House Of Commons, Monday,...
The Times, 1824-05-04T00:00:00

The house met this day pursuant to the order of adjournment A new writ was issued for the borough of Penryn, in consequence of the decease of Mr. Swann, the late member. Accounts were laid upon the table from the Treasury, relative to the customs and excise of Ireland. Sir W. LEM5ON presented a petition from the parish oF Cover. ark, in the couinty of Cornwall, against the oil-gas bill: and Air. Ho1-0. SusxNER presented a petition from Oreenwich; Mr. TREm,AYN'E another from a patish in Comwalli and Mr. P. AloonE a third from the Imperial Gqs Company against it. On the motion of Mr. HOLME SmstrIER, the South London Dock bill was read a second time and committed. On the question forlits committal, MIr. GRENFEIt, said that he should give this bill his support on the same Drinciple on which he had given his support to the St. Catherine's Dock bill. Mr. C. CALVERT should not take any active part upon this bill, as he understood that it was favoured by one and opposed by the other part of his constituents. Mr. E. ELLICE presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Birmingham, praying for leave to bring in a bill to light that town with gas. ILr. Alderman HIEYGATE presented apetition from the inha- bitants of East Smithfield, against the St. Catherine Dock bill; and Mr. C. CALVERT a sitnilar petition from the occupiers of ware- houses on the south side of the river. Sir 1Y. CONGREVE brought in the equitable loan bank bill. Mlr. MIANNING brought in a bill for the incorporation of a West India Company. Mlr. AIANNING presented a petition from the London D0ock Company, and iMir. C. CALVERT a petition from the Surrey Canal Company, against the South London Dock bill. Lord STANLEY presented a petition froi Roger Kynaston, Esq of Portman-square, in the county of Middlesex, praying to be heard by counsel against the St. Catherine Dock bill. Mr. ALEXANDER presented a petition for leave to bring in a bill to incorporate the British and Foreign Life Insurance Company. TEES AND WEARDALE RAILWAY BILL. Sir H. HARDINGE rose for the purpose of moving " that the committee on the above bilL be discharged from farther proceed-ng thereon." This he did, because the standing orders which applied to private bills had not becn complied with in reference to certain individuals whose estates would be injured if the measure were car- ried. It was proposed that the railway should cross a road belong- ing to a noble friend ot his (the Mlarquis of Londonderry), and that it should be carried on for a considerable distance ner his park. This would be a very great nuisance, and was the less justiftable, because any benefit which the railway was calculated to produce would be reaped by others, whose estates would not be affected by the intended work. The stanlding orders relative to private bills ought to be strictly supported; and as the present measure was clan- diestinely brought into the house, he would give it every opposi. ion in his power. He concluded by moving for the discharge of the committee from any further proceeding on this bill. An hon. MsataEuR under the gallery, whose nampe we could not Learn, said a few words tn favour of the motion, wbich he seconded. L,ord LOWTHER defended the measure as one which would be extremely advantageous to thecountry. He therefore wished the bill to be re-committed. It was said that the landed proprietors were adverse to the railway'; but the fact was, that the real ground of opposition sprang from the noble marquis to whom allusion had been made, although he was prepared to contend that the proposed work would not touch an inch of that noble person's estate. The true reason of the opposition manifested against the nicasure was, a spirit of jealousy which e;isted in the north of Durham as to affrding this additional facility for the conveyance o0 that valuable commodity, coals, to the metropolis and elsewhere. Being perfectly convinced of the utiity of the railwwy, he should niove, as an amendment, " that the said bill be re-conmitted." Sir J. VO RK:(E rose to second the amendment of the noble losd. lHe did not wish to make use of hard words, but the opposition to the measure appeared to him to be so extreme a job (a laugh), that lie quitted tle committee altogether. The evidence ef Mllr. Wright, whose estate, it was said, would be affected by the work, seemed to | be so wrong (a laugh), so coqitettish-now assenting to, and then dis. senting from the measure-that he could make nothing of it. Ilis gal. lan t friend had said a great deal about the hardshlip of carrying tbis road throrgh a noble lord's estate ; but on other occasions they heard nothing of the impropriety of making encreachinents on pri'- vate property, where a great public work required it. Thus, when it was proposed to erect a bridge at Hllainmersaiith, the question of private propcr.y was not allowed to interfere with the mesure. Here it was proposed to foms a vast public work, by means of which a larger supply of coals would be furnished to tihe metropolis, and the existing monopoly would be weakenecd: here there was a great field opened for the cmployment of capital for a useful purpose; and therefore he for onc rould HOt consent to the abandonment of the measure,on the plea that tberoad would pass near anobleman'sestatc. L4ord ill ILTON said, the real queitiqo in this case was, whether the rivers Tyne and Wear should be the only outlets for the carria e of coals, or whether the river Tees should not also be include ? (Ilear, hear.) The West Riding of Yorkshire was supplied with voals bymeans of land-carriage, and the object of this measure was to transport that article by a railway whbiel should come down to the mouth of the Tees, instead of employisg the ordinary mode of carrving it. This would be cheaper and more cxpeditious. In his opinion, gentlemen who wished to have this measure fairly consider. ed, wvould not vote for a motion which would at once put a stop to it without due inquiry before a committee. The gallant officer (Sir Vi. Hardinge) intimated that he opposed the bill on behalf of the landed interest. Fle (Lord Mlilton), however, believed that there was not a landed propnetor against the nleasure. exeept a ir. Wright, whol had assented and dissented, by alternations, so often, that it was difficult to understand whetlher he was hostile or friendly to the projected work. Colonel WOOD said, that none of the local proprietors were in favour of the measure. The hon imiemaber for Saltash (Alr. Russell) who would derive all the benefit from the intended work, would not suffer it to pass through his owit ground, although by taking that course it would be brought two miles nearer to the sea. Ele had chosen a circuitous route to the sea, and by that means interfered with the estate of the Margaisof Londonderry. It was complained that Mr. Wrright had altered his opinion. The reason vvas, because the line of road which Was at first communicated to him was subse- quently changed. With respect to him it was quite clear that the standing orders had not bean comnplied with, and therefore they ought not to prooeed with the bilL Mr. H. SUMNER could not consent to this summary mode of overse=ting a bill which would unquestionably promuote the public interest. If the proposed railwa.y were forred, there would be a greater and a more rapid supply of coals in the London market. Alderman BRIDGES said a few words, which were inaudih,lc in the gallery. Mfr. CURWEiN would vote for thie'recommittal of the bill, u. der the assuranceof the noblelord (Ioowther) thattlie rail-road wotild notpass over Dir. Wright's estate Sir H. HARDINGE said, if the &entlemen who supported the bill would assure him that the railway would ' not go near the estata of the Marquis of'Londonderry, he should withidraw all opposition. Hle opposed the measure entirely oai account of the injury it would do to the proserty of the noble marquis, who was now building a house in t e irection of which it was intended to carry the railway. This was his sole uiotive tbr raising his voice against the bill. He had no wish wh4tever to crusb any rivalry or competition ia thecoal- trade. Ai1r. LITTILETON spoke in favour of thIe bill The house then divided, and thereappeared- For the amendment, 114 1 For the original moton, o9 l Majority, 4. On our return to the gaUery, we found the house discussing the questions whether, before the re-comittal of the bill, a committee conaistingof members not connected in any way with tihe bill should not be appointed,toexamine whetheranyand what iniconveniencehad arisen from the non.compliance with the standingorders. Such a committee was at length appointed. HIDE:S AND) SKINS BILL. Petitions agpinst this bill were presented from the butchers of Lis. keard by Sir wrILLIAII LEZiOr; from the butchers of hIaid- stone by 3r. WELLS; from the corporatisn of butebers of Edi3t. burg by Air' N. DuNDAS; from the bufehers of Wenlock, by 31r. otFonr TEs,; from 137 butchers of the borough of Soutli- wark, by Sir R. FEn6UsSON; and from the tanners of Dover, by Air. 1B. W DILBAHAM. I Petitions in favour 6f the bill were prcsented. frowt- the butchers of Shoreham, Staining, Deptibrd, and Ieviisham, bv Sir R. FEa- Gusox; from thebreeches-makers and curriers of Worcester- by M1r. C. CALVERT; and from the butchers of DlanclhesLer and ch- dale, by Lord STANLEY.1 TUE LATE AIR. SMITH, THRIVISSIONARY. Mr. BROU( HAM gave notice, that-on the 27th of this month. he would submit a motion on the subject of the proceedings at Dc- merara, against the late Mr. Srtith, the missionary.. Sir R. VAUGHAN presented a petition from thei clergy of the archdeaconry of Bangor, aigainst any alteration in the law wiLh' re- spect to marriages celebrated in this country by Roman Catholic Petitions were preented against the county courtr bill, frotn the High Sheriffof the county palatine of Chester, by MIr. DAv.EN - PORT; against the new beer duties bill, from the Hlcensed victual- lers and common brewers of Nantwich, by MIr. DAVENpORT; against the salt duties, from the salt-manufacturers of Chester, by Air. DAVEXPORT. Mlr. CURWEN presented five petitions from several parts of Cumberland, against the salt-duties ; also a petition from the tan- ners and curriers of Workington, against the leather duties. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the Guild of merchants of Dundee, for the repeal or amendment of the salmon fisheries bill. MIr. SYKES presented a petition from Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of the county courts bill. 1lr. H. DRUMMI OND presented a petition from the convey- ancers of Stirling, against the duty on licences to act as notaries public. Air. SMIITH presented apetition from the fish-curers in the Jis- trict of Droglseda, praying that the bounties on the curing of fish mi ht not be taken off. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Patrick, ia the county of Kilkenny, praTing that clauses might be introduced into thie tithe composition bidl, enact- ing that assessors might be appointed before harvest-time,every year in each parih by the parish vestry,to assess the value of the tithe, and also that the inhabitants might be protected in their ancient practice of paying tithe in kind. The hon. member presented a petition from Tramore, praying for the abolition of negro slavery, which was ordered to be printed. He also availed hlimself of this opportunity to give notice that he sliould to-morrow present a petition on a subject materially affect- ing the education of the poor in Ireland. It was from the Lord Bishop, and clergy and laity, of Ross, complaining that the diocesan school had been taken away ftrom them. He gave this intimation, in order that gentlemen who were disposed to speak on this subject might then do so. HIDES' REGULATION BILL. Petitions, praying for the repeal of the existing regulations relat. ing to hides and skins, were presented by Alr. R. H LL, from the butchers of Whitchurch: by Mr.J. WIs.LLIAMS. from the butchers of Lincoln; bv AIr. LiNDSAY, from the fleshers of St. Andrew's; and by 11r. IfrauE, from the butchers of the Cannongate Edin- burgh. The hon. maember saia the 1ltter petition stated that the existing laws, so far from preventing injury to hides, acted as a tax on the consumers of leather; for the inspectors were usually paid by the score of hides without ever looking at them. To vote against the repeal of those laws was, therefore, to vote for the contintuance of the tax on leather. M7Ir. EiUME presented also another petition from the butchers of St. Marylebone and St. Giles in f-avour of the repxeal, but praying, at the same time, that the acts of the 43d and the 48th of the late King might also be repealed; because, by those act, the lat. ter of which was confined to the metropolis, fines were imposed on the petitioners which it was not intended to remove by the bill now before the house. The hon. gentleman entered into a statement of the average annual amount paid in fines and fees to the inspectors, the efects of which were to increase the price of leather. Air. HOBIIOIISE presented two petitions to the same efFect from the butchers of Clare and Newport.markets. Mlr. LUSFAINGTON in reply to the two hon. members, said that the act of the 48th o? Geo. IEI. was alocal act, and lie could not, consistemtly with the forms of the house, now make tkat alteration whicth was rayed by the petltions. Without pledging himself on the subject, lie was ready to say that he should be perfectly willing,at a more fitting opportunity, to consider the validity of the Bugges. tions raised by them. Petitions in favour of thebiU were presented by Mr.REAUMOXT from the butchers of North Shields; by Sir Al. W, RIDLEY, from Newcastle.upon-Tyne; by Alderman WOOD, from Aidgate and Whitecliapel; by Air. BERNAL from Stroud, Rochester, and Chatham, and fromL St. Gcorge's, bjoomsbury; by Alr. CURTEIs from Brighton; and by Mr. LuSsssuGTON, from Canterbury; al of which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. FRENCH SQUADRON OFF THE B3RAZILS. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH, in rising to present a petition, took the oppOrtunity which this purpose afforded him of putting a ques. tion to the right hon. the Secretary of State. He was induced to do so from the rumours which were prevalent of a French naval force having appeared off the coast of the Brazils. Those rumeurs hid spread to a considerable extent; and as he (Sir J. Macintosh) had reason to know, as well from public sources as from private infor. mation vwhich lhad reached him, they had exercised a great influence over all the commercial classes of this country, by the apprehensions to which they had given birth, it was in the sincere hope that the answer of the right hon. gentleman would remove those apprehen- sions, that le begged now to ask him, whether his MIajesty's Go- vernment had reason to believe that a French squadron had actually arrived off the Brazilian coast ? And if they had, whether an ex- planation had been dematnded and received by the Government as to the cause of the appearance of that force ; and further, whether. the reply which had been reeeived was such as to confirm or to re- move the alarm which had been occasioned by the appearance of the squadron ? Mr. CANNING had no objection to reply as far as he was able to the questions of the hon. member. It was true that a few French ships arriving from different destinations hAd reached the port of the Brazils together. The rumours which had got abroad in consequence of this circamstance origir%ated, he believed, in the statement of some of the French officers that they expected more ships to join thens in that port. He (MIr. Canning) had already demanded and re- ceived such an explanation as the French Ambassador resident here was enabled to give; and from that explanation he had every reason to believe that the statement of the officers, and the.ru- mours which it had occasioned, were altogether false. lie ha,d also demanded an ex lanation from the French Government, and he had no' doubt that. te lapse of a few (lays would enable him still more satisfactorily to contradict the report which had occasioned so much alarm. Sir J. MACINTOSR thert presented two petitions, one from the butchers of Knaresborough, in favour of the hides' regulation bill, and one from the tanners against it. Petitions against the bill were presented by AIr. PELIaXA, from the tanners of Whitchureb; by Sir'Al. NV. RIaLEY, f.om those of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and by Mr. ASARRYAT,rm those of Bich. mond, Yorkshire: aU of which were ordered to be printed. Mlr. CURTEIS presented a petition froma the owners and occu- piers of 70,000 acres of land in Sussex, praying that they may not be excluded from the benefit of the proposed expartation of wool. Mr. D. BROWNE presented a petition from the lodge 642, of the Freemasons of Kilkenny, praying that they may be placed on the same footing as the Freemasons of hangland. Mr. S. R:El presented a petidion from the Chamber of Com. merce of l,imerick, against the provisions of the existing law relat- lng to the grinding of bonded corn, which was ordered to be printe4. After a few words from Sir J. NEWVPORT, Sir All. IV. RIDLEY postponed his notice of a motion for the re- vision and consolidation of the statutes, fromn the 27th inst. tothe }st of June. Mr. AIARRYAT presented a petition from Richmond, in Yorkshire, against the beer duties bill. lIord AMILTONpresent&d petitions from certain individuals in the county of York; from the journeymen tailors of Bradford, in that county; and from several thousands of inhabitants of Leeds, against the combination laws.-Referred to the committee. Atr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the pawnbrokers of Dublin, against the Irish joint stock and equitable loan company. MIr. Aldernian WOOD presented a petition fron (we believe) the Drapers' Company, praving that some part of the revenue of the Deanery of Londonderry may be applied towards the repair of the cathedral church. Mfr. S. RICE supported the petition, and said that few of those presented at the bar of the house deserved its attention more than those of the city companies who hold lands in Ireland. To those comnpanies we were indebted for much of the information, and for Aost of the improvemucnt which had lately been bestowed upon Ircland. Mir. DAWSON bore testimony to the generous manner in which the London companies managed the estates belonging to them. They had built scools, churches, Roman (;atholic chapels, and dispen. sarics, and supported them all in the most liberal way. Still he was cenvinced that unless something was done in time to repair the ca- thedral church, it would fall down, end the Protestant inhabitants be left without a fit place of Worsl)ip;* and for this reason, ready as he was to admit the claims of the comnnnies to the attention of the house, he trusted to be able to show tbat the bill against which this petition was directed was abholutely necessarv. 5Mt. Alderm in yoObl presented another ietition from the same Company, praying to bh heard by counsel against the biUlla'uded to. I Alter a few woitds from Sir J.NE;PoRT and Sir G. HILL, tbc petitions were ordered to be printed. Mlr. Aldernian WOOD presented a petition from *Vatford, praying for the repeal oi the house and window-tax. On tie motion of Mr. 1U1SHINGTON, the report on the Bri. tish Mtuseumi bill was brought up, the amendmernts agreed to, and the third reading fixed for to-morrow. Air. GOULBU RNI moved the second reading of the Irish tithe composition bill, and proposed to postpone the discussion until a fu- ture stage of the bill. ;r. ATTAN had intended to oppose this bill whenever the motion for the second reading should occur. It appeared to him to be a measure full of danger to the interests of the landed proprietors. So far from its being, as was expected, an amendment of the bill of I last session, it was rather to be considered as an aggravation of all that which was peculiarly objectionable in the bill of last sessiqo, The power of requiring the production of leases, papers, sd docu. ments connected'with tithesN Was oppressive in the extremo. In short, the landed interest were completely sacri to the advantage of the clcrg, lsad tile measare was altogether so completely objection- able, that ie would c?rtainly move tor the second reading this day six months. fr. DIE NNIS BROWNE justified the application of the powess given hy the constabulary act against the complaints of art hon, gen, dleman opliosite, and assured the house that in his own county the constables were impartially chosen from amnong strangers, and that their conduct had given permanent peace to the district. Sir J. N13 PORT recommnended postponement, with a view to a complete discussion of the merits of the bill. Lord OX5MANTOWN did not approve of gettingridof the bUl by the amendment now threatened. At the sawe time he coula Rot approveof the bill as a measure of sufficient relief. It rather appeared to him thatthebill gave the greatest advantages to the teetorts,who were likely to be the mnost avaviious. Hle thought thwt the better way would be to go into the discussion at length upon the next stage, in order to discover how far it might be found capable of imoprov emen t. iMr. GOULBURNexpressed his readiness to give every ex. planation which his responsibility as the mover of this bill might be supposed to require from him: but the proper way to come at any such explanation wauld be to reject the amendment, and let tte bill go forward to a committee, where it might undergo improve. ment. He did not deny that several of the clauses miglit admit of modification-that which required the production of papers awd titles was particularly fit for suclh deliberation. As to the question of oaths, and the penalty of 101., he Would not absolutely insist upon that very inodifiAtion of the clause. but if any othes wtot to be adopted, it maust be- au'ggest'ea by the boue when reslved -iota the- ,ommittee. This might be an insurfficient mey Aiitrvsasasefted by thos whco held the samie Ianuaet. wards his bill'ef laattsesaion. With regard to the last nlagel bill satisfact6ry marnier ; and, wbatever might,be said oDf itt he-sad at lenst the aetion~imof knowitil, that the i4duntiy lOokea u t, Wit as tlhe only sure mdeasuie of rrlier-~thanks to the gzeneroiza su inteligen'pewithwlchithtadbeenreceived. H4ejust suppot az done b 'thetriumphats~its.ceaswhich had oUwed sateh,t,d_ cular cluse which-had beendenomiinated "the trap clause," though it did by nomeans deserv,e-so odious an epithet, it was only inserted to prevent the suece"sor frimn suffering through any fraud or wzon- vancemi compositions mnade with the precedin& incumbent; and be defied hon. gentlemen to produce an instance, in 90) parishes, whtere any inLeonvenience ha,d been incurrea therefromn to the Paye-. He congratulated himnself on having so entirely overcome the difficulties which op posed him in the nature and progress, of the bill; and ex. hotted Ithe hiouse to MMec the amendment. SirJ. NEWPOR?P objected to this bill, because it was an aggea.v, tion instead of an amenalment of the evils in thiat of last isesion Hie did not mean to object, generally, to the principleof amencaneut: but he was decideay adverse to a bill which,, professing to be aj emnendation of a former on'e2 was any thing bus what it so profeastt to be.. The wily way inwNhsch, as it appeared to him, it wag sa ble of receiving any amendment, would be, a.s a first step, to onut every word it at presnt contained, except the preamble, and to sula, stitute in the place Of the clauses it now presented, others that should he really effectual to meet the'evil complained Of. The hilL went to shut out the landed proprietor of -Ireland fromi any itifi._ ence, comparatively speaking in the vestries which were to regulate, the proportion of tithes that their lands were to PaY to incurabents so that a lmzfe dlass of the peasntr.v would be dealt with in any mnanner the incumbents of the livingis in which their Parishes w,ere situtedmigh thnk rope. Ocupers f lndsupon leases only woud b, i maty espcts ina fr btte siuaton,as to the right of votngandInerfrngatsuh vsties tan helad-owner. lie (Si J.Newort potetedaganstitaltgeter,asa most unjust r.S. RICE thiought it won'ld have been much bettcr haid this discusinbeen taken at another time, wheL. many members, might haebeen in to.wn..who would have had an opportunity of addresbing the house on a subject inL which they had solgargea&personal interest Redid-not think their arbsence, however, a circumstance ofs ulcet' wessht any jusif bm in aloig the bil to passato a seconld reading wtout anydission at all..- It seemed the object of this measuire. to take away from the landed proprietors of-Ireland iny amount of' protection that was left to their initerests by the bill of last se~ssion and to increae the fortunes of the Irish clerg.y, without extending any adequrate advantage to the body of subjects by whom that increase Wau to be contributed. If this deadription of tIle bill were true, it was for the house to consider whether or no they would support two such propositloas?By wayof showingyow the ea- aantry,r o-wners offractions of acres were lkel-y to he~taiTected byche operation of'such a measure as this, and how little influence the lar&ea tand..owners or Irish gentr would haye in the business, a variety of daj"e might bc cited. 27e-rhaps it would be sufficient for- him, owevef, to remIind the house of the case which had been on V. former. occason cited by, a right hon. friend of his-he meant the case of a pairish in Derry, where there were 2 000 payers of tithes,, and the aggrepateof thosetithes was 5001 anly one of those tithe'. payers was of the rank of a gentleman ; and he happenedl to be the agent for a large absentee owmer. Now this bill would exclude the owner from a vote in the vestries to be called under it;, or it would leave him in no btWter situation than occupiers who haLd had notice to quit the lands they tenanted or of whose leases there were only' one or two years to run. In short, this latter class of individualS. might by their votes confirma charg within one ortw years of their quitting the lands Ithey had rented, which would remain at burden on those landis for the next one and twenty years to come; while the ownier not in occupancy would have no power of opposing such an arrangement beyond the vote thiat was. allotted to the peasant, who was to pay upon is acre. He thought such aL provisioa was caistin6 an unfair stigma upon the lriAlh gen-. try, however unable bie maight be to contend that their character was a perfectly meritorious one. It was niotorious that the parties to mayof the comnls,ltions already made under this bill had been. tknby supi~pise. There was one clause that it wvas now under.. stood woulid heo withdrawn-he meant that which empowered the contralssionera to call for title-deeds, papers, and records, to show the amoirunt of tithes formerlyr paid on Droperties. But did the right hon., gentleman suppose, that by withdrawing it he escaped from theug heav responsibility 'sat must attach to himi for eve'r having bogt it forward ? (Hear.) He (Mlr. S. Rice) would warmlty sup port the amendmnent of his hon. friend (AMr. Grattan.) M1r. PEEL thought that most of the arguments of the two last hen, members woutld haye been with g-reater propriety off'ered at another stage of the bill,-namely, the third reading, or in the. comanittee. His honouirable friend (Air. Rice), if he iwould al.. lowr him to cAll himi so, hail said, that in many instances, the parties to compositions under the billof last session had been entrap. ped into arrangemaents, or had acted inadvertenrtly. Now thernumber of these instances, it must be allowed, would be in a great measure dleterm~ined by the naumber of appeals to the Lord Lieutenant in couincil. There were 90 instances in which buuch agreemnents or roimpositions had takeni place. and -been confirmed ; and only fve in. which appeals had been asserted to the Lord Lieuteiiaiit int zuncil ; so that 5 per centL was the sum total of dissatisfaction in Ieadwith the operation, as far as it had gone, of the bill of last 5easion. The right hon. gentleman then expressed his convictionk Lhat the subject of this bill required the most serious consid eration;- but conceiving that every alteration would be mnoat properly atug. tested in the com=initee-that the bill was in principle moost bene- ficial-..and that it wouldl be ant unexampled thing to deny the second reading of:k bill which went to amend an act thati it was on all hands agred rquied gacumen, h shuldsupport the original motion, Mr., CAEW (aswe undestood) exprssd a similar intent ion. Aftr afewwors i exlanti nafo Lordl OXiANTOW,j and Air.GXATA s, th amedmet ofthelatter gentleman was, with.. dran; he illwasrea a ecod tme,andl committed for Friday CUSTO S(OAI $ AND LINENS) BILL. On the motioni of the OIACnLLOIt Of the Exesru:Uwst, the house resolved itself intoacommnittee on the coals and linens bill. The right hon. deonanu~s said his, object was to correct an error in the bill, aut~ilA ist)A made it necessary that it should be recom- mitted. At Psresent it was proposted in the bill that the reduiction of the bo~unty on linens shouvld comnmence on the Sth of July, 1824. The da~te, should be the 6th of January, 1825; and he now sub- mitted a.resolution to that effect, Mr. SPRUNG RtICE said, he was not sanguine enough to suappose he could alter the Chancellor of the Exchequer's minen-. tions as to the reduictioit of bounties on) Irish linens; but he did submit that the extension of the period, were it onlv for three or four years,, would be a great boon to Ireland. The apprehension, only, of thiareduction, hiadalready done incalculable mischief to the Iinen.xraAe of Ireland, as regarded the poorer classes who were em-. plo.yedi:n it. Air. D4NNIS BROWNE complained of the extraordinary ig- norance whichn ministers had displayed on the subject of theseabour.. ties; and expatiated on the extremei injury that their reduction mustt hav i those who we-re concerned in ih auatr fcas linens in Ireland..a commodity uxpon which it haLd been moat erco,. neously asserted by one of his ALjesty's ministers in the other hoiuse, there was little exportation,, and no d1rawback. The fact was,. the exportaLtion was considarable, and the drawback- wvas drawa on, every yard. The lionourabie gentleman, after expressing suprs at the general ignwopce which prevailed upon this side of the water irs respect of thp export trade of a country that was within astone'se throw ofthiitislanid, coDntended that the Government had no right to intcrfere-with these bounties, which had becn secured to Ireland by a carxter when her weollen trade was surrendered. to this couintry. Sir HENRY PARNELL asked whether the linen bounties had, in point of fact, extended the coarse linen trade of Ireland ? Ini his opinion thtey had not, and he also thiought that that trade wasmuch more lik-ely to be in'iured by otlher circumstances than by the repeal of these bounties. The Irish mnanufacturer had in this trade to con- tendagansttheEngishandScoch radr; the two last could use forignyan i teirniaufctue,25 ercent, cheaper than the Iris ninufctuer,owin tosom aburdlocal regulations which. the ine bord nfoced an whCh required that the yarn soldin relad souldbe adeup I a. manner diflerent frmthat in which th foe nyarn was brought to market. The sinnig yar by ills,bo BtinEglana andI Scotland, 'gave anoter dvatag ovr te Iishmanfacturer. On the whole, he thouht t ~euldbe btte to emoe sveral real tabetructions which sllcte th maufaturr i Irlan, tan to attend- so much to the coninunceofboutie wichhe idnot think to be of so irhch advantage. He should rather sem the cotton-trade extended more generally in Ireland than any other. Mlr. IC. H. HUTCH I NSON was sorry to oppose the op!~ooc of practical mnen to that of his hon, friend who spoke last. Wigs hon. friend asserted that the condition of the people engaged i Inrelandl in this particular branch of manufacture was not imTproved by, the con- tinuance of thke bournties; but those engaged in the trade entertained an opinion exactly the reverse, and the martufacturers in the southi andwest of lIreand stroiigly opposed the repeal of such bounties. Thiere was now ready for presentation a, petitionk from the countyf of Cork, signed by 60,000 people,who asserted the advantages' to ha derived from the operationi of the bhoimties now sought to be reduced. Under such circumstances, lio earnestly puit it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he, vould press his measure, which, how- ever right in the abstract, was deprecated in its practical operation by the crest bodies, of the people who conceived themselves affected bv it, le'paitirularly pointedoto t s Ma 1esty's Govertntent thievaltie atwahod to the coarse linen trade of ireland in the report of the PIrliaomentary committee of last year. anrd how the difilusion of that trede haLd introduced inidustry and peace in those districts which were prev,iously a prev to riot and insuboirdination. (Cries of "' hear, hear.") Ele repeated his urgent request, that the Chancelor 'of the Bxchequer would, under the present peculiar situation of tire coarse linen trade of Ireland, pause before he acted uporna new pricipe, hic, oweer oodus hepricipe, asdeclared to be ruiou init prctcalefec, b tosewh ouhttobe ronsidcre tras ws dstrye by~j.g Wllim;tlt linen tad was substi. titedupo te faih o te Cow: he latterouh sarely' to be - Colonel T RIN'CR was atronWly ini favo.;r of the continuance of these bawintes, and expressed his astonisiment at the view takea of this subject by the hon. baronet opposite. Ir. DA WSO said, that the opinion of the principal liaen. manuf3cturers of Londonderry went to shou that they apprehentdedc no injury to their trade froneth;e proposed repeal of these bounties; at the sau tinei he l;uew th,e landedinterest entertained a different opinion uport the spbiect. He really thought the diminution of the boanty otl4 not have the effect which somue anticipated, uron a tr.ile os weestablished. The linen trade of Irelana was wor two !millions and a half annually ; the bounties upon it amounted to "AQ01, a vcar; pvow the proposed reduetion of them would not ex- ptq- 9,91, 'a year (one tenth), and how could that sum be sipjood to be so injurious when spread over a capital of t;o mil- lioas and a half? (Hear.) He concurred in every thing which bad been said about -the value of this tade, and necessity of supporting it ana also deprecated the observations of his honiourable Mre (Sir k.- ParsEll) respecting thaptrle, which he (Alr. Dawmn) knew to be iisod,ctwie of such gret advantages to the peasatitry of Treland. Mr. P. V; BROw and Sir H. PAsRNEa.LL explpiined. Mit HUMS: aupported.*he viewr takien of thisinubject6 by his hon. irleig lBr Il; Parnell) and was of opinion that the okeration of theb 'lidi.boiitics wm nuAs -sisconceived by nmany whbq were engagedi in the trcde. Ttheir apprehensions from the proposed dimunationt wrould, he bdlieved, prove in the result unfounded. ~Aftern few words froni Mr. RosExUaTSO, the resolution was' agreed-to. Aldermau WOOD thought thatas the dtity on Welch culm wasr. reduced to Is &d., the Chancelor o? the Exchequer ought in jlustice' to the public5 to reduce the duty on small coal from lenorthwoe Elnglasid. Dr4 HUJME said that at present onefi?hl of the labour at Nevw- te wassabhaltiteywasted; for the small coal, which was onefifti t of tJie'whole qupitYliyse could not be sent to6 maket on a ^ u4 oft* 4ut. The CFANC-ELLOR of the EXCH EQuER said he was not PrePord at Present to acede to the proposition of the hon. alder- ton. .nndidLOP1 not deny that the subject waws wotthy of considera- l, ad mc repeesentations had-alreadbeen tnade to hini upon at; f but he e;a not prepared to ir.troduce it into this bill. Ile was berfl eitrightt expose the revenue to o diniinu ion; and if he could on that head, he did not see any other objection to the o2r. ErUME suggested that the experiment should be tried for ielr.tAord i rnjan WOOD admitted that there mnight besonim trifling efilcationa Ibnb therevenue, but it would be very inconsiderable, as tws c robabl e Sthcerne wouId be a great increase in the consumption of the rhovuse then resullued, and the report was ordered to be received hTheSherifff of London attended, and being called in, presented three etitions fEromt the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council Of London, for leave to present petitions for bills (the time for presenting petitions for private bills being elapsed), to enable the Crptopration to borrow money at the reduced rate of 4 per cent. in or- de tO PaY of ' bonds for money borrowed under act of the 7th and 43d of Geo. IlI., for completing Blackfriars-bridge, and for other ,purposes. ~d nna W OD were read.. TndhOe detitons on the motion of Mlr. Alderman M'oon werred and rclHEr to bc referred to committees T rh *ERRIES brought up the report on the rum duties bill. The sevtbered amernsdmenlti wereread and agreed to, and the bill or- HIDES AND SrINS. kr. IJUSHINGTO{\N moved the second reading of the hides and skins bill. Lr. DAVENPORT opposed it, as a measure pregnant with thin to those concerned in the trade. Hle moved as an amendment that it be readl the second time this day se'nnight; on which the hus l divided, when there appeared-. xFor the second reading, 2i7 1 Against it, 10 Mvjhajority 17. e bIl was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Onthe motion of Mtr. Hu , it wvas ordered that it be an in- raction8to the comnnittee to insert a clause for repealing the acts of Oan48eo. IlI., relative to the fying of hides and skins in Lno, and within 15 miles thereof. Mr. lTU Lsso~AWv MilERCHIANT. ErISUSKS brought in a bill to amend the laws for the better protection of merchants, as to factors and agents ; which was read the first time, and rdered to be read a second time to'morrow. The Other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at hal pat1 ocok ROUTSP OF COMMONS hfOnv-A. %&v q-