House Of Lords, Wednesday...
The Times, 1824-05-27T00:00:00

31r. BROGDEw and others, from the Gommons, brought up tne Exchequer bils' amendment bill, and other bils. which were read a first time. Earl GREY presented a petition, very numerouslv signed. from the ocerative weavers of Glaszow, against the combination laws; a petition from Hexham, in favour of the countv courts' bill; and a petition from inhabitants of WVestminster, against the power ex- ercised bv magistrates of holding to bail and committing for libel. The petitbn, we understood, referred to the case of 51r. C. Butt, as an example of the abuse of this power, and the noble lord, in pre- sentina the petition, reminded the house that he had some years ago brought this subject under their consideration, and had contended that the practice w.s contrary to law. He had since directed his at- tention very mach to the qu6stion. but had learned nothing which could indluce him to alter his opinion. He therefore concurred with the Tetitioners in considering the practicc to be contrary to the British constitution. The noble earl made several other observations, which were not heard; and the crowd and confusion belew the bar rendered it also extremely difficult to collect any distinct accoant of the subeqhuent proceedinas. The .Marquis of DOWNVNSHIRE prcsented a petition from iMlr. Owen, of LIanark. relative to the application of his plan to Ireland. The EaTI of LAUDERDALE stated a convyrsation he had had with .llr. Owen an the subject of hispltn. He observed to that gentle- man. that he did not know wviether wvhat be proposed would make a better state of socicty than the present or not, but he was convinced that neither this nor any other European Government could exist, if it were carrird into effecL To this Mir. Owen replied, " I see you verfcctly understand mv plan." (Laughter.) The uarquis of DOWNSHIRE observed that 5Mr. Owen's plan w-ith regard to Ireland was differerit from that to which the noble lord had alluded. The Earl ofLAUDERDALEF did not pretend to know any thing of Mr. Owen's particular plan for Ireland. JOINT STOCK COMIPANIES. The Earl of LAUDERDALE had given notice that he would that night, move the addition of two resolutions relative to joint stock companies to the standing orElers; but as he wished to make somn aRendments in she resolutions, he should defer his motion until they were printed. Whea the printed copies were delivered, he would, perhaps on Monday, as we understood, submit the resolutions to the consideration of their lordshios. In the mean time, if their locdships permitted him to adopt this course, he trusted that no bills for incorporating companies which might now be pending, or which mieht now come before the house, would be allowed to advance beyond a first reading. The noble lord then stated his amendments, and the resolutions s.o amended were ordered to be printed. PEERNGES' RESTORATION BILLS. The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the second reading ofthe bill for the restoratinn of honoatsto Win. Nairn, Esq. The E;ri of RADNOR made some observations on the wording of the bill. The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought it would be proper to give the bills a second reading, before any discussion as to the wording took, place. The F,arl of LAUDERDALE objected to the mode of proceed- ing. WThen an attainder was reversed, the party claiming had stiU tR t pMcSin Uguhvernsotb,,lde;Wl,a met him here bv saying anti that the partles ought to prove their cases. This was surely necessary, as there were facts stated in the bills of which the house could know notbing. Passne the bills as they now stood, might in- jure otlier parties wbo would hereafter apply for redress. He hoped that their lordships would in their business take care to proceed with regularitY. The Earl of LIVERPOOL recommended to their lordships, in a ease of this kind, to proceed according toprecedent and usage, which would form in the first instance a better guide than anv reasoning on thesubject. Thereportupon which the bills were foundel was rawn up upon evidencestrictlyinvestigated, and he certainlv should not have hrought those bills down had he not had his noble and learned friend's concutrrence to the course it was proposed to adopt. The cases of these bills were similar to that of the restoration of the title of the Earl of Donraster. He was, however, perfectly willing that 3 committee should be appointed to search for prec.dents, in order that all doubts on the subject mighit be settled. L-ord MEIVI LLE held in his hand a copy of the bill for restor- ing to ite Duke of Buccleucl the titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott, -hich was similar to the bills now on the table. In that cse it did not appear that there had been anv inquiry instituted bv the hiuse. The bill had had the royal signature, and upon that authority it appraretl to have passed. The Earl of RADNOR had now obtained what he had hitherto wanted-Aprecedent which served to accotnt for the courscof proceeding. Lord IIOLLAND admitted the distinction which noble lords had drawn between bilLs for reversing attaindersand for restoring honours. But, though a friend to the measure, he was not satisfied that the proposed course of proceeding with respect to the latter bills vas re. gular. As it was meantto restore particular persons, their lordships must be aware that the bills involved questions of fact, of the acccu- racv of which the house ought to be informed. The Earl of HARRO WBY said, that the real distinction in the bils consisted in this-that the reversal of the Stafford attainder wvas an act of justice. whereas the restoration of the other titles was an act of grace and favour. Lord REDESDALE was of opinion that evidonce should be had. in passing one of these bills,their lordships would declare that such a person was the heir of such another person, and they ought therefore to be first satisfied of that fact. If, on a question ot voting for Irish peers, it was required that the claimant should prove his descent, it was to be expected that the present bills would not be passed without a similar formarity. ff these bills were passed without inquiry, their lordships wtould not merely restore the persons therein named, but sat aside all other claimants. The case ot the restoration of the tithes of Earl of Doncsteter and Baron Scott was not in point ; for the person restored being admitted to be Duke of Buccleuch, he must be considered the heir of the Duke of illonmaouth, to whom the restored peerages belonged. The LORD CTIANCELLOR stated, that wken an English peerage was claimed, application was made to him. The party making the application was in all probability a total stranger to the L,ord Chancellor. The first thing he had to do in the execution of his office was to call for proof of the party's claim. When strict evidence -.as demanded, it often happened that the claimant was grievously offended, and it was very possible that a Lord Chancellor might fail, with all his efforts, to discover the truth, unless he referred the case to the House of Lords, which, for his part, he was -lways ready to do. With respect to thepresent bills the endence On which they were founded hatd been referred to the Attorney.Ge- neral and other officers of the Crown, and reported on before they were drawn tip. There was, as had been already observed, a mate. vial distinction between the reversal of an attainder and the restora- tion of a peerage. In the case of a reversal, the house decided no- thing as to the possession of the honour, and the party claiming had 2o make good his title; but the practice had been different with re- gard to restorations. It appeared that as to them the circumstance af the r'yal sign manual being attached to a bill, was considered proaf Of the necessary evidence having been gone into, and as ass- thority for the facts it contained. Thetr lurd-hips ought not to de. -Par trom the ussial practice in such cases, espectallT when it migbt be a familiar cxercise of the royal authority. %I ishing that 'the ro7al prerogative should be carefuly maintained, he had no objec- tion to the appointment of a committee to search for precedents. Lord REDESDALE again contended for the propriety of going into evidence on the bills. The Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested, that all the bills should 'be read a second tine, and then he would move the appointment of a committee to search for precedents. After a few words from the Earl of R.ADuOR, this course was nadopted, the bills were read, and the comnmittee appointed. The Scotch entailed estates bill went thiough a committee.-Ad. iourned to Fridav. TTOTJSF, OF LORDS. WEDNESDAY, MAY 26.