had thought fit to pursue, and he hoped thatsociety would feel the effect of the public indig-nattri, by the withdrawing of subscriptions. 3Mr. CUR WbJ'N was a member of the Society, but trusted they bad not sanctioned the Proceeding which was now cOmplained of. Sir J. NEWPORT would undertake to say that the pamphlet was Printed by the Society'es printer, and that upon the face of it, it pusrported to be published by their authority. The catechism was used in the charteredl schools in Ireland up to 1808. In the edition Published by the Society, the fact of its being so usedl was slated, but that of its having been withdrawn was suppressed. SirF. BURDETT said a few words, int which, as we understood, lie censured the conduct of the Society; but we regret that the very low tone in which the hon. baronet spoke, prevented us from ac- curately catching the geinse of all that he said. THE GOVERI NOR OF B3ERMIUDA. Mfr. WILMVOT IIORTOiN. rosefor thepurposeof requesting an bon. mnember (Mlr. Ellice) to posirkme a question which he had in- tended to ask this evening. de undekstOod it wvas that hon. mineit ber's intention to ask him whether it was intended by his Dl!a.. Testy's Govemnment to recall Sir Win. Lumlcy from Bermuda, that he might answer the charges relating to his conluct. He (Mr. W. Horon)wasot n sitalin a prset to replytothat question, but he leded imslf,if he on.memerwould postpone his question a wek,tha h wold t hatperodbe prepated to furnish him a seciic nswr,by hic th hn. gent. should be aible to decie wethr i miht e epedentso ring the question before the Mr. ELLJICE could have no other objection to the hon. gentle. man's request than that it might possibly occasion such a delay as -noild prevent his bringing the subject forward, which it was his ananous desiec and firm resolution to do. He rather blamed himn- self that he had not done so before Sir WVm.Lumlev' left the country, 'because the charges were of that nature that if thiy were true they could not be justified, ard if untrue, they might readil have beta answered. He shouldlke tolfix Tuesday next for havin aPy as to his question, being determained not to let the sessiotng elapswerwth 4out having the Opiniop of the house on this subject. neas ih Mlr. W. HORTON Said, that as it could not answer any practical purpose to have the question replied to on Tuesday, he trusted the lion, gent. irould fix some further day; he -pledged himself to answer it specifirally before the holydays. Aera few words from Mlr. EFLLICE, Thursday se'nnight was fixed for that purpose. Mr. T. WILSON movedl for leave to bring in,, bill for the better xregulation of the butterTtrade in Ireland. 2lrMC.O.HUTCHINSON suggested the propriety of having the 'bllI printe as early asp posble that the great number of persons ~who were interested in the suuiject might have an opportunity of vwnsidering its tenidency. Sir B. PARNELL opposed the inteoduCtion of the bill. Bir 3. NEWPORT supporte it. After a feU irords froma lr. S. RICE and MLr. Dl. FITZGERALb, U ~voPuezngiven to bring in the bilL. . .. nAUlTAPIr?J T.A'W.. Mr. ZU1 E brought i -n a bill for the repeal of the combinatiOn aws, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on MIlonday. Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual namea George Seymour, complaining that the magistrates of Chichester had refused to allow the petitioner a licence to open a public-house in that city, under the following circumsta.ces:-There were 34 public-houses, in Chichester of these27 belonged to Messrs. fluinphreys of that place, and tlsree more belonged to another in- dividual. The remaining four were ftee, but they all sold brewers' beer. The petitioner was desirous of opening a house for the pur- pose of selling beer brewed bv himselfi He accordingly made ap- plication to three magistrates for alicence, and at the same time pre- sented a certificate in favour of his character signed by some of the most respectable inhabitants of the city. The magistrates, never. theles5, refused to grant the licence. The petitioner stated that this was a great havdship, not only to himself, hut to the public. The petitioner also stated. that the magistrates who refused the liceace were members of the corporation, to which also the MIessrs. Hum- phreys belonged. Sir C. BURRELL said, that he knew that the lcence was re- fused to the petitioner, on the ground that there were already a suf- ficent number of public houses already in Chichester. The magis- trates had come to a resolution not to license afresh publichouse for any person whatever. Mr. HUSKISSON observed, that it was obvious there was na ground for impating an improper motive to the magistrates of Chi. chester. The complaint of the petitioner ought to be against the li. censing system generally. .. .. e- _ _ A h. Mr. HU3ME said, that tie petitioner acc=-' the magistrates who refused the licence were influenced by'their friendship for the Mtessrs. Humplireys. Whether that opinion was well fouindedl or not, he(r Hume) knew not. MVr. M1ONCK thouh thtthe present licensing sytemn required amendment. COvMMITMVENTS BY MAGISTRATES. 1Dlr. HUM II saidl, that ini rising, to move for returns of the corn. mitments by magistrates, he was at a loss to conjectuire upon what grounds his motior was tobe opposed. He was veryvanxious tobhave thie cause aseertained of that difference in the aliliount of commit. ments betweeni london and uther, p laces. In London, the average amount of commitments, distingunished from convictions at suibse. quent trials, did not exceed 27 in the 1 00, whilst elsewhere they were at the rate of 42 in 100. The returns, liowever, as they had been p esented to the house on this subject, were incomplete ; and what he was particularly anxious to show was, that while in somi cases, out of 152 committals there had been ionly 66 bills found, and of that number fl8 only convicted. Out of commitmients of 139 b3 another magistrate, ,conavictions were obtained in 49 cases only. Thi returns, according to the manner in vwihte ee rmda h various police-offices, required amendmnent and enlargement befor the heuse could have that body ofinfornation which he was anxiout should be produced on this subject. This brought him to a consi deration of vital iimportance upon the qutestion of prison-discipline. which bad of late years so much agitated the country, and upon th, contamnination which must have arisen to so great an extent, froir unnecessary commitmnents and imprisonments before trial, in thn manner in which they toocoften occurred. Their extent it wouldbin I desirable to ascertain throughout the whole kingdom; and in hi! iqiies with that view, he had ascertained a most appalling fact whchwas at variance with the general opinio tha crm was on tbis decrease. He had taken the averfges of 7 years, at two distiiset pe. riods--first, the seven years ending in 1816; and next, the sever yer itrvening between 1816 and 1823. In the first period, i. wolde found that there were comnmittedL for trital 36,000 men, ant 1 1,000 women: whilst in the latter lperiod, the commitments wers 78,000 men, and 14,000 womren. (Hear hear.) Surely so appaUiui a fact ought to be fully inyestigated. f the 47,000 committed be, fore 1816, 29,000 bad been convicted; of the 93,000 durins the period since 1816, there were 31,000 against whon bills were not eventually found, or an average of 33 i every100. n Lodon ad Midlesex the proportion wa muchthe ame,andamouted o aout 39 poer cent. Of 18,0Oi comittd drin th lat 7yeas i Lodon anid Middlesex, 11,00. had eenacqittd. n reerrng o teserecords, it was lamentabl to indtheinceas o th nuberof apialsentences. Duiring th first period their number was 1.018, in the second period 1,216; o whc,number in the former 12 in every 100 suffered, and 14 in th lte.Hisobject in calling for further details was to demnionstrat thec fact that some! magistrates had a tar greater allacrity for commit ments than others. and that they even bore the name in their ow: counties of"1 committingmagistrates", to distinguish them from other of their body. It woald be, therefore, performing a great benefitt society, if they. had the names of the magistrates with th returns. He understoodl that in Scotland the proportion of com mitments and convictions did not at all resemble that in England and if that were the fact, his inference would be, that they attende, more in Scotland to the preliminary investigation of the supposed of fender, before he! was consigned to the contamination of a gao: The retuirns for Ireland wouild, he thought, also be importni The honourable member conceluded by mnoving for thie returns aU commitmnents by magistrates in every county in Englanid, Ire lanid, and Scotland, specifying the niames of the magistrates, an distinguishing the commitments from the bills afterwards fount andi the convictions upon trial. He was readly to adopt any sugges tion for the better comprehension of his motion, as he had no dasli to grive unneressr trouble. M1r. PE EL said, that he hiad expected to have heard from the hor member a less objectionable motion than that with which hehad cot, cluded, and the retuirns to which wvould not, in point offact, assist hit in his ulterior object. The honourable member had said, that whit thiese retuirns, with the names of the~ committing m-agistrates, we, mnade, some individluals would be found who were unnecessaril rigorous in their commitments, and who were designated in the' counties as "c ommitting magistrates." He protested that he neve heard of such a distinct class of persons ; bitt what he principal! Irose to show was, that the returns'called for would not raise the it ference which thec honourable member supposed, and would therefos Ibe usele.ssforbhis general argument. For instance,there were seven, iprisons in Englan in which commitments in execution were onl tsiken, and the loan. mnember must not confound such commitmentsi Idue execution of legal process with the summary commitments in tiii lordlinaryvadministration of magisterialduty. (Hear.) Then,agaii -St meinbers were attendingz their duty in both houses of Par liament, there must be other magistrates in the counties, whose re turns in the discharge of their duty must necessarily be largertba.x those not so actively engaged, from lecal remnovals, without ther being the slighitest ground for supposing from the distinction, th undue exercise of power, or any thing but the fair and hionei discharge of duty, wvhich was so usefully and honourably exhii bited by thie magistrates in this kingdom. (Hear.) The lion. mnem her hadx on a former occasion stated somethiing like a printafa cit case, upon the arguments he had raised between the commit ments made by certaini police-magistrates of the metropolis, as conl tradistinguished fromi ttose of others ; and although he did not be lieve there was a more intelligent and useful botly of men in the mna gistracy than the police-magistrates, yet, as they were stipendiary and so far distinguished from the general body of the magistracy, h, thought that a mode of superintendence and inquiry might he insti tuted in their cuse, which ought not to be readily conceded in thi other. Bat he could not consent to call for the names Of tile magis tray gnerll' o th conty i ths anRer-that would be takinj a stp wich voud hae smethng f acriminatorv character, en( on hatvaue ndunstifacor gruns! And f&tther, he mus, repet, hattheretuns hensomde,wouldnot create the inferenes li M.Peel) had conferred with gretcrupnhisbjt wit thee agitrates whose names habenisoemnernt. ducedi thformer discussion-Messrs. Allan, Dyer, and Swrabey- three magistrates of? unimpeachable character, andf they had tdemon. strated to him, particularly MVr. Dyer, that in a given number o1 cases they were bound to commit, or else be liable to an inquiry be. fore the Court of King's Bench, although grand juries subsequently ignored the hills which were sent before them. It wvas quite cleas that in a large mietropolis there must be a great number of cases oi domestic strife, and sudden family dissensions, in which the parties Tush,u1POr the heated impulse of the first moment, before miagistrates. who are bound to take cognizance of the fact, but who do not subsc.' quently appear before grand juries to follow up their comnplaints, their passion having cooled, and their mutual animosities, having sebsided, or been compromised. In a great nuinbes Of these cases thle parties 'were so poor, that it was idle to thinke of the penalty of a forfeiture of their recognizances, where there was nothiing tangible to recover. He thought, therefore, that it would be invidious to publishi the namies of magistrates in any thing which woul hae th apearnce f acriinatryfrm;and( also that.even if dne,it ouldnotaffrd teho. mmbe ttinformation w'hich he hd sppoed as cpabe o beng dr~vd fom t. For these reasns e mst opos th moton,alt~.sg hehadevery disposi. tionto aciitae tle on. embr's.inuirea ponthe particular i~r. D NMIAN said that he concurred in manY of the observa. tions which had fallen frGin the right hon. gentlemnan, respecting the obscurity in which the larger question woe id still remain, after the returns as now called for were produced; but it would be easy to make the distinction requiredI in the returns, so as to show the corn. mitments in executtion, and also those by surimparyprocess. Hecould not, however, concur with the right hon. gent. in thirowing round the magistrac generally,that sPeciesof exemption from inquiry which he had talkced of:on the contrary, he thought that when Parliamient,were every year intrusting such extended, too extended he thought,powers to the magistracy, they were bound, nay called upon, to investigate with a jealous eye their administration, and the inore so on accounit of the liability to abuta which was incidentai in the exercise of all hiuman power. He rathier wished to gee the public eye jealously fixed upon the conduct of magistrates, for the sake of bringing to bear uon their acts the wYTolesome control of public opinion (hear, hear) ; and he could not disguise from himself, that how. ever meritorious as a body, there were many individual cases in the magistracy which required revision and correction. It was singular that the moment the slightest attempt was made in Parliament to control or investigate the authority of the magis- tra'tes, it was rmctl by the highe-st panegyrics uPon their general ho- noser and utility'. This renminded him of the remark of a Judge nce at the Ofd Bailev, who, when he heard characters giving by witnesses to notorious iheives, exclaimed, " I wonder what has be- come of the rogues, for every mnan is honest now-a-days." (A laugh.) He would ask thiem, had there ever been a tyrannical magistrate in thee dys f hnet dschrgeof ut? He wishied to see the returs enarge andamened, nd mre particularly after thle ap. palingfac sate byhisho. fien, f the large increase of crime withn te lst evenyeas, s cmpard wth he repeding seven. He ad o dubtthat i th reurn wee gven as aled for, the industry of his hon. friend would be,a tawy was, coaspica- ously exercised for the benefit of his conr.(er.) Sir B. KiNATCHIBULL defended the cod ntfth agistracy, and said that if there were any individual cases of undue sevenity, they were sure of correction from the neighbouring miagistrates themselves. Mr. HOTJM.IE SUMNER. saw no ground fof this motion, for-it would be useless to name the magistrate and the case without an in. dividual detail and explanation in every instance. M,Vr. CURWE N deniedl that the motion imnplied any cen sure upon the magistracy; if it did, it should not have his support. Lord STANLEY was sorry that his honourable friend had talked of there being in the counties thOse who were called, by way of a distinguishing severity, " COmmitting magistrates," without particularizing the individuals or places, which would prle- vent the effect of a vague and indefinite imputation. Mlr. DENAIAN explainedl. Sir C. BuxnRELL and.Mr. DicxsHNsow said eachafewod iint the motion. , od Mlr. LOCKHART thought the motion should not be entertained vithout good ?round being shown ; but even if the return as moved orby the honourable memfber were on the table, unless the cdrelm- itances under which each prisoner was cOmmitted could be kon so light would be thrown on the conduct of th Wii5 lUIr. Alderma WOOD Saida few words it, emagisracy Mr. Pftrt sa, tit if the hon. mknmbet forAbexIeeft *1a select auy one case of improper conduct by any magistrate,in a com- mittal not followed up by a bill found by-the grand jury, he (Air. Peel) wouildbe ready to give-h m everv a tsistance. Mlr. IFlUME said thatproposalof the tight honourable gentle. man was already answeTed in the petition which he had presented to the house some short time ago. But he had cautiously avoided, on the present occasion, mnaking any individlual charge; and had ex- pressly shaped his motion forageneral retusm,to avoidanyrpamssibilityI of it being imputed to him. If the right honoarable genteman would lay on the table returns wbich would distingtish the commit- ments frem the summary convictions, he lMr. Hume) would with- draw his motion; and if those papersdid iorjiu his view of the question,w he would not agalrJ trouble the haeiLt'ssijetcc but if they did, he should certainly again caU their attention to it. Mlr. DAWSON saida few wrords against the motion. Aldermnan WOOD explained. Alr. HUMIE expressed his wish to withdraw the motion. Mfr. PEEL said he could not consent to that, he must negative it. The house then divided, when there appeared:_ For the motion, 8 1 Against it, 81-Majority, 73. On the return of strangers to the gallery, we found Mr. HUDIE on his legs. He was observing that, without mean- ing to lay any general censure, he must say there was such an esprit de corps in the country gentlemen, that he never knew a single in. stance of inquiry being caUed for into the conductof magistrates, that they werenotimmediatelyupinarms tostifle allinvestigation. Ithad certainly been his understainding when he submitted to withdraw his motion, thattheright hon. gent. would givebim theinformationcor- rected according to his owJn statement. He would now move for re- turns of the number of persons charged wii criminal offences in fre. land, and committed in the years 1822 and 1823, excepting such as were committed under the insurrection act, ilr. PEEL denied that he had given any pledge to the honour- able member to induce him to withdraw his former motion: it was the hon. and learned gentleman (Mlr. Denman) who had first suggested that course, but he(Mlr. Peel) had all along argued lagaunst it. . Mr. CUBWEN thought the right hon. gentleman calumniated the msagistrates of England, in supposing that the most rigid inquiry into tbevr conduct wvould not be for their honour. MIr. FYSHE PALBIER could not see that the motion cast any stigma on the mpagistrates. If there were any who did not do their dutv, inquiry was s3esirable, to show who they were; and certainly those who discharged their duty in a proper manner must be pleased that their conduct should be placed in a proper light. He was friendly to the inquiry, and was sorry for Ithe decision against the last motion. He had understood the right honourable gentleman would, with certain amendments, have sup- ported it. . Din PEEL said, it would take some time to suggest such amend- ments to the motion as he could agree to. Air. DENMAN said the right honourable gentleman was cer- tainly correct, in stating that the proposition for withdrawing the former motion came from him (Mr. Denman); but the debate had continued some time after he had taken the liberty of suggesting that course to his honour4ble friend, and he bad left the house, with several other members, not imagiDing any division would take place. He did think that his hon. friend (Ir. Hume) had not been quite fairly, treated. There did appear a considerable de- gree of soreness on the part of the magistrates; but this stolen marchwas nota measure which would at atl tend to raise them in the estimation of the country. Itwas eaid that no case had been made out; ;but howwas it possible to make out a case against the whole magis- L tracy of England ? But in fact nothing either was intended or could l be soimpatcd. It was only desired that themagistrates should ac- knowledgethat they werehuman, andliablertonistakes in common twith all mankind. He was so assuredof thegood that would result from it, that he trusted sonie motion would be carried, for having returns constantly laid on the table, to show the numberoF commitments imade byevery magistrate, distinguishing those fortrial from the sum. marv convictions. ma{ co. \V~WISS thought the rnotion would have a tendency to lower the magistracy in the minds of many persons notso competent n to form a correct opinion as the members of that house. , Sir W. DE CRESPIG(NY said a few words, which were inau- e dible in the gallery. f Air. T. WILSON thought that no case had been made out for in- e guiry, and that when motions of this kind were made groundlessly, a the result must be injurious. In defence of magistrates who were not members of that house, he should oppose the motion. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, he did nofsce the necessity for the honourable member's anxiety about the absent magistrates. He (llr. Hobhouse) woald be glad to know what difference there was in the instance between the Government and the magistrates; and when, he would ask, was it known that the Go- vemment ever refused any information of the kind ? Much had been said in praise of the unpaid magistracy; but as he generally had the misFortuue to difler with the majority, so in this instance lie must say he did not think so highly of them. He must say, in- deed, that he would prefer a stipendiary magistracy, who would not think it above them to render an account of their conduct to those unpaid magistrates who exhibited on all oceasions such a noli-me- tangere dispositien. The mode of proceeding of that night was not, asitwascalled,standing up for themagistracy, but shuttingthe door against all inquirv. But there ougkt to be inquiry into every thing which did not uselessly take up the time of the house. He must observe, that he had, in common with other gentlemen, mis- = taken the right honourable gentleman on the discussion of the pie- -ceding motion. M r.l.. MIONK said that this information was necessary for the house, if it were merely with a view of statistical information, It was desirable that the house should know the amount of crime, and whether it was on the increase or not. The number of summarycon. victions,too,was important to be known; for as that mode of proceed. rag was asuercession of the common law and the trial by jury, it rwas essentialto observe its operation. After a few words from Sir WV. DE CnEsPIGXY, and Mfr. PEL. HAMC, AMr. HurmE briefly replied. Thehouse then divided, when there appeared- For the motion, 341 Against it, 711 Ajajority, 37. During our absence from the gallery another division took place or a motion of Mr. HuNim's, for similar returns as regarded Scotland. when the numbers were- ut tare-aamftgsgin o sramngers?to the gallery, we found br. HUME on his legs: he was stating, that for several years he bad observed, that the business which was submitted to committees up stairs was most unfairly dealt with. It was now come to such a pitchi, that it could no longer be tolerated; an alteration must take place, if the house would do justice and render its proceedings re. spected. The business up stairs was no longer a business ofjustice, but one of canvass and influence. Every day they miight sce in- stances of gentlemen coming in merely to vote, and this was a psractice not of one party only, but universal. He had not been himself a frequent attendant of committees up stairs, and therefore it was not till lately that he had been aware ofthe extent of the evil. If the house desired to have the respect of the people at large, every member of Parliament ought to consider himself as a judge, and should express the highest indignation at any solicitations being made to him. But members were constantly receiving letters from solicitors to private bills-a practice which required orobe put an end to. MIembers re- ceived letters requesting they would come down at three o'clock pre- cisely-not to receive evidence or hear arguments, but because adivi- sion would certainly take place; and they were requested, as a per. sonal favour, to ask other members to come down, provided the gen- tleman applied to was sure they would vote in a certain manner. Though there was no law, asin the case of election committees,to en- force the attendance of members at private committees, yet it was the understanding that they should attend as much as possible. If members of such committees were not to be considered as judges, they ought certainly to be looked upon as jurors, and in that light howv would tbey be placed P As being interested, they would be precluded from any voice. But when this was notoriously not the case in committees up stairs, was it matter of surprise that a slur was cast on their proceedings? This was so notorious,that a respecta. ble solicitor had said in his hearing, that with names and money, lie would undertake to defeat any bill whatever. As a consequence, few individuals would now venture an opposition to any private bill, unless they had large funds to carrv it on, or could command an interest either on one side or the house or the other. There was no hon. gentleman with whom he had conversed upon the subject that could object to the necessity of remedying the sys- tem, but they seemed disoosed to defend it on the ground onlv of the difficulty of replacing'it. He had himself been asked, whait it was that he would propose to do; and how such an evil could beob. viated; and by what criterion they would proceed in admitting some members upon committees, and rejecting others. Now he (MIr. Hume) confessed that he had formed an opinion as to the course to be taken; but he thought it in every respect much better that such a matter should be made the subject of their inquiry in a committee. (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, the house should feel disin- clined to refer the question to a committee, he begged to say, that he was prepared with a resolution calculated to remove an evil of this crying nature without a committee's intervention. It was, however, of such a nature, that it would not preclude them, should they afterwards feel thc necessity of doing so, from going into a committee. He could prove to thchouse, that not one of the many abuses that existed in the system of these committees uion private bils, existed by thesanction of the house itself; and he had always understood, that wheen a committee up stairs was vested with the power of caUing for persons, papers, and record, it was vested with the same rights, and was to be regulated by the same rules and principles as theflouse of Commons was vested with and regu. lated by. In their committees, therefore, he conceived that no prac- tice oughe to obtain which was contrary to the spi 't of their own proceedings; but he would cite a few cases to show, that on the contrary, great abuses of those rules and principles were tolerated above stairs. In saying this, he meant to impute no blame to any one whatever. To the system, and the system only, and not to any particular individuals, was the evil to he ascribed. If bon. gentle men would take the trouble of referring to " HeaseU's Prce. denhte," they would find that the observations he had just made were there offered, 20 years ago, in the most foreible manner, and the necessity of correcting the abuses in question insisted upon at very considerable length. His principal object in quoting this au- thority was, to show that there were numerous nrecedents in which the order or principle had been enforced by Par'aiment-tht no per. son interested in the fate of any private bill should vote in the comn mittee upon it. On the 12th of June, 1614, a Mr. Edward Sey- inour was requested to withdraw from the house, pending the debate on a certain bill, such request being found to be, under tbe circum- stances, agreeable to former precedents touching the like occasions. By the entry in the journals of the House of Commons under the same date, 12th of June, 1614. it aDpeared that upon a bill to en- courage the growth of vineyards upon the estate of Lord So- merset, " it was moved that friends might desire atr. Seymour" (whose relationship to that nobleman might have been sup. posed to render him an interested party) "vto seek the Lord" (in other words, to withdraw.) Again, " It, was moved that Mr. Seymour A0 go forth, a.greeably to former precedent; which was detennined, and MIr. Seymour went forth of the door." In that bill there were two families chiefly concerned-the Somer- sets and the Hertfords-and a Mr. Curzon being present, who was known to be a servant of the latter house, it wassubsequently moved by the other party, " that all of the Lord of Hertford's officers should quit their places in that house, and go forth likewise." (Laughter.) Upon an appeal to Mr. Speaker, however, it was de- termined that the precedent had been properly enforced in the case of Ilr. Seymour, the family of Somerset having a direct interest in the measure; but that because the Hertfords were not repre_ I sented as having such ait immediate interest, it ought no' to be I enforced against them; and accordingly it was not. (The I hon. gentleman proceeded to notice very briefly a variety of I cases appearing upon the Journals of the House; which cases, he lcontended, went to prove that the house itself had always refused t to allowv members interested in such bills to be presenti at their discussion: still less had it permitted them a vote on inch occasions.) Now this rule was constantly violated in commit- I Lees; who, nevert}heless, it was quite evident, were bound to observe I Wh. follow the mluesand Oa der of the houie. (heai.) Nate he coiqludedc hebwold just mention, as a strong exemplification of the evil which he conplained of, -that of a committee upon a recent private bill for ineorporating (as we understocd) a company in the nature of a joint-stock coFnpany, 16 individuals, of course members of Parliament, occasionahy'met, and discussed, andvoted, and sat in judgment upon that very measure, and assistedcin the examinstion of the witnesses, they themselvesbeing shareholders of such com- Vany, in various SUmIs, from 30,000!. and 20,0001., down to 5001. Every projector of a new company, for which a legislative sanction was necessarv,now thought it necessaryto have amonghissubscribers a certain numberofmembers of Parliarnent2without whose aidhe could entertain Uttle or no hope of gettin' his bill passed. He (Mir.Hume) contended that the rule to be appliA to committees of the House of Commons sbould be-if not more strict, at least as strict as that which applied tojuries-namely, that no man should be a jude in his own case. The hon. gentleman said, he asked no more of the house than that they would put an end to such a crying evil; and he would therefore conclude bv moving a Tesolution to the following effect:-" That it be a standing orderof this house, that nomember shal vote in any-committee above stairs, upon any question where his personal interest is directly concerned-as on bills for establish- ing dock companies, canal companies, or joint stock companies, of which he s=ll be a member; or in any committee upon biLs for making roads and enclosures, when the matter of such bills is ex- pected to confer upon him pecuniary advantage, or to diminish pe- cunary loss to which he may have been previously subjected; and that the proceedings of committees upon private bills above stairs be henceforward regulated in the same manner and on the same principles as those which this house had acted upen in cases where members so interestedinbils have beenpresent wnen they have been brought forward." (Hear.) Ilr. CANNING said, if he entertained any doubt upon the ex- pediency of adopting the hon. gentleman's recommendation with re- gard to the constitution of committees up stairs, it was not upon the soundness of the urinciple on which that recommendation was founded, for every body must concur with him in admitting that to the hon. gentleman: but he doubted very rnuch whether a new standing order would at all remedy the evil complained of, and whe- ther the adoption of tle resolution submitted by the hon. gentleman would not rather leave the house in a worse situation, than establish- it in a better as to those con-mittees. The right hon. gCllt. then appealei to the Chair (as we apprehend, for the low tone of voice in which he spoke, and the noise prevaihingin the house, rendered him at intervals quite inaudible to us.) in order to know whether the rules of the house itself governed the proceedings of committees? The SPEAKER held it to be quite dear that all the rules by wbich that house regulated its own conduct continued in full opera. tion in every committee that sat above stairs. The hon. gentleman who had opened this case (Mr. Hume had, in his judgment, very distinctly stated this as the ground of is proposition. (Hear.) Mr. CANNING resumed.-He bad always understood that the rule of proceeding on committee must depend in a great measureupon the circumstances of the individual case. The rule might exclude, he thought, in many eases where it could he shown that the interests of members on a committee were concerned in the biUl under their consideration; but the questioil-the difficult question- would always remain, as to who should be admissible mem- bers, and who should not ? (Hear, hear.) Now he took it, that no order of the house could solve that difficulty; but that the matter out of which the abuse arose-and an abuse it certainly was, in the case put by the honourable gentleman- must be let generally to the honour and the feeling of members. So in questions of contested elections. he anorehended that however members, almsat al of them, might be imagined, to be influenced on one side or the other, it was always to be supposed that such questions would be decided upon principles of honour and justice. (Hear, hear.) There seemed to be no difficulty in supporting the mere theoretic principle, which was so properly contended for; but a vast deal of difficulty in enforcing its application. The principle, as he had befsre observed, no one could doubt. If the hon. gentleman could see any prospect of practically enforcing it, he (Mr. Canning) would not object to the resolution: but as it stood at present, it certainly did infer, that up to this period such had not been the principle that the house had laid down, or that if it had so laid it down, the principle bad not been observed. The hon. gentleman, indeed, had 6aid that upon such a principle that hous&ehad formerly acted; but it seemed to have been so in cases only where individuals had had the courage to stand forward and chaUenge the vote of that particular individual who was an interest. ed party. And he could not help thinking, with regard to that bill about the committee, on which the house had heard such a curious account, that if the hon. gent. possessed so accurate a knowledge o1 the particular interests of members in it, and had thought proper te challenge their votes, the question of such chaUenge musthavebeer decided up stairs upon the same principles and in the same way as ii the question had arisen in that house. It did not appear to himthal the hon. gentleman's motion would be at all effectual or conclusive. or in any degree help to cure the cvil of which,with so much justice he had complained. Until a new system could be devised, calculate effectively to remedy the abute that had been alluded to, he (Dr Canning) should feel justified in meeting this sort of proposition b3 moving the pTevious question; thereby not at aU intending to dis. pute the propriety of establishing the principle forwhich the honour able gentleman contended, but evincing his (Mr. Canning's) convic tion, that the proposition which had been submitted to the hous was either not adequate to remove the evil, or not capable of beini carried into complete execution. Sir 1V. DE CRIESPIG}NY was understood to express a ver3 warm disapprobation of the prinple On which the resolution pro posed by his hon. friend was founded, and to deprecate the systen upon whtich committees above stairs were conducted, both as to tli, mode in which membars on them permitted themselves to be can vassed, and the mode in which the committees were got up and particularly as to the wvay in which the " wanderinl members" were brought in and frequently voted, in utter ig norance of the anterior proceedings of a committee, and withon the benefit of that knowledge of the business before it which the re gular or sittingD menmbersofsuch comnittee must necessarily posses. Ar. S. WORTLEY entirely concurred with his right honous able friend (M1r. Canning) In thinking, that the house would be ra ther diminishing the groand upon which it stood in regard to its con] miiittees of this nature, than gaining any better station or footing, if i acceded to the proposition of the hon. gentleman. He knew tha _- _.ve u.. i. i6e~ cominittees: 2but he could not exactly agre with the hon. member forAberdeen in thinking the subjectaprope one for the discussion of such acommittee as he wished to refer it tc He fully concurrecl with the hon.baronet (Sir Wiliam de Crespigny in condemining the practice of members coming into a committee a a late hour, and voting on a qnestion on which they had not heard; word of the arguments o- the evidence; but he thought that the re solution of the hon. member was not the best mode of remedyin1 that evil. Mr. P. GRENFELL would beg to suggest to his hon. friend (.lIr. HIume), after all that had been said upon this subject, to with. draw his motion. At the sanie time that he suggested this hN would say that the house and the country were indebted to the hon member for having brought it forward. (Hear, hear.) Fronm his (Alr. P. GrenfelU's) own knowledge of the practice of one committee, at which he had attended for a considerable time, he would assert that the mode of proceeding was not only a perversion, but a denial of justice. It was quite hopeless, in many cases, to expect to carry any thing against the views of particular parties. With the knowledge which the house now possessed on this subject, he did hope that some remedy would be speedily applied g and if the forms of the house, after moving the previous question, would allow his honourable friend's withdrawing his motion, he hoped he would do so, and move that a select cem- mittee be appointed to inquire into the evil, with the view of ap- plying some remedy. Some such course was absolutely necessaryto rescue the character of the House of Commons from the disgrace which would otherwise attach tothem, from the modein vhich busi- ness was conducted in some of their committees up stairs. From what he had seen of the practice in some committees, he would state this-" Let a private bill be brought in on the first day of a session, and let that session be the longest known in thehistoryof Parliament, and he would undertake (provided he got money enough) to prevent that bill from passing, by the delays which he could (according to the present practice) occasion in its progress." He had known an im- stance, in committees, of acounselspeaking forfive hours and a half on onepoint,andanotherspeakingtwo hours and ahalf on thesame point; and let the house understand, that this mode of proceeding would occupy a committee for two days of their sitting, for the committees seldom met before half.past 12 o'clock, and they were necessarily at an end when it was known that the Speaker was in the chair in the house. But this length of speaking, to which he had aUuded, was not confined to the real object before the committee. It had often no more to do with it than if the counsel were to take a page oUE of Hume's history and discuss its merits. (A laugh.) But it was of no use to interrupt counsel on such occasions, for the interruption and the arguments to which it would give rise, would occupy a stll greater portion of tme than if he were allowed to proceed. For the truth of these remarks, be would a ppeal to any member of the house who was at all conversant with the practice of committees up stairs. He could not, while he was upon this subject, avoid ad- vertig to the practice of canvassing members out of doors for their support to particular measures before private committees. This was carried to an extent scarcely credible. But this was not a modern evil-and here he was reminded of an anecdote of the late Dr. Burke, who, being warmly urged by a lady of high rank to give his support to a particular measure then before a private conmmittee of the house, replied "hI am xtremely sorry I cannot oblige your ladyship, but I have already promised my iwojutilC to the op. posite party." (itear. He (rt r. Grenfell) concurred with the aug. gestion made by an hon. meiber, that a private bi l should in the first instance be esubmitted to the consideration of five members who should declare upon their oaths or their honour, that they had no interest whatsoever in the measure, andl that they would decide upon it according to its merits. In conclusion, he would again recom- mend to his hon. friend to withdraw his motion for the present, in the hope that the existence of the evil being admitted, some effl- cacious remedy would be speedily devised. MIr. B. ELLICE concurred with his hon. friend (Alr. P. Gren- fell) in suggestingthat the motion should be withdrawn, and that jn lieu of it, his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) should give nodce of a mo. tion on the subject for next session. Sir M. W. RIDLEY was of opinion, that a more strict attention to the standing orders of the house, with respect to the time for bringing in private bills, for their second readings, and for receiving Lhe reports, would be the best remedy which, under aU the circun. stances, could be applied to an evil, the existence of which was not lerned. When the house considered, that there were as many as thirtv and sometimes forty committees on private bills sitting on the ;ame day, how could they expect that any proper attention could be iaid to them all ? If the standing orders with respect to such bills vere fully enforced, he had no doubt that it would be found an eff. :ient remedy for many of the inconveniences which were rnow Com. .amined of. Lord STANLEY agreed with his honourable friend the member br Coventry (AIr. E. ElUice) in thinking that it would be better to vithdraw the present motion, and give a notice for the next session, when the subject might be more fully gone into. He thought hat a great deal of inconvenience was created by the inattention ,f members who were nominated on private committees. He him. ielf had recently witnessed the inconvenience produced by the non- ittendance, at the appointed time, of members on private coni- nittees. Mir. B. WILBRAHAM recommended to the hon. member (Mr. E'uTme) to withdraw his motion, and, in lieu of it, to move for a se- ect committee to inquire into the evil complained of, and to report heir opinions to the house. He would not, however, wish that such ommittee should be delayed till next session. If such delay took lace, it would be too late to regulate the standing orders for private ills for that session, which would be settled long before the com- aittee could come to any decision. -Mr. SCARLETT said, that if the house made the regulation, bat no member in aprivate committee should vote upon a question t the discussioi of which he-was not present, (which he himself did I ot object to,) it might happen that the public, seeing the im. ortance thus attached to private bills, would by analogy pray, that 0 member who had not been present at it8 discusMon should be N i 0or'ea to itok uptif sWy pAt be hih >. t ' very. reasnable re.quest,m tihbefQslsdconvenlent in some ea.i: hIr. ElUME said, thataterhat h bzdheard onthe subjectnc hadnoobjection to withadrmwhis motion,if the forms of tbe ho' allowed it; batin lieu of it, he would beg,to submit a motion fc%i committee to-inquire into the subject-thatinquiry h ' f place this session. q howe,er,to t Mr. CANNING said he would withdraw his amenament of previous question, in order to give thehon. member an opportuni of withdrawing his motion; bat he would recomraend to the ht7 memberto attend to the original suegestionof givng a notice of ai tion for the next session, rather than the present, as the COMMi would then have sufficient time for going fulyintothe question. woaldnot, however oppose the motion foracommuttee in the presf session, though he tbought it would be better to delay it til the nc; At the same time he would admit that considerable bene&t would derived from the present discussion. It would see to pointout evils, and many of their causes; and after all, he thouPhbtthe b- remedy would be found in the good sense of iividuari emb- who, seeinz the evil clearly, would in future be disposed to avoid MIr. HVIJ'E observed, that before bringing on the present p tion he had conversed with several members on both sides of housie upon it, and the general opinion seemed to be thw, a committee should be appointed it ought to be appointed n present session, for If it were delayed, it would go abroad thai was intended only by the delay to get rid of it. If the comm!t shoald meet only two or three times in the present esion th meeting would be productive of considerable public advantage. The hon. member (having obtained leave to withdraw his origi motion) then moved " That a select commltteebeappointed to quire whether the present mode of conducting the pnvate businest the houseabovestairs requires anyani whatregulation andalterat and tbat the commnittee do report the minutes of their proceedb, with their opinions and observations, to the house." Tr. S. WORTLEY said it would be better to allow the!wb matter to stand over to the next session; but If it was the 1ieas of tie house that the committee should be now appointed, he we not oppose it. Ir. CANNING could see no necessity for the comMIAteerep, ing the minutes of theirproceedings to thehousein theprr;sents,, Mr. flUM1E had no objection to that part of the notion be Mr. P. GRENFELL expressed himself ia favour of the coa miittee. lr. C. FORBES thought that if thehouse went to reform tl committees above stairs in th-emanner suggested, it would be X suggested that they ought to begin by reforming themselves be. stairs. (Hear.) Objectionsweremade(andhe did notsayuin perly) to members voting in committees above stairs upon subjF which they had not heard discussed, and of which they were norant; hut what was their conduct below stairs.? Here there w a certain number of muemnbers present at the sitting of house at four o'clock. The public business commenced, X went on, but before seven o'clock the whole of the members v changed. Some went away altogether, and many others went dine, and after remaining at dinner or elsewhere for several hot they came back at 9, 10, or 11 o'clock, and thea voted upon qr tions which had been. discussed in their absence, and not onewori which they had heard. (Hear, hear.) MIr. CANNING remarked that though he looked with disti uponall kindsof reform, he did not think the one now proposed wo have the effects which the hon. member who spoke last seeme anticipate. He still held his former opinion, that it woald better to have the committee appointed in the next session, bat seemed to be the wish of the house that it should be appointet present, he would not oppose it. The motion was then put and agreed to, asd the commii. pointed. CUSTOMS BILL.-IRISH LINEN BOUNTIES. The CHANCELLORof theEXCHEQUER moved the te reading of this bill. Mr. DENNIS BROWWNE objected to those parts of the which went to repead the bounties ou Irish linens. This, he X ceived, was an act of great injustice towards the Irish,who has all occasionsheretofore been encouraged in thelinen-trade. Ele moved that the petition of the coanty of Mayo against the repez the Irish linen bounties be read. Tbe petition having been read by the clerk, Mr. D. BROWNE, said he would now move that the addre of both Houses of Parliament to King William, in the year 169E also read. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH-EQUER suggested, as it was not convenient to get immediate access to those docume the right hon. gent. might move, that they be entered as read, then he might make what comments on them he pleased. Air. D. BROWNE said, that if the house allowed him hewi (though it was not quite regular) read the resolutions to which referred, from a private ook. (Cries of " Read, reed.") The r honourable gentleman then read the addresses of the Houscs of Parliament to King William, in the year 1698 wrhich they pointed out to his Mlajesty the injury which likely to accrue to the inhabitants of England, by any courazement of the woo]len trade in Ireland, and they pra that that might be by every means discouraged, but that the lh trade might be encouraged there and that they would concur in measure for ia protection and advancement-provided that the I woollen-trade were discouraged. The right hon. gentleman read the answer of KCing William to those addresses, in whicl iajesty stated, that "' he would do all in his power to discou the Irish woollen-trade, and at the same time to give protection aut couragement to the linen trade in that country.' He then 1 on to sbow, that the Irish Parliament passed a bill foanded v those addresses of the English, and that thie woollen trade wa! consequence discouraged; and he contended that the woollen m; facture being thus forced from Ireland, and that of linen force her, it was the duty of the British Government in the present to give the latter manufacture every encouragement. The pre bill, by withdrawing the bounties, -went to discourage the manu ture which was the staple trade of Ireland at the present day. would therefore oppose the bilL Mr. Alderman WOO objected to the bill, as it did not ine the repeal of the duties on small coal and culm carried coa.twise AIr. C. H. HUTCHINSON strongly objected to the repea ~~~ ofl~~~~~~~~re]seldthe ...isurouat7 o uf2j-l^"w1elowurce or emplo,rmenit to a g number of poor persons, and that man,ufacture was in-agreat de upheld by the bounties. To withdraw those bounties would, contenden, he unjust towards the individuals engaged, and hi1 impohtic, when the state of that part of the country wvas consider. After a few words from Lord MILTON, Sirl. W. RIDLEY, Mr. D. BuOWNE, the hoiuse divided on the bill, when there For the third reading, 93 i Against it, 26 1 Alaajority, 67. The bill was then read a third time, and several clauses bh added by way of nder, it was passed. IRISH CLE;RGY RESDEiN'CB BILL. The report of this bil was brought up. Sir J. NEWPORT moved a clause to disable clergymen alr in possession of livings of the value of 4001. per annum, from se 11r. GJUBIM'RN strongly onposed the clause which could be tacked on thus slightly to a clergy residence-biul, but ought adopted at all, to be made a separate and specific subject of I lation. MAIr. PLUNKETT felt that he must object to the clause of right hon. friend, not because he was not directly opposed to an vestigation of that very important question of pluralities. Thon was strenuously opposed to any intezference with the property church, he did not carrv that opposition to the extent of denying there might be a beuefieial modification efieted with res to pluralities. Should his right honourable friend introduce measure of that nature, he should be most happy to give it his a port, so far as a sense of public duty would permit. But his ri hon. friend must be aware. upon ref'ection, that his clause not 0 ought to be made the subject of a specific enactment, but that must also be accompanied with a peculiar and effective machin to put it into action: for, accordung to the present state of the I it would, if brought in by itself produce the strangest confusion the property of church hvings. WVhat, for instance, would bslik to happen to the patron of a living who should present one of th clergyamen already possessed of another living of the valueof 4001 If he did not know it beforehand, the presentation would be vo and the right would lapse to the next in succession to the freeh property which he had in presenting. The law, as it would th stand, would leave him without'remedy against this evil. on the other hand, he did know of the other living, and still p sisted in presenting, he would be troubled with a gqare impedit, a all the other vexations which could be brought against him at instigation of some one who would most certainly start up to clai the exercise of the patronage by lapse. Sir JOHN NE WPORT replied. The house divided- &-or tne clause, 38 1 Against it, 75. 1 AIajority, 37. The house agreed with the resolutions of the coummittee. T bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. WAREHOUSED WIHEAT BILL. This bil was re-commnitted. Alr. EIjLICE moved a clause to exempt Canada wheat from tI operation of the bill. It would be recollected that the corn to whi this clause referred was imported about the year 1821, and wo have found its way immediately into the market, but from the pas ing of the last corn biUl, which altered the averages so as to exciu this particular class of grain, which bill passed just atthe tiuethat corn arrived here ftom Canada. In faimess it was entitled to enter market,becauseit hadbeen shipped at Canada upon the faith of the scale of amerages. The whole quantity was not consideiable. bw only aO,OOO quarters, one part of which was warehoused at Liver; and another at Glasgow ; so that the London market was in no da ger. In a case of such peculiar hardship, as it was one wb;fh afrecte their fellow-subJects, and could not be stated as a qut?6ion of forei grain, he hoped thatsone indulgence would be sho'wn; and witht h nope, he moved that the clause should be brought up. Ir. LESLIE FORSTER objected to it, as a direqk infraction the spirit and letter of the corn laws, which were deaigned to orotec the British grower against the corpetition of any &rin coming frc abroad, which had not been charged with a weight of taxat40D, eq, to that which fell upon wheat of Brit'sl growth. -Mr.ELLIUEsaid that itwasnot onlythe case cf foreign wheatfe whichhe was arguing, being tbeproduce ofBritishsubjects,butitwq wheat which had already borne much more serious charges than an, intended by the corn avis. te freight was 22s. per quarter, aUP anotker expense of froni 6s. to 8s. had been incurred in the tar house since 1821, which was more than three times the exponae o any wheat import,ed from the European continent. To thirnnustb added, that but for the tal occasioned by the bill now undex, ;onui leratiort, the' averages would have been high enougb. before now t have let out this wheat. 31r. HItSKISSON, though he did not aprove of the genera vrinciple of the corn laws, yet he would with great reluctance b 3roughtto support any proposition whtich could be at allinterprete nto an infraction of those laws. He thought, however, that thet was something peculiar in the present case, which entitled it to Ib atmost indulgence which under the circumstances could be allowed The discussion was further continued byDlEr. WHEIrToRE, 1Ut )URITElS, Sir J. NEWPORT, SirJ. WULOTTESLEY, and MJr WILSIOT JUORTO7i. The house then divided, when the numbers appeared -to be_- -For* tie bringing up the clause, 45 1 Against it, 19. Mlajorit in favour of it, 26. The clause was accordingly added to the bill On our re-adnission to thegalaery, we found Mr. CURTEIS iti iisting on the necessity of some regulations to prevent frauds, 1vhie) 7ere, he believed, constantly committed in this trade, . by rnixitl ,ypsinm with fiour; and he proposed a clause to that ef'ect. Mlr. HUSKISSON said, if the honourable entleman chose t )ring up a clause to that effect, he had no obsjection to disg,sl t, but he really thought the offlcers appointed to inspect' and wh ere in the daily habit of examining various sorth of flour, werc ner ctly competent to distinguish between themn and plaster of Pa'ris. Mr. CURTEIS thought otherwise, and added that it was difficult ven for mnilers to detect the difference betwreern ;exn iae rorm rheat, and that madc from barley. - I .4 Li ElfI M. mp5E<iax th-ra dm; 3:d= aev261iie coa s1 W'Z,tU0-, between Sir J. SrnaorOM, Mr. EId39russo-M, Zfr. GOB. DOS, Art. ELLICE, Mtr. FORSTER. the CrAMCELLOU of the E'X- C-ZQtxs, anld Mlr. GLADSTNE, 'ita.s brought up and read. ZLr. HUSKISSON objected to the wording of the clause. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCElEQUER recommended that the clause should be withdrawn, which sugestion was complied 7ith, and the clause was accordingly withdrawn The house having resurned, the report was brought up, and order- to be taken into further consideration on Monday next. On the motion of Mr. SCAL7 ETT, the Lancaster county courts blwas read n econd time, ad ordered t be committed on Tues- rhe other orders cf tbe day were then disposed of, and the house cAluxncd at a QUARTER BEFtORE TWO O'CLOC';. HOTUSE OP COUNMONS. THuUSDAY, MAY 27-