House Of Commons, Tuesday...
The Times, 1824-04-14T00:00:00

On the motion of Sir ROBlERT SSHAW, the Hibernian mining company bill was read a second time, after a few observations from Sir HENRY PARNELL, Mr. DAVIES GILBERT, and Mr. G. DAWsox, resnecting the intended effect of the measure. On the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the mining company of Ireland biU was read a second time, after a few obsernations frotm Sir JO1N NEWPORT. Sir BYAAI MARTIN presented a petition from Plymouth, in favour of the oil-gas bill. Sir JOHN NEWPORT gavenotice, that on Tuesday, the 18th of May, he ahould submit a motion to the house on the subject of the church-rates levied in Ireland. Dir. SPRING RICE presented a petition from the noblemen, gentry, &c., of the county of Dublin, against the Dublin toll bill. In answer to a question from MIr. GEATTAN, M]r. ELLIS said that it was not his intention to press the further consideration of the toll bill during the present session. Mr. SPRING RICE presented a petition from a nutnber of the nmosE respectable inhabitants of Dublin against the Dublin coal biU, which would have the effect, if passed into a law, of raising the price of the article. Dir. ELLIS denied that the bill would produce such an effect. Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from 400 individuals trad- ing between Dublin and Whitelhaven, against the Dablin coal bill. Lord LOIWTHER said that the complaint in this petition was not the general opinion in the part of the country from which it came. Mr. CURW1EN repeated, tbat this petition contained the general sentiments of the northern ports, and others were preparing at Whitehavan a petition against the bilD. AMr. SPRING RICE said that the feeling of the inhabitaus of Dublin was against the bil. In fact, they knef nothing of its 1n. troduction. Mr. GRATTAN repeated a similar assertioh. Air. DAWSON said, that this bill was meant to correct the ini- quitous practice of certain persons who supplied the inlabitants of Dublin with coal. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that the most respectable mercan- tile and trading isterests of Dublin were hostile to the bill, which was onlv calculated to legalize the exactions of their corporation. He should therefore oppose it. After a few words from Mlr. KB;1NNEDY, the petition was laid on the table. Mr. EL.LS presented a petition from several inhabitants of Dublin in favour of the Irish mining company bill. ilIr. T. ELLIS, in moving the second reading of the Dublin coal b)ill, saSd that the mesaarewhich he now proposed to the house was rendert'l necessary by a combination of ship.masters in the port of Dublin to keep up an extravagant p rice of coals. That combtnation wassupported by aseries of frauds, whichit was his firm belief could not be PUt down without the assistance of the present bill. It had been said, that theobject ofthisbill was to legalize the exac- tionsof the corporadon of Dublin; this he denied. It was founded on a bill of the late Mr. Grattan, and was so far from legalizing any exactions madeby the corporaion of Dublin, that it absolutey di- minished their power, without at all increasing their emoluments. The two main objects of the bill were, to prevent coals of an inferior quality from being sold as coals of a saperior quality, and to cause them to be sold by fair and legal weight. DIr. GRATTAN contended, that this bill was fiUed with mon- strous and cruel enactments, which would not be tolerated for a mo- ment in this country. Every clause of it gave summary power to the magistrate to commit offenders against it to prison without bail or niainprize. He denied that this biUl was formed upon the modlel of his father's, and said that he felt so hostile to it that he should take the sense of the house uron it, by meving as an amendment, ' that it be real a second time this day six months." MIr. DAWSON supported the bill, and contended that it was ap- proved of by very respectable inhabitants in Dublin. Sir H. PARNELL opposed the bill, because every clause in it proposed a restraint, and every restraint in it was aggravated by a penalty. Mr. G. PHILIPS thought this bill to be particularly unwise. It restored all the old prejudices by which commerce was formerly so much impeded; it was filled with penalties against forestalling and regrating. lt was founded upon the principle that aU the sellers of coals were rogues, and all the buvers of them fools. (A laugh.) Alr. CURWliN opposed the second reading of the bill. The hon. member bad already abandoned three-fourths of his bill, and it was his opinion that he could npt do better than to abandon the re- maining fourth. Lord LOWTHER trusted the house would allow the bill to go into a committee. Sir R. SHAW thought that the bill might be allowed to go into a committee, as his worthy colleague had declared his willingness to modify several of ifs clauses. The house then divided-when there appeared- For the amendment, 471 Against it, 341 iMajority, 13. The bil was consequently lost. The city-road biUl was read the third time and passed. klANIVIERSMITH-BRIDGE BILL. MIr. H. SU51NER presented a petition from the inhabitants of Richmond, in favour of the above bill. irir. z,. W ii iAisitiau presentect a similar petition trom the in. habitants of Hamnieramith. AMr. BYNG, after presenting a petition to the same efFect, froir the inhabitants of Kensington, moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill. 7Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW opposed the motion. The measum he considered to be perfectly uncalled for. There were already twc bridges, Kew-bridge and Putney-bridge, within a mile anda half oi the site of the intended bridge,which would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any inhabitants. Private rights ought not t be thus invaded; and if this bil were passed, the rights of the pro. prietors of Kew-bridge would be materially injured. But, leaving private interests out of the question, this appeared to be a measur( that was 3ot called for by the public, either in Middlesex or Surrey. and therefore he shoyld move " that this bill be read a second tims this dav six months." Alr. HUME hoped the learned sergeant would be induced to wave his opposition to this nieasure. The learned sergeant did not, and could not, argue that bridges were not a very great accommodation. All he said was, that there were already two bridges in existence. one above, the other below the place where it was intended to ereci the new bridge ; and he considered that the interest of the pro. prietors would be affected if an additional bridge was built. But supposing that to be the fact, still it did not form an objection to thc principle of the bill, which was founded on public convenience. It ought tlherefore to go to a comnittee, and if on examination it ap. peared that the interests of individuals were affected. a proper com. pensation might be awarded to them. mr. SYKES said, that the proprietors of Fulham-bridge had a right, if the present measure were carried, to come before the housc and demand compensation for the bridge, which they had built fox the accommodation of the public. Unless some gentleman assured him that proper compensation should be afforded to those parties, he should certainly oppose the bill. Lord LOWTHER did not think that the individuals on whosc behalf compensation was demanded, deserved that extensive remu. neration for which gentemen contended: they had taken very good care to pay themselves handsomely by the exactior of extra. vagant tolls. Persons frequently passing and re-passing Putney. bridge paid nearly as much in tWe course of a year as thev could rent a house for in that n eighbourhood. He hoped the bill would be read a second time: the question of compensation could then be examined in a committee, and the parties interested would probably be induced to come to some compromise. At all events, it was most desirable that this bridge monopoly should be put an end to. Ar. DENISON believed that the toUs alluded to did not amount to more than 9,0001. or 10,0001. a-year. But if they were at high as 15,000L, lie thought those who owned themn had a right tc clam compensation. That being admitted, be was favourable te the measure. He was glad to see the superfluous capital of the coun- try laid out itn that mianner. It was much better to employ it thus, instead of throwisag it away on Utopian speculations. Sir F. OMiMlUANElY spoke in favour of the bill. He complained strongly of the insecure state of Patney-bridge. Not long since, a friend of his happened to be ridint over that bridge, wrhen the fore- feet of his horse sank into a holc, and both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation. Mr. LOCKHART contended, that the interests of paries cot- nected with the other bridges in the neighbourhoodl ought not to be neglected. Unless an assurance were _iveit that they would be properly compensated, he shoald give the bill every opposition in his power. .Mr. CURTEIS was friendly to the measure. The question of compensation might be considered in the committee. Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, but they were inaudible in the gallery. Sir J. YORKE opposed the bill. It might be very well to in- dividuals to have good level roads to walk upon-or, to use a homely phrase, that thsey shttsild have an opportunity of steering to any point of the compass they pleased; but it was really a heart.rending thing, when roads were cot in every direction round gentlemen's estates, which previously were quiet and retired. The house oughtte consider this, and pause betore they passed the biUl. Mr. BYNGr defended ~t:e measure as one of great public utility. As to compensation, that was a point which could only be conside'r- ed in the committee. Sir J. GRAHAMI said, the intended bridge would be of no use, unless new roads and approaches were made in its neighbourhood; and this could not be done without sacrifidng ptoperty to a great ex- tent, as was the case with the Southwark.bridge. It was a measure for which there was no necessity, since it would not save 500 yards in the distance between London and Richnond, and therefore, in his opinion, it ought not to be countenanced by the house. They were told, that the question of indemnity to the parties whose in. terests would be affected might be settled in the committee: but what indemnity could be derived front abridge that would neverpay a shiUing to the subscribers? If indemnity were intended, it ought to be charged upon some certain substantial security. For his pars, he thought it would be a mercy to the speculators themselves, if they were prevented from proceeding farther. Sir J. SEBRIGHT said, if the argumnents of those who opposed the bill were to prevail, no public improvement whatsoever could take place, because in every instance it must interfere in some degree with the property of individuals. If they looked to their own times, however, they would find that such arguments were not received as sound ones. Improvements had succeeded eacl other beyond all precedent, because wvealthy individus4s found that to be the best mode for the employment of their capital. He was decidedly in fa. vour of the present measure, for he detested monopolies of all kinds. They only tended to shut the door against useful improveiments. Mblr. H. SUltINEit advocated the measure as a necessary and proper one. It was said that the new bridge would not save a dL- tance of 500 yards in the journey between London and Richmond: but there were a great many other points in proceeding to which a,_considerable saving of distance would be effected. Besides. there was much valuibTe vropertyv iu the neighbourhood, which, instead of being detcriorate4, would be greatly improved by the measure. The hon. gent. had called the persons wlho projected this bridge speculators: but what were the proprietors of Kew-bridge and of E ulham-bridge but speculators ? (Hear.) The former, he believed, had some reason to complain of the ill success of their speculation, lvhilst the latter had just as much reason to exult in the prosperit ft theirs& He should cordiaUy vote for the second reading of the bi Mr- Alderm4n WVOOD said, that (putting aside London-bridge) he believed there was as much traflic upon the Southwark-bridge as upon any bridge in town. 1Mr. CROKER supported the bill, which was then read a second time without a tlivision. SCOTCH COURTS. Air XENNEDY wished to ask the right honourable gentleman opposite Mr. Peel) wlhether tbe report of the commission on the state of the Scotch courts would be in the hands of members before the recess; and whether a bill was likely to be brought in soon, in confomiity with its recommendations ? Mlr. PEEL trusted that the report would be laid before the honse previous to the recess. The recommendation of the commissioners had received the earliest attention from Govermment; and a mea- s5re would be submitted to Parliament upon the subject, as soon as possible, OIL-GAS. Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition from Biddeford, in favour of the oil gas-bill. MIr. HVUME presented a similar petition from persons concerned in the whale.fishery at lioontrose. NEGRO SLAVERY. .Mr. CURIVEN presented a petition from Mllaryport, for the abolition of negro slavery. Alr. HUAIE presented a petitions from IDundee, upon the same subject. LINEN TRADE. Colonel TRENCH presented a petition from the nobility, gentry, and clergy of Roscommon, against the repeal of the linen bounties in Ireland. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH observed, that the private basiness before the house had already, as it seemed to him, gone too far into the eveising. Mr. LAWVLEY presented a petition from the Chamber of Coni- merce in Birmingham, complaining of port-dues exacted at BristoL Mr. CURWVEN presented a petition from the holders of foreign wheat in England; but, from the indistinct tone in which it w5a read by the clerk of the house, we were quite unable to collect its import. Mr. GRATTAN presented two petitions from the city of Dublin; one on the subject of the coal duties, and the other refeiring to local taxation. DEMiERARA.-A.r. S31ITH. Sir J. AIACINTOSH presented a pedtion froih the London A1issionary Soiety, complainingk of the tril (at law) of one of their M!issionaries in Vemerent (Mr. Smith), and praying for the revi- sI6h and rescindmtnt of that gentleman's senteztfe. ln presentang this petition, (the honourable and learned gentlemim a . 'h he she abstain from entering into the details of the trassactiEsitferr to because it was a matter which wouli be better discusQ whe the minutes of Air. Smith's trial should be haid before the ban He hoped that, all circumstances considered, that course wo.d meet with approval, and that honourable members would, geriely, re' serve their observations for the present. The body pet'oning, h4 would observe, consisted of persons of the very highes respecral- lity; they might2 perhaps, have been imposed upon b 4nisrepre'en. tat on, but certainly they had no wish to impose n the)ouse. 1'heir present application was not at atl intended broad question of coloniul legisliation; they only desired tor sre safey to their own missionaries, while in the strict perfornl lce sf reL- gious duty. MUr. W. HORTON regretted that the presenting olthe petition, as well as the discussion of it, had not been reserved ntil the mi- nutes of Sr. Smith's trial were before the house. if he abstained at present from commenting upon the document produced, he must be understood as not thereby precluding himself from exposing, on a future occasion, the extreme inaccuracies with which it abounded. Honourable members, in reserving their observations for the pre- sent, would do well also to reserve their opinions: he (Air. Horton) believed that the petitioners might have no wish to deceive; but in many points, they had (past question) been grievously deceived themselves; and he doubted much, it they had exercised a sound discretion in thc course which they had pursued. The petition was then read, and ordered to lie en the table, Mr. GRENFELL moved that an account should he laid before the house, of merchandise lying on the wharfs and quays of the Lon- don Docks (distinguishingslescriptions on the 5th of April instant. Air. HUME gave notice, that on Thprsday, the 20th of May be should make a motion (as we understood) connected with thie ,rih church establishment; and on the 1st of June, a motioa oa the sub. ject of compensation to slave-owners in the West Indies. ENGLISH CATkiOLICS. Dr. PHILLIMORE moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relative to the marriage, baptism, and burial of Roman Ca- tholics in England. The object of the honourableand learned gentle- man was, to render the marrizge ceremony valid when performed by a Catholic priest, fees being paid regilarly to the Prctestant church, and bans also published there, or sicences obtained in the ordinary way: also ta vary the act of Parliament, the 52d of the late B;jvg, commonly called Alr. Rose's Act, and grant registration as of right, by the Protestant minister, upon certificate of baptism performed by the Catholic clergyman. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that the law did not re- quire any alteration; but he hoped that in some Stage of this bill, when brought in, the subject would undergo the most ample dis- cussion. Mr. AIONCK said, that there was great public inconvenience in the present state of the law, on account of the great number of poor Irish Roman Catholic children which feU upon some of the parishes, becam!e, though bom in Popish wedleck, they were not hi Id by law legitimate. Mr. p, GILBERT said, that it was an unnecessary hardshin to require the RonmanCatholicto be married in the Protestant churches, as they reckoned it among the seven sacraments of their own church. He really thought that something might be done to legitimatize their marriages after publication of bans in the Protustant church.- L~eave given to being in abilL. VEST INDIA PAPERS, Ir. F. BUXTON proceeded, pursuant to him notice-since no gentleman of his Alajesty's Govemment would oppose him-for the production of a long series of papers relative to the West India colonies, includjng not only general returns, but particular docu. ments, proclamations, instructions from tle homeegovernment, pro- ceedings in the courts of justice against negroes delinquent; ac- counts of Frnch and Span.ish slave importations; sorrespondence upon tte subjects of various insurrections; copy of the proceedings in tke tral of two slaves condemned te public flogging in Trinida on the 21st of Aarch, 1823,forTmakinggrouudleiscomplaintsagainst their ma.sters; together with another series af papers relative to the Aflican settlements and the Cape of Good Hope, especally in regard to the skinuishes with the Bushmen; returns otkilld ant wounded within a given time. lr. T. WILSON thought that there were so many objectionable matters in the motion, that if any gentleman would second him, he would divide the house upon it, Air. HUNE thought it extraordinary that the bon. gentleman should object to the production of papers and information, as if there could be any danger bo great as that which was likely to arise from suspicion and doubt. r. BUXTON said that be had consulted several gentlemen deeply concerned in Wi'est India interests, and no objection whatever was oflfred by them to the production of the papers.-Ordered. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable infants to transfer dividends under the direction of the Court of Cbancerv. WVAREHOUSED WI-HEAT. In a committee of the whole house, Mr. HUSKISSON said that it was his intention to apply tor leave to bring in a bill to enable those who who had oreign grain in warebouses to con- vert it into flour, on giving security to replace it with a corres- ponding quantity ot flour. His rei son for doing this was to enable the British capital now shut up in this produce to go out and seek a market. There were immense exportations of flour from ?lamburgh and other places to the lIWest India colonies, which, but for the existing regulations, might as well be supplied by British ca- pitalists. To say nothing, at present, of the corn laws, though he would have no objection to a material alteration of them, there was an advantage which would be felt by the measure now proposed to the consumption at home. The greater part of the wheat of last harvest was hurt by the constant ra=s. The grain in the warehouses was too dry, and from confinement for so long a period was rapidly destroying. A mnixture would be useful to bothi stocks. It was computcd that a barrel of flour like the American barrel ought to weigh 1961b., and that it was equal to five good bushels of wheat: but, fron the waste by long keeping of the wheat in the warehouse, and the defective state of the last crop, he thought that it would be about a fair average to allow a barrel of flour to six bushels. Mr. CURWVEN said, that there would be little danger from the measure just novw, because there were only about 400,000 quarters ot foreign wheat in warehouse, and the letting of that out into the mar. ket would not produce any thing like the mischief that the opening of the ports would bring-that being an event which they must ex. pect in August. The report was then brought up,and leave given to bring in the bill. On the motion of MIr. BANKES, the British Museum bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday next. On thie motion of the CHANiCELLOR of the EXCitIEQuER, the order of the day for the 2d reading of the rum duties bill was read. M1r. HUAlI E said, that considering how the present duties had the effect of keeping up a monopoly in the runs trade, it behoved the right hon. gentlenian to provide some remedy for that evil. The only mode, as it appeared to him, would be the permitting rum to be converted into gin. C(omplaints were made of the conduct of dis- tillers; but lie thought they were unfounded, while the existing in. perfections in the laws alone caused the monopoly. After a few words from Ilr. BRItGIs `, the bill was committed for Thursday next; as were also (after being read a secend time) the beer duties' aod the sugar bounties' bills. The Exchequer bills for public works' bill was read a second time, and committed for to-morrow. On the motion of Mblr. sIIARLEaS GRANT, the house resolved it- self into a committee on the fisheries' acts. The right hon. gentle- man stated that the obiect of this bill was to reduce the present bounties upon the fisheries. In the Enlish fishery it had been found that thcse bounties were not benefical; and even in Ireland, it was only proposed to continue them for a few years upon a reduced scale. lie intended, however, to propose the continuation of apor- tion of the usual grant, which should be appropriated to building piers in the sniall bays. This, it was believed. would operate more to the benefit of the fishermen titan the continuation of the bounties. After a short conversation between the right hon. gentleman, Air. DAVIES GILBERT, and MIr. BRIGt T, the house resumtd, and the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. The reports on the glass duties' and sweets' acts were brought up. Thelaw stamps' repeal bill was ordered to be comi mitted to-niorrow. The report on the saving bank8' acts was ordered to be brought up on Tuesday, the 4th of Mtay. The house then went into a committee on the Scotch juries' bill; and having resumed, the report was directed to be brought up to- morrow. I'he other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at HALF-PAST NINE. MINORITY AGAIWaT TTTWV cr Awq n- 4Pq1IflI flf,-n -i1i nTT,r- 1-- QrWVQ HOUSE OF COJIMONS. TuEESDAY, APRIL 13.