Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

ther prayer was, that the duration of the right might be extended beyond 14 years, He thought, in some cases, 14 years was not a sufficient protection ; and he thought it might be right to leave it to the discretion of the Crown, as was the case in France, where patents were granted for 5, 10, or 15 years.

SUPPLY.

The House then resolved itself into a committee of Supply.

Mr Hume said, he thought it would be taking the House by surprise to bring forward the estimates, without more time being granted for examination. Mr Goulburn moved, that £.25,000 be granted for the education of the poor of Ireland.

Mr Hume said, he objected to the grant of money to the Kildare Place Society, as it had not the confidence of the people. The Honourable Gentleman moved that £.22,000 be substituted for £.25,000.

Mr S. Rice said, he would at a future time call for an accurate return of the number of children at the Society Schools.

23-Mr Hume gave notice, that he would bring forward a motion, after the recess, for an address to the Crown to change the present form of government in Ireland, by discontinuing the office of Lord Lieutenant. Mr Peel brought in a bill to amend the laws relating to lar. ceny, and other offences respecting property-Read a first and second time, and committed. The several blanks were filled up in Committee. The same Right Honourable Gentleman brought in a bill to improve the administration of criminal justice.

SUPPLY.

papers connected with the state of the slaves in the colonies of Berbice and Demerara; and, in answer to a question by Earl Grosvenor, his Lordship stated, that Commissioners had been appointed some time since to inquire into the state of the liberated African slaves. Those Commissioners were now prosecuting their inquiries, and had made considerable progress.

NOTES PAYABLE WHERE ISSUED. 10. The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that in compliance with the notice he had given before the recess, he had now to present a bill, making notes issued payable at the place where they were issued. He should move that the bill be read a first time now, and a second time on Friday, and that the Lords be summoned. Lord Lauderdale asked whether the bill extended to Scotland? The Marquis of Lansdowne replied in the affirmative. Lord Lauderdale said, the effect of the bill would be inevitably to destroy 20 or 40 Banks of Scotland. He hoped that the bill would not have extended to Scotland. The bill was then read a first time.

PREVENTIVE SERVICE.

11.-Earl Darnley called the attention of the House to this subject. The noble Lord alluded to the recent event which terminated in the loss of the life of an officer of his Majesty's navy, by being fired at by one of the men employed in the preventive service. He could not suppose that this man had acted under orders issued, but that it arose more from accident than design. The noble Lord then alluded to a record to be found in a church-yard in Sussex, of a fisher. man who had been hailed, but because he gave no answer, was immediately shot. He mentioned these circumstances, to show how harrassing the system was. The noble Lord then entered into various details, showing that smuggling, instead of being suppressed, had been carried on, on as great, if not greater scale than here. tofore; and concluded by moving for a return of the number of officers and petty officers employed in the preventive service, and their annual expenditure. Lord Melville said, no one could more sincerely regret the unfortunate accident which deprived a valuable officer of his life, than he did; but if the Noble Lord supposed that the man who fired upon the officer in question was acting under orders, he was quite mistaken. The Noble Lord concluded, by detailing the stratagems resorted to by smugglers, and the necessity which existed of a suitable vigilance to keep them down. The Earl 6. Lord Bathurst laid on the table of Liverpool said, that since this system

The report of the committee of the whole House being brought up, Mr Hume objected to the several votes of money for the charitable institutions in Ireland, and moved that it was the duty of the House to institute an inquiry be fore they voted £.371,589 for that pur. pose. A division took place, where there appeared, for Mr Hume's motion, 6; against it, 60-majority, 54. The se veral resolutions were then agreed to. The House then adjourned till the 5th April.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—April ́5.—Earl Grosvenor said, he had a petition to present from the weavers of Macclesfield against the corn laws. The noble Earl vindicated the principles of free trade. Lord Malmesbury said, if persons gave the subject due consideration, they would see that the landholder ought to be protected.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

was established, twelve years ago, this was the first accident of the kind that had happened. After some farther. re marks, the motion was agreed to.

13. Several petitions were presented against any alteration in the banking system of Scotland and Ireland.

14.-Lord Dudley and Ward presented a petition, praying for compensation, if slavery were abolished, from the House of Assembly in the island of AntiguaThe petition was referred to the committee.

LOCAL PAYMENT OF NOTES BILL.

ercised upon slaves, by officers in the islands, who were themselves interested in slaves. Lord Bathurst said, the cases mentioned by the Noble Mover were much exaggerated, and moved the order of the day. The motion was withdrawn.

18.A message from the Commons communicated to the House that permission had been given to Mr Leslie Foster to be examined on the committee of inquiry on the banking system of Scotland and Ireland.

The Duke of Atholl presented petitions from sundry parishes in the county of Perth against any alteration in the Scotch banks.

20.-Earl Grosvenor put a question to the Earl of Liverpool (founded upon the presumption that the fortress of Misso longhi had fallen) as to the future prospects of the Greek population. The Earl of Liverpool stated, positively, that Missolonghi had not fallen upon the date assigned to that event in the newspapers, but declined answering as to the course which the British Government might hereafter deem it advisable to take with respect to two belligerents, both of whom were at peace with this country.

The Marquis of Lansdowne rose to move the second reading of the bill making notes payble in gold at the place at which they were issued. He was aware that the banking system in Ireland. and Scotland was carried on differently to that of this country, and, therefore, he would allow that in each case it might admit of some exceptions and modifi cations. He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time. Lord Rosslyn contended, that if the bill was allowed to extend to Ireland and Scotland, it would, instead of doing good, destroy public credit. Lord Melville said, that the present bill partook a little of unfair. dealing. Great alarm had been occasion. ed in Scotland by the introduction of this bill; and he would put it to the noble Marquis, whether it would not be pru. dent, under all the circumstances of the case, to defer it for a time.

The Earl of Lauderdale opposed the bill, and Lord Liverpool supported it.

17.-Petitions against any alteration of the banking system of Scotland were presented from different places in Perthshire by the Duke of Atholl and Lord Arbuthnot; from various places in Aberdeenshire and Ross-shire by the Marquis of Huntly; from St. Andrew's by the Earl of Rosslyn; and from Dumfries by the Marquis of Queensberry. The Marquis of Lansdowne presented a petition from the Catholics of Ireland, praying for equal civil rights, which he advocated in a short speech. Earl Grey presented a petition from certain Catholics of Ireland, praying for the repeal of the bill for sup pressing the Catholic Association; and also one from the parish of St. Audeon's, in Dublin, on the subject of Catholic emancipation generally. Lord Suffield moved an address to his Majesty, praying that in future no proprietor of slaves might be appointed to the offices of Go. vernor, Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Fiscal, Guardian, or Religious Instructor, in the West Indies. His Lordship prefa. ced the motion with a statement of various cases of great cruelty and oppression exVOL. XVIII.

Lord Redesdale presented a very long petition from the gentlemen interested in the West-India trade, complaining of the ruinous depreciation of their property, produced by the false views of the slave condition forced upon the people of England, and the unjust and angry feelings which these misrepresentations excited.

REVERSAL OF ATTAINDERS.

25. The Earl of Liverpool had some bills to bring into the House respecting the restoration of some attainted titles; and, as their Lordships might recollect, conversations had taken place in consequence of some doubts entertained as to the manner of doing so. The proceedings relative to the Airly and Wemyss cases had been referred to, and he laid them on the table for their Lordships' infor mation. Those upon the case of Lord Lovat had also been looked into. His Lordship then moved the first reading of acts to restore the titles of Lords Duf. fus, Elcho, and Fingask, and of the Earls of Carnwath and Airly.-Read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Thursday next.

The Duke of Montrose presented a pe tition from the Students of Glasgow College against slavery.

Lord Darnley wished to know if it was the intention of Government to let the Alien Bill expire without introducing another bill on the subject. Lord Liverpool said it was unusual for a Minister to say whether any bill should expire or

4 I

not. This he would say, when the subject would come before the House, it would meet with the attention it required.

PROMISSORY NOTES' BILL.

The Marquis of Lansdowne moved that the House do go into a committee on the bill. The Earl of Liverpool said, he fully agreed in the principle of this bill, but saw very great difficulties in the practical application of it. He hoped, therefore, the Noble Marquis would see the propriety of postponing the farther consideration of the bill till the next Sèssion of Parliament. The Earl of Lauderdale objected to the bill in principle, and at some length argued to show that its effect would be mischievous as regarded Scotland. The Marquis of Lansdowne supported the principle of the bill, but was willing to acquiesce in the suggestion of the Noble Earl, and therefore he would vote that the bill be committed this day three-months, which was agreed to.

28. The Earl or Roseberry presented a petition from Burntisland against the bill for improving the communication between Edinburgh and Fife. Lord Viscount Melville presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh to the same effect.-Laid on the table. Lord Viscount Melville, pursuant to his notice last night, brought in a bill to regulate Copartnerships in Scotland.-Read a first time.

ATTAINDERS REVERSED.

27. The Earl of Liverpool having moved the second reading of the bill for reversing the attainders of Earls Airly and Carnwath, and Barons Elcho, Duffus, and Fingask,

The Earl of Roseberry seized this op portunity of expressing his feelings on the subject. He considered the reversal of the attainders of the two noble families of Airly and Wemyss, (Baron Elcho,) as merely an act of justice, for the heads of those houses had committed no crime whatever at the time when the attainders were issued against their heirs, who alone had been implicated. Notwithstanding the effect which the increase in the number of Scotch Peers might produce on his own election, he saw the restoration of noble families to their titles with sincere pleasure.

The Earl of Liverpool agreed with the noble Earl, that the restoration of the houses of Airly and Wemyss was an act of pure justice.

April 5. Mr Hume presented a petition from the Council of Montrose against the Frith of Forth Ferry Bill.

A petition was presented from the Inhabitants of the Shetland Islands against any alteration in the Scotch currency.

7. Petitions against any alteration of the Scotch banking system were presented from various places in Scotland.

A message from the Lords requested that Sir J. Newport and Mr S. Rice might have leave to attend the Lords' committee on the banking system of Scotland and Ireland.

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer mov. ed that the House again go into a committee on this subject.

Mr Hume wished to know how the new salary of L.5000 was to be paid? By the abolition of sinecures, by an appropriation of part of the revenues of the see of Durham-(a laugh)—or by abolishing the sinecure of the Treasurer of the Navy? The Chancellor of the Exche quer did not view the office of Treasurer of the Navy as an office that could be safely abolished, or its salary reduced. He knew such fact, from having held the office. The Treasurer had many import. ant duties, especially regarding seamen's wills. He could not agree to the aboli. tion of the Treasurership of the Navy. He hoped the reduction to £.2500 would be admitted. All admitted that £.5000 a-year was not an inadequate remuneration for the President of the Board of Trade. Mr Tierney agreed that such salary was not too high; but as to the Treasurer of the Navy, it was an office of great antiquity, trust, and utility. He was not for abolishing the office; nor was he for allowing the Government to give the two offices and salaries to one individual. Mr Huskisson said, he was thankful for what had been remarked respecting him personally. As to the increased remuneration, or the utility of the Treasu rership of the Navy, he felt it a hardship that he should have the responsibility of such an office as the Treasurer, when he desired to attend to another office. Mr Calcraft inquired, how came it that the right Honourable Gentleman had never complained of this intense responsibility before? —(Cries of hear, hear) He hoped that object would be defeated.

Mr Curwen, Mr Dennison, Sir J. Newport, and Mr Hume, were against any additions to the public burdens. Sir M. Ridley thought the Treasurer ought not to have a seat in the House. Mr Bernal thought a small additional salary in the insolvent circumstances of the country would be sufficient. Mr Abercromby said the talk about responsibility was idle and fallacious; the doctrine was not admitted at the Treasury. He objected to the introduction of more placemen into the Houses. Mr Canning denied that it was intended to create a place. The

Board of Trade was sufficient occupation for any one; and if salaried, it ought to be in its own name.

After various other members had deli vered their opinions on the subject, Mr Calcraft moved that the Chairman report progress, with a view of giving to the Government an opportunity of remodelling the mode of carrying the proposed vote. The House then divided: for reporting progres 44, against it 83. Mr Hume afterwards moved as an amendment, "That it was the opinion of the Committee, that the sum of £.5000 should be granted to the President of the Board of Trade, but that it also appeared expedient to ascer tain, if any, and what alteration could be effected in the salary and emoluments of the office of Treasurer of the Navy," which was lost by a majority of 36; 35 voting for the amendment, and 71 against it. 01 10.The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the bringing up of the Civil List Act. Mr Hobhouse protested against the proposed augmentation of salaries to pub lic servants. He had no objection to an increased salary to Mr Huskisson, but he did object to the introduction of another placeman into the House of Commons, and that in reality was the question. Lord Glenorchy also opposed the report. Mr Canning spoke at some length in defence of the proposed arrange. ment. He asserted that the measure had been forced upon Ministers by "his Majesty's Opposition," who had pressed it last session in a way which “his Majesty's Ministers" could not resist. He took credit for the small number of official men, particularly of lawyers, retained in that House by the present cabinet, and spoke contemptuously of the accession of strength which Ministers could derive from the addition of a single placeman, declaring, that when they could not command a majority of more than even twenty, it would be high time to think of resigning. Mr Tierney complained that the Right Honourable Secretary had not said a word in explanation or defence of the proposed waste of the public money. He then ridiculed the proposed arrangement, and declared himself greatly pleased with the phrase "his Majesty's Op. position," which he said, exactly described the character and condition of his friends around him. The House then divided, when the numbers were-for the motion 87; against it, 76; majority for ministers 11. Mr Canning, upon the declaration of the numbers, acknowledged that the majority was not such as would justify Ministers in persevering in the proposed arrangement. The Chancellor

of the Exchequer proposed - the reduced allowance to the President of the Board: of Trade, to meet the ideas of his Majesty's Opposition; which was seconded by Sir M. W. Ridley, and agreed to unanimous. ly. Mr Tierney assured his Majesty's Ministers that their conduct on this occasion had secured them the approbation of his Majesty's Opposition.

The Private Distillation in Scotland Prevention Bill was read a first time.

1

REPRESENTATION OF EDINBURGH.

- 13.-Mr Abercromby rose, pursuant to notice, to move for an alteration in the representation of the City of Edinburgh. He had investigated the subject in all its bearings, and he had satisfied himself, not only of the reality and magnitude of the grievance, but also, that it would not be impossible to find a remedy for it. The population of Edinburgh was upwards of 100,000 souls. It was not they, however, who elected the member to be re turned to Parliament, but a Town Council consisting of thirty-three members; nineteen of whom were elected by their predecessors, and who would, in their turn, elect their successors. The abuse was so scandalous, that it had been found impossible to meet it by direct argument. Indirect means had therefore been taken to support it. The abettors of it said, that if reform was granted to Edinburgh, it would be necessary to grant it to Glas. gow, Aberdeen, and other towns. He knew these and similar arguments, if arguments they could be called, would be brought against him. With respect to the argument which would, no doubt, be used, that, under the present system, Edinburgh had thriven, he bore testi mony to the fact, and no man more sin. cerely rejoiced in it than himself; but he must not be understood to concur in the inference attempted to be deduced from the circumstance, namely, that that state of prosperity was attributable to the exertions of the Town Council, for it was not through, but in spite of, the efforts of the Town Council, that Edin burgh had thriven. It had been objected to him, that he had not stated any particular abuse on which to found his motion. He protested against the supposition that he was bound to do so. right of choosing a member to represent the city of Edinburgh in that House was not private property it had been intrusted by Parliament to the Town Council, to be exercised for the benefit of the people; and if Parliament should find that that right had not been exercised in the manner which had been stipulated, it was perfectly competent to Parliament to

The

withdraw that privilege, and confer it on the people, for whose sole benefit it had previously been vested in the Town Council. He called the attention of the House to one fact, that there was no in stance of popular representation in all Scotland, while in England, as every Hon. Gentlemen knew, the contrary was the case. The Scotch representatives in that House were, in point of fact, sent there in order to support the power and the influence of the very limited number of persons by whom they were elected. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman concluded, by moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend and alter the representation of the City of Edinburgh.

Mr. W. Dundas opposed the motion. What did the Honourable and Learned Gentlemen call upon the House to do? Nothing less than to overthrow and trample upon rights; not rights of yesterday, but rights which had existed for ages. The Learned Gentleman had contended, that the prosperity of Edinburgh had not arisen from the good conduct of the Magistrates; but that the City had flourished in spite of their conduct. There he (Mr Dundas) was at issue with him, and contended that the prosperity of Edin. burgh-he did not mean to confine him self merely to streets and squares, but the prosperity of Edinburgh, as it consisted in the wealth, and comfort, and flourish. ing condition of the people-did arise from the good conduct of the Magistrates and Town Council.

Mr J. P. Grant supported the motion. Sir George Clerk opposed it, and protest ed against any interference with the ex isting state of the representation in ScotJand. Sir Ronald Fergusson conceived that the question was, whether or not the members of that House were to be representatives of the people? The Scotch members, he contended, did not represent the people of that country. A system that worked well in England could not, he thought, be unsuited to Scotland. Sir F. Burdett supported the motion, and earnestly called upon the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had always expressed himself favourable to the principles of philosophy, which he truly said were the only wise regulator of human conduct-he called upon him, in behalf of the rights of the enlightened city of Edinburgh: Lord A. Hamilton appealed to the Right Honour. able Gentleman opposite, whether it was possible for him to maintain any semblance of liberal opinions, if he resisted a motion like the present. The Lord Ad

vocate of Scotland viewed the present, not merely as a question alone relating to Scotland, but a British question, of material importance to our interests. The present certainly was the first instance which he had heard of, in which it was attempted to be argued, that the charter of a burgh was to be taken away, without any other cause being assigned than that certain persons deemed it desirable to transfer it to other hands. Let the proposed change take place all over Scotland, and then there would be no objection but he did object most strongly, that Edinburgh should be singled out without any justification for the proceeding. Mr Canning said, he had been often accused of pertinacity in asserting that Parliamen tary reform was not necessary; and resisting it, not only as transitory and evans escent, but as hazarding a greater evil than we at present endure. So far, however, from viewing this measure as only extending to Parliamentary reform, were he an advocate for such reform, he should consent to pass it with more zeal, because he could not possibly conceive anything more mischievous. Let the House con. sider whether, taking the case as applied to Scotland only, she has been exposed to disadvantages in this respect, when compared with her more wealthy neighbour. Had it been shown that there had been ahy deficiency? The whole United Kingdom flourished; Scotland also flou> rished; had she not kept pace with Eng. land? No man, either by ocular inspection, or other means, could be ignorant of the rapid advances towards prosperity which had been made in that country since the Union. With respect, therefore, to the representation of Scotland, she makes good her hold-(A laugh.) His objection to the present motion was its application as a single instance of reform in a burgh, for the benefit and advantage of being applied to the general question of Parliamentary reform. It certainly was not uncustomary to bring forward an attack on a single burgh, by an allegation of the prevalence of abuses; but it was quite new to institute a charge against it, because its elective was not in proportion to its actual population.

Mr Hobhouse supported the motion, after which Mr Abercromby replied. The House then divided, for the motion 97; against it, 122; majority, 25.

:14 The Lord Advocate presented a petition from the Merchant Company of Edinburgh against the Kinghorn Ferry Bill.

« НазадПродовжити »