House Of Commons, Thursda...
The Times, 1824-04-16T00:00:00

At a quarter before four o'clock, the bPEAKER was sunmoned tc hear the Royal assent given by commission to several public ap.d private bills (for wbich see Lords' report). ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS. Mr. GRENFELL, in moving that sone additional names be added to the committee upon thc St. (,Atherine's dock bill, took the opportunity of removine two principal exaggerations which hadgone abroad respecting this bill. The first exaggeration was that which referred to the number of individuals to be affected by the measuic. It had been said in the most unqualified mainer, that no less than 10,000individuals would be expelled from their homes by this bill: so far from that being the fact, lie beld in his hand a paper drawn out by an agent expressly employed tol make the inquiry, from whose computation it would be found, that so far from the number being iO,Ouo, it wculd not be more thani between 4,3100 and 4,400. The ne-st exaggeration was respecting the number of houses to be rased in carrying on the work-that number hadl been statted to be no iess than 1201) or 1,300. Now, the fact was, accordinlg to the coiilput tion to whiclh he had already referred, it was not contemuplated to pull down more than 803, altlhough at the time of the orimation of the London Docks there hlad been 1,400 removed. It had been fur- ther stated) that there was no want of new docks, and therefore that the St. Catherine's dock ought not to be projected, the exist- ing doccs being ouite sufficient for the business of the metro- polis. 'his was, however, the decLaration of those who were proprietors, or otherwise interested In these locks ; whilst the .ublic at large (and he had hinmself presented a petition signed VIy upwards of 1,800 of the principal merchants and traders of the city of London, expres8ing their opiniotl of the necessity of the new tocks) were complaining of the harassing and vexatious regu. lations of the old ones, which embarrassed them mucl in the pro. gress of their business. 7W'itlh respect to the shortness of the notice, whiich certainly lhad some weight, he had the gratification of inform. ing the house that a chose was prepared whici wvould put the inha. bitarts intenued to be removed in a tar better situation than the would have beeni placed in had they received the regular notice af. ludeod to. Alr. HUMEpresentedapetition from theownersofeertaiti wharfs, against the St. Catherine's Dock bill. iMr. P. CORBETT presenteda petition from Shrewsbury, against the Bristol town dues' bill. Lord A. HAM ILTON presented a petition from Bainbridge, against negro slavery. Colonel KING presented a petition from the dioceses of White. charch and Cloyne, against the titlhc-bill. COMNZBINATION LAWVS. Alr. PETER MOORE presented a petition from the journey- rmen riband weavers of Coventry, playing for a repeal of the combi- nation laws. The hon. mover observed, that so impressed was he of the necessity of this repeal, that he would on the 6th of Alay tnake a nsotion for thatpurpose, whether the report of the committee up stairs was or was not made. The hon. mermber presented a similar petition from the town of Saddleworth. IVR. III'ADAMl. Sir THOlAS BARING said, that soon after the recess it was his intention to make a motion, fotnded upon the report o tthe comr mitte-e of last session, respecting the public claims of Mlr. il1'Adain for the improvement of roads. CATHOLIC 51ARRIAGE-BILL. Dr. PHILL1iIlORE broughit in the Romnan Catholic miarriage bill, which wasread a first tines, and ordered for a second readinig on the 3d of n esay. On the motion of Lord A. HAMTLTOV, account was ordered of the amount, appropriation, and mode ot supplying the deficiency of the fthe-funda othe courts of sessn Cdurlin s ltas 3 years. IRISH GRANI g JURI as. Jr. S. RICE presented a petition fromt a nuniber of inhabitunts ,of P)rogheda, complaining that Romnan Catholics, although their niumber Was In the proportion of nine to one to Protestants in that county, and their property in the prountyon Of two to three, were never surmmoned upon grand the tes.i'e act of the year 1793 thorizeel the emaploymrent of Roman Catholics ogn grand juriest; but that relaxation of the penal code was evaded in the county from which t ehis ion emanated ; and although non-residents and per- sons whuhd no property in the county were often summonewt as raind jurors, yet during the 30 years which had elapsed since 1793, not.a single Catholic ad been sumemoned to fill that office. The' freedom, too, of the corporation wvas often granted to nonrreidents tlhough ont a recent ocasemen it had been refused to a Catholic baronet of ancient family- Sir. Thos. Esmondle. SirjOHN NEWPORI'stron lycomplained of this narrowand bigotted conduct inirlieds h he contrasted with that pre- vailin, in the city ofVtcor wtere the full benefit of the act of 1793 had neetss t d to a Ctholic. It wasPscandalousto see the intentionsoftelglaues frustrated, as they, appeared"to lhave been from th sttments in this petition fromn Droghedtt. Mr. HIJIlE, as,cmplained of the gross injustice thus com- mitted upon ROMia Ctholic-s in several partsof Ireland, whoQcouldi not, even sn siome instaces at public corporate sales, becomre pur- chasers, sinless through the agenicy of a'Protestant. The petition was ordered tp be printed. 1Mr.BLACU3URNRE presented five petitiois7praying for the gra. dual abolition of llegro slavcry, from the townships of Overhalton, Bart1eswell, Haslinigdon, Ncwton, and Leigh, in the county of Lantaster. A similar petition was presented by Sir T. LETI- aRIfl C5E Xfrornmthe township of Cbard, in the county of. Somerset. Mr.. bUIi]E laiduponhe fablethe rep ort of the cdnumittee upon ardsans. lt was ordered to be pripeted. Ur. flUMI peesentted a petitioni against the combination laws fro ,the journeynen cilico-painter5 of Lancashire, Derbyshire, and Sir T. LETfRBRIDGE presented a petition from certain cloth- masters of Wiltshire, praying that the house would not repeal the dluties on foreign wool. mr. BUTTVERWORTH presented a petition from the town of Doscaster,in favour of klr.Martin's bill regardinI ruelty to animals. SALE OF MACKEREL ON SUNDAYS. Al r. BUTT ERW ORTH said, that he had a petition to present fromn seve al fishmongers and poulterers in the cities of London and Weestminster, to which he wishied to call the attention of the house. The honiourable memnber tlen recited tne heads of the petition, from which itappeaLed, that the petitioners wished to obtain the repeal of a clause in the act of William IlI., which permits the sale of mackerel on a S6iday,on the ground that the permission is abused to sell other fish upon that day. He maintained, upon the authority of several fishmongers, that mackerel might be kept as fresh for 24 hours as any other fish (a laugh) ; and as that was the case, lie trusted the house would pay somie regard to the prayers of the petitioners. Mr. HUME would not object to the bringina, up of the petition because he was of opinion that all descriptions ot personls ha a right to present their petitions to the house. He could.not, however, re- frain froml obieiving, that it appeared imost strange to him that the petitionern should call upon the house to interfere in a matter of this naiture. The pectiioners praved the house not to compel them to do a certain act, whici they need not db unless they cho3e. (Hear.) He would put it to the lishmongermthemselves, whetier it would not be better for them to meet together and deterimine not to sell fish ott a Sunday, than to trouble the house with such a petition as bad-just been presented? Had lie been onelof the gentlemen who had a con, scientious objection to selling fish on the Lortis day, he should never have dreanmt of calling upon the house to compel him not to do that wvhici he mighit of his own accord safely neglect to do. He would ask the house, whether it woulid be worth'its while, on stich grounds as the petitioners hadi statel, to add another penal stautte to the miany useless ones which alre.dy incumbered our mttute book? If any such law wereaddeils it would, beyond a doubt, be totaly in- operative. Sir A. WT. RIDILEY saitd, that a nmore ridiculous, absurd, and, he would add, canting petition, had never been presented to the house. (Hear, hear.) If thepetitioner,reallytbound adifficulty in the pre- sent practice, lhe would suggest to thetis a nide by which they could get rid of it. \ihen the petition was printed, let their names be yritted along with it (" hear," and a laugh); the public would then k-now who these conscientious auth scrupulous hshlniongers were, and would perhaps take cre niot tu troubte their tender consciences ir future. If it were not irregular, lie should tiove that tile names of the petitioners be priited long with tile petition. Sit T. BARINt could not treat the petition witlh the ridicule whiicih the two labt spieakers had enteavoured to fling upon it. lf it were just to vote away I)ublic nioneytfortlIeerectiou of niewcchurches, on the groutnd that, it vas sounti policy to difliume proper religious feelinigs throughi the conimunity, surely it was just to adopt such measures as wovuld pr ev ent any iiprotper celebration of the Sabbath. It ha.d berni asked, ivily did these fishionugers, who reprobated the pIesent practice of selling ish on aSunday, follow it themselves? The answer was eaiy; it they tid not scll fisti on a Sunday as others of their trade did, they would soon lose all their customn,and see their tiniilies reduced to ruin. iMr. C. SMITH reiniided the house, that the conscientious feel- ing, wvhich prevented these scrupulous lishnuongers fronm selling fish on a Sulnday, co1ld iiot by any possibility operate upon the Jews. (A louil laugh.) The petition was then brought up, and read. On the questiOn that it be printed, MI.. BUT lERW U'iRTH observed, tbat whilst the law permitted one dc=ription of fish to be sold upon a Sutnday, very few fishmongers wultl dare to refuse to sell any kind of rish that their customers iiiglit ruquire. It was on that very account that the petitioners wished the clause, allowing the sale ot mackerel on Sunday, to be repealed. 'They were aware, that even if the tratle were to nieet and to leteirmine among themselves not to sell lish on a Sunday, they could not prevent it front being sold by the Jews and the low Irisih. WItb regard to thie suggestion of the lion. mcmber iur Newcastle, hew souli merely obseive that the petitioners were anxious to have their names known,and were so Iar wishing to conceal them that they had actually printed and circulated their petition wvith thteir names attached to iL HE wvoutdl tell tiie hon. meaiiber for New-castle. that his illustrious atcestor. (Bisihop Ridley, we believe,) who sulfered in thc cause of the reformation, would not have treated this petitior wviti the lighit unitcaning ridicule which he iad bestowed upon it. After a few reimarks in lhavour of the petitioti, from a member witii *whose niame we wereunacquainted. it was ordered to be printe(l. ADJOURNRENT OF' THE HOUSE. MIr. CANNINTG imoved, that the house on its risiiig do adjourn to MAlonday, the 3d of May. The usual petiod of adjourniient at this s ason ot the year was a fortnight; and hi5 reason fbr pro- longitg it on this occasion was, that it it were to meet or this day forinigt, this year, it coutld do nothing more than adjourn over to the ttonday followilg, in consequence of a solemnity occurring on that day, at whlici it was usual that the memlbers of both houses should attend. Ile had the less regret in mnaking this psoposition, on accoumt of the forward state in whiicl the public business ras at present.-Alotion granted. RUA1 DUTIES BILL. Ott the muotion of ttie CliANCELLOB. of the EXCHEQUER, the house resolvehl itself into a coinniittee on the rum duties nill. In the co,omittee, a conversation took ljale betiween the C HAN- CELI..Oit of the ExcsIEQuEia, Mr. ELLICE, *IMr. R. ELLIs, Al- derman BiRIDnES, Mr. BlitGiit, and Mr. T. WILSON-. M1r. BRIGHT asked when the remission of Is. WId. per gallon of the duty on rum would take place? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered, fromn alid after the passing of the act. The house then resumed, and the report was ordered to be re- ceived on the 3d of AMay. The British Museum bill went through a committee.-Report on the 3d of Mlay. The beer bill went through a committee.-Report on the 7th o1 AMay. ''lie sugar bounties bill went through a committee.-Report on the 3d otf May. Thte other orders were then disposed of, aned the house adjourned at seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMOV-N - .. -