House Of Commons, Wednesd...
The Times, 1824-04-15T00:00:00

Colonel DAVIES presented a lietition from tlie inhabitanits of Worcester, against the Bristol town du es bill. COMlBINATION LAWS. l,ord S'TA NLEY prestented a petition fron the manufacturers of Bolton, Lancashire, against tile repeal of the cornbination laws. MIr. HU.ME said that the consititteemow sitting to consider the ettect of the combiniationi laws otught to be Favoured witlh some of the iniforiationi of vhich, according to this and one or two otherpe- titions, the subject was susceptible. The committee had been- already sitting one month, their evidence principally tended to show the necessity tbr the repeal bf these laws, andl there was very little rvidence on the other side. Ile lioped, therefore, that those irho possessed suiclh evidlence would see the necessity ot submitting it to the comnmittee. Nir. STANIEV said tpat he had presented petitions fronu se- * eril of the manufacturers of Lancashire, against the repeal of tha -omlnination laws, as well as against the exportation of ma- :hiserv. The manufactureis felt the necessity ot taking such t step, from the alarming extenlt and secrecy with which the :ombinations by wlhich tbl6y had suffered had been carried on-; tnd he could eusily imagine there were obvious reasons why illeIn)a. ituacturers were not publicly desirous to come forward, as tbey 5'ere now calei upon to do tbytte hon. member. nossihlv at sm-. Mr. MANSFIELD said he could not hear the nssertion-of the ion. member who spoke last, as to the masters being intimidated bl cheir workmren, and thereftre belUg prevented from givinlg an) bpi- nion as to the combination laws, withouIt much regret. He begged to state, that he believedi no such motives prevailed, nor that any hostile feeling existed between the masters and their workmen in the place he had the honour to represent. On the contrarv, he had heard some very respectable mastersr concurring in opinion with tbe work- men, thiat the combination laws should be repealed, and thatihey lcdl only to produce animosity between both parties intcrested in theml. MIr. P H I llPS mnust say, that when lhe heard the ferocious cla- racter of these combinations in Lancasthire attributed to the circum- stance of the existence of the laws framed for putting thenm dowri, he entirely dliffered fron the hon member (Mr. .lnisfield). Although lhe might agree that those laws had not produced the be- neficial effect expected from them, still lie was far frous thinking they had been productive of tie mischief of creating or support- irg-these co,mbinations. In looking at the general question, it was im- a portant to remark that the actual operaton of those vnischievous com. bination, was not to protest against the reduction of wages when they were low, but when wagest were hight to atteinpt to rnake them still higher. TXhis i'act was observable both in Lancashire and Glasgow, where combinations were carried on at a tinme when the rate of wages wias particularly high. Lord STASl,EVX said that in presenting this petition, he meant to give no opinion upon the combination laws: stim he thought the subject ought to be approached with prudence and caution. M lr. G. PEIAHAM was anxious to bear more evidence on the subiect in thle committee. 'hc petition was laid on the table. Lord LO\\TIIE R presented a petition from Mildenhall, against negro slavery. Mr. LAM BTON presented a petition from the tanners of Dar. lington. against the hides and skins bill. Mr. WVA!. DUNDAS presented a p;tition from several of the in- corporated trades of Edinburgh against the window-tax. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from Winchelsea in favour of the county court-2 bill. IUr. SPRING RICE presented a petition from several merchants and traders in Galway and the vicinity, praying fbr the entire repeal of the salt duties, to which the faith of Parliament stood pledged. Mr. PEEL presented a petition from the cotton spinners of Bel- fast against the exportation of machinery. Air. LEAKE gave notice, that he would, immediately after the holydays, move for leave ro bring in abill for the better examina- tion of witnesses in the courts of equity at UestitYinster, and for empowering the courts of law and equity at Westminster to grant comnminssions for taking affidavits in all pares of Scotland and Iraand. Petitions were presented against the lhouse and window tax from the inhabitants of the tollowing places :-of Saffron-hill, by MIr. |B1, S G; of St. Peter's, Wi est Cheap, by M r. MAE ERLY; of Wood- stock, by Mr. LAuGSTON ; of Widcombe, near Bath, by bir T. LET HBRIDGE. SIERRA LEONE. kr. GROSSET moved for a return of the exports and imports from that colosy as also for an amount of the slaves captured and condemned there; and the amount of head-money paid to the cap- tos.-Motion granted. MIr. MA BERLY postponed his motion relative to the assessed taxes till the 5th of Alav. .Mr. HUMIE presented a petition from the boot and shoemakers of Inverness aaainst the conmbination laws.-Referred to the com. mittec on artisans. Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition, Yespectinz.the wool duties, from the wool-growers in the neighbourhood of Hadley The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a petition from cer- tain persons in the Palace-court, praying that some compen saton may be given to them in case the county courts' bill should pass in- to a law. Sir T. ACLAND presented petitions frorn the towns of Kings bridge, Bidde2brd, aud Ilfracombe, in th-e countyof Devon ; and Mr. P. Pit-cg a petition from Aberystwith', pr6ying for the gra,0talab,o lition of negro slavery Air. LUSHINGT6oN gave notice, nthat tie should to-Inorrow 'move that the hiouxse, on Its riEn,dllor to the 3d of May. HI DES, ,,D \ M1r. LUSHINGTON movied for leave to bring in a bill to repeal tle several acts imposing fines for daniages arising in flaying of hides and skitis. Hle stated that his reason for bringing in this bill Wtea, that the acts which he sought to repeal were unnecessary, vex- atious unjust, and also expensive. r. JAMIES seconded themotion. iM ga-PELrIAAI said a few words that were totally inaudible in tlte gallery. MUr. AMABERLY was averse to the measure of the hen. gentle- man, because it was partial and not generalin its operation. It took away many inconveniences, whichi at present distressed the country dealers, but left the London dealers entirely without relief. MIe ad- mitted that the existing laws wanted considerable alteration, but be- fore thtesalteratiwon was made, lhe conceived that an inquiry ought to eak pac beor acommittee Air. -I IJKISSN said, hie coticurred in all the general principlest whic lia hn. ricd (Air. Lushington) had laihl down as to the imn- polcy f nteferngwith the internal concerns of aniy trade or ma- tiuketre.liebeieved, however, t'hat the acts which his hon. fried wihed o reeal were not instroduced- to the. liouse as public, bt as private acts and titerefore could not be dealt with as itf they had beet, of thte foriner description. He suggested, in order to prevent a prtracted discussion on a subject wvhich was nout easily intelligiblreo to the -hotise, thiat the best course wouldl sideabl sesaton hroghot te .UntrY, he -was apprhnie if he oure h ponte ou wee nt idoped,tha alarge ot~io valubletim wold e lst n ~iscssisgte qeston.tuhe presenta- tion of various petitions, which, lie had no doubt, would be forward- ed to the house. Air. LUSH INGTON said, his object was to avoid, as much as possible, giving the bouse aUIV trouble that could be prevented. Hle believed that the bill to which his right lion. friend alluded was 'brought in as a public, not as a prirate iieasure. It was, however, referred to a select coimmittee; but no evidence was taken before that committee. Ifis opinion was, that the case was so peifectly clear, that it did not require the production of evidence. flie could see no reason why evidence shouldt be adtdaced as to the propriety of repealing the act, when none was broughlt forward to show the pro. priety'oi the measure wheln it was enacted. General GASCOVNE opposed the motion. Gentlemen comn- plained that it was very hard to call on the butchier to pay a penalty, if. be injured a hide ia rencoving it from the carcass. Now he cor.- ceived nothinig could be more just thani that the person whiocoin. mnitted the error silould be thet sufferer. He denied that the lion. gentleman had adduced any sufficient reasou for the repeal of those la3s. *Vhen thie 39th and 40th of Geo. III. wasbrought in, an inl- quiry was instituted up stairs I and it was but fairs before the ro- posed repeal was cariied inte efil't, that a similar inquiry should be instituted. Somu few'places, of little note, had called tbr a repeal of those acts ; but he had no.t seen a single petition from any-consi- derable town iR favohr vf the mesAure. On the conitrary, he knew that Alancheter,.Wlasgow, Binningham, Worcester, and Biristol, were decidedly against the .repeal. Sir R. FERGU5SON was:surprised:to hear the gallant general deuv, that tie houour4ble'-niember; had adduced no argument in. favour of the repeal.. IWs& it, he-asked, nothing to relievea lman from the payment of a penalty, besause he happened to cut his own piopetty in an impr6per manner? I ould not the gallanit general think it very hard, if, having cut ajhole in his pantaloons, lie was awn interest. Thetighfbf )udgin vsy4 m other MeY.J. AMARlTIN said'thequestion wast.whethei in the first in. stance the pubject should;be ref'erred to. a selecrcoinmittee, to con- sider oftbelirorietyofbriimgingin this bit,'or wliLther themeasure should be introiuced at once, and, tt the regular stage, referred to a committee.? Thei foriner. wass, in his opinion, the pref'erable modle. One point ought r,ot to be lost sight of-namely, tiharttiey had no remonstrance from the butchers on this ssibjct. A1r. BRIG&IT said, theidea of abolishingone half of those laws, and leaving the other half on the statute book, was really nonisensi- cal. There otight to be only one law on the subject throughout the country. Ile thought the subject ought to be considered in a select committee before the bill was brought in.. He was not at all inter. ested in the question. He wanted nothing but justice; and there- fore he was in favour of a full consideiation ot the sutbject. Al r. LUS tl INGTON said he wished,' in repealing this bill to take the same course which was pursued When it was enacted. Ilhe found that theselect committee to which the subject was referred did not send tbr persons, papsrs, and records, he thougit it was too much to procced with an examination of tiat kind now. If evidence were gone into, and counoel were heard, the investigation would not terminate this year. ir. CU RWEN was infavour of the repeal. The act partidularly alluded to was, in llis opinion, an abominable one. It operated against the interests of particular individuals, ,vitliout benefiting any person. He recommended, however, tihat when the bill arrived at the proper sta.e, it should be referred to et committee. Mr. CURTEIS condemned the existing system, as extremely vexatious. The acts appeared to him to be most preposterous. It was a very great hardship on an individual to be compelled, as was often thecase, to send skitis 10-or 20 miles to beinspected, which skins were, perhaps, obliged tobesemtasmeanymiles inuanoppositedirec- tion to be manufactured. The machinery oflthese laws was also objec tionable. Even a pig could not be skinned without the interYention of an inspector. t (A laugh.) He was sorry to dlescend to such mi nute matters; but if they legislated oll such trifes, it was necessary to speak of them. (Hear.) i _a rlUT P'TCN wrA of oininn that the hon. member was fully justified in movlifg for the r6pcai of those laws. ?The house then divided, when thire appeared- For thc motion 52 1 Against it, 6 l MUajority 46. NBW CHURCHES. Air. flUMB now moved for " a return df the manner in which the sut of l, ,Ob,W1. sterling, voted by Parliament for the erection of new churches, had been laid out, together with a statement of the county and pari* in which a;ny new church or chapel had been built-the number of the population in cvery such parish during the last century-the oun;ber of churc es and. chapels belonging to the establi.'hmeht In eath parsh befor te buildixgof the new churches- the number of persons who owned seats in those churches and chapels_.the general number of Persons who could be accommodated in each new church or chapel_the number of seats which were paid for,'3nd also the number of seats left free and open. public attention wn cal1ed to ai subjed5 , tidat it would lead to the adoption of some liberal and comrprhen8ive measure by wivch due accommodation would be afforded in our churches to the people. The great objectioat against the grant of 500,0001. for building new *hurche m d to arj,e from the idea, tbat the proposition of mi.- nistits loolted nore like a sito fbr their own consciences, than an act originating In a conscientious feeling for the good of the people. TThere were several ways by which the intWrests of the cfiuttch could be effectually served, withoat calling on the pubi,iC for assistance. One of these was bv having divine worship celebrated live tines on the Sunday, vrhich ttuld easily be done in those parishes where marxiages, baptisms, and funerals wete chiefly solemnized in the week-days. Another mode was by apprdpriating a part of the church revenue to the buildin and repairing of churches; Thi,he thought, wbuld be perlectdy fair, Ana, in the third place, the confer- rig the patronage of new churc7es oh the trisgtees appointed by those who voluntarilv con-'- - a to their erection, would bre a measure I un ~ ~ ~ tes nswr arFied in,' raugoot wiet muchurepgn l gd. f the nwne y were to effect, and if, combined with them, a grantotpublius n were called for, he for one would most willingly assent to that tar- liamentary grant. But he objected to te intended gra*tt of 500,0001., because he considered.it, standing by itself, as more like an imposture than a proposition made in the conscientious discharge of a public duty. The motion was agreec to. Mr. HUAE moved for a return of the number of churches and chapels existing in each diocess in England and Wales from 1818 to 1824, distinguishing the number in each y'ear; and aiotbr a re. turn of the nuniberof licences issued in each diocess ii England and U'ales for places of worship frequented by persons dissenting trnm the Clurch of England for the same penod.-Ordered- -A 'P A - Mfr. HUMIE, in moving for copies of the treaties cxisting be- tween the East India Comnpany and thie native Chiefs of Sumatra, commented upon the loss t'hat Great Britain would sustain from the concessions proposed in that territory. There were 25 settlers on the western coast (which wve were giving up) of Sumatra, who alone raised as mnuds nutmeg as svas equal to the whole consumption Of Great Britain. From ltl thitt we knew of Dutch conductfnt lDutch policy, we might be sure that 3be new rulers of the islanrwould not suff'er these plantations to go on a moment longer; and he re- peated, that it would be neiijigence, and inore than negligence, If no compensation) had betq) stipulated for. There ras an- Qther complaint which ale h1atd to make-the giving Sumatra up tt all was a breach -rf faitr by this country writh the chis2c and the natives generalt y. True inkabitants of this coast that we vere disposirtg of Inad net er given up their country. We had lheld it only a tnev hants-. nd by the treaty coneluded by Sir Stamt'ord Raffles it | l18, it vas diathicdy set fbrth, that the East India Comp n. kept *ssession only in trast for the nltive. Certainlv tbb .beadsecase;.ifye gavt Up at all, we ought only to have given It upio the' nativte ti rsv-.fdC! whomthe Englishsettle ta befpre alluded tovrouldbave beenwell eontent to live. As the fact stood, he (Mr. Hume) could only con- sider what we had been doing as ati extreme breach of privateright and public honSur. Mr. W; WYNN, witlhout admitting the correctness of any one of the hon. enet' er's statementg, refused t9 be drawn into anydis, cussion until the treaty with the Netherlands vwas before thehouse. Alr. BRIGHT sai:d that the annoyance of the Dutch in. the Indian seas'hatf lonk' been suchi as to call for the attention of Eng- land. He thought that, in general, the afl-airs of India were kept too ntuch a secret from Parliament; - ind rejo:ced' that one or two matters- were pending which would be likely. to bring them into more diiscussion. Al r. HUAlE then moved for copies of all treaties existing between the' East India Company and the Chiefs of Sumatra; also tor returns o?the quantiy of nutmegs, srace, and cloves, imported from Sut- Inatra into this country within the last six years.-Papers ordered to be laid on the table. LAU' OF PRINCIPAL AND VACTOR. Air. HUSKISSON obtained leave to bring in his bill upon this subject, promising to open his views upon the second reading. Sir GEOR(;E HILL brought in his bill to amend the act for regula-uag vessels carrying passengers between Great Britain and Ireland. SCOTCH JURIES. Ilr. KENNEDY moved that the report of the Scotch jury bill shonld be brought up. The LORDAADVOCATE trmsted that, seeing the state of the house, the hon. gent. would postpone his bill until after Easter. Al r. BERNAI, observed, that the bill woultl hiAve to. pass the House of Lords as well as the Commons, and hoped that is hon. fziend would not give way. Alr. KENNEDY said that he had endeavoured in every way to meet the hon. and learned Lord Advocate's views; but he could not consent to postpone his measure. A division was then called for, wvlheni twelve members only being found present, the house adjourned at SaEVFr. O'CLOCX. 1Oli_E O(F COMMfTAM . xvn-.prnv A-, IA