Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Locke, Barnard, MARSHALL, EWART, JAMES BULLER,
GILBERT HEATHCOTE, G. W. WOOD, MURRay, Ryle,
CUTHBERT RIPPON, GILLON, JOHN HEATHCOTE, WIL-
BRAHAM, RICHARD OSWALD, and JOSEPH DENISON,

from a great Number of Places,-against Slavery.-By
Mr. RICHARD OSWALD, from Auchinleck, for an Inquiry

into the Distress of the Working Classes, for the Repeal

of the Corn Laws, and for an Alteration in the System of Church Patronage in Scotland; and from Beith, for a

Repeal of the Septennial Act.-By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from

Wilton-cum-Swambrooks, for Assessing Mines for the

Relief of the Poor; and from Nantwich and Sandbach, for Relief to the Dissenters from their present Oppressions. -By Mr. GILLON, from Johnstone; and Mr. R. OSWALD, from Auchinleck, for a Separation between Church and State.-By Mr. GILLON, from Aberbrothock, against the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. HUTT, from Hull, for a Repeal of the Timber Duties.-By Mr. MURRAY, from the Coopers of Leith, for a Repeal of the Duty on

Stamp Receipts.-By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from the Handloom Weavers of Auchinlech, for a Board of Trade; and from Kirkintilloch, for Relief and Inquiry into the Distress among the Hand-loom Weavers.-By Mr. O'CONNOR,

from Middleton (Cork), for the Abolition of Tolls and Customs at Fairs and Markets in Ireland.-By Mr. MAR

SHALL, from the Medical Practitioners of Leeds, for an Alteration in the Apothecaries' Act.-By Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, from Caistor, for a Reduction of the Duties on Hawkers, Pedlars, and Petty Chapmen.-By Sir W. INGILBY, from several Places, for a Repeal of the Duty on Malt.-By Captain WEMYSS, from the Port of Limekilns (Fife), for a Committee to Inquire into the State of the Shipping Interest.—By Sir W. INGILBY, from Willoughbycum-Slootheby, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from Belchford, for Appropriating some part of the Rents of the Land allotted in that Parish in lieu of Tithes to the

support of the Poor, and the Repairs of the Church.-
By Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, Captain WEMYSS, and Messrs.
J. W. BULLER, BYNG, and R. OSWALD, from several

Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By
Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, Mr. R. WALKER, Mr. BYNG, and
Mr. WILBRAHAM, from several Places, for the Repeal or

Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.

RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Wilbraham, in bringing up the Report of the Committee, containing Amendments to the Birkenhead (Cheshire) Improvement Bill, moved that they be read a second time.

No

elections should be by the inhabitants rated at 10l. per annum. Rates to a considerable amount were to be levied, but there was to have been no publication of the accounts, and the Committee in consequence fixed that they should be printed and published. person was to be eligible to be a Com missioner unless he occupied premises of the actual value of 60l., or was possessed of property of the value of 2,000l.; the Committee reduced the amounts to 30l. and 1,000l. Tenants were liable to be distrained upon for paving the streets to an unlimited amount. The Committee decided that they should only be liable for the amount due, the landlords being held responsible. The Nuisance Clause actually occupied nearly six pages. The most trifling thing was declared a nuisance; such as boys playing at marbles, &c. &c.; and such offender, were he unknown, might be seized, taken before a Magistrate, and fined 51. A great deal of this petty legislation was struck out. Loitering in the streets was also declared a nuisance; so that a poor Irishman, just arrived from Ireland, in passing through Birkenhead, and looking at a shop window at articles exposed, as he naturally would, might have been seized and sent to prison. Many other Amendments were also made. He (Mr. Potter) took the liberty of making these observations; and would, with great deference, but most earnestly, entreat hon. Members to whom private Bills were referred, to look through them, whether they were opposed or not. He was a new Member, and hoped he should not be considered presumptuous in giving this advice.

Most of the alterations had been made at the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Potter) himself, and therefore he had no ground of complaint.

Amendment read a second time.

Mr. Richard Potter begged to be per- Mr. Wilbraham said, those remarks did mitted to make a few observations before not apply to the Bill as it stood at present, the Report was received. On the Com-but to the Bill as it was originally framed. mittee meeting to whom this Bill was referred, they were told, that as there was no opposition, the Committee need not be detained. A Petition had been presented against the Bill numerously and respectably signed. It was said, there was no necessity to read it; it was, however, read, The Committee then proceeded with the Bill, and he believed he was justified in saying, that the cases were rare in which a Bill had received so many and such important and necessary alterations as the Amendments in the hands of the Speaker would show. As the Bill stood, the vacancies of Commissioners were to be filled up by the remaining number, so that in a few years they would have been a self-elected body. The Committee had fixed that all future

GRAVESEND PIER.] Sir Edward Codrington presented a Petition from the Watermen of Gravesend, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Gravesend Pier Bill. The hon. and gallant Admiral stated, that since the Second Reading of that Bill he had been to Gravesend, and was enabled to state his decided opinion, notwithstanding the opinion of the Admiralty Board to the contrary, that a projection like the proposed pier, which extended 205 feet in the river, and into a depth of twenty-seven

should be heard by Counsel against it. Besides this he had only urged this objection to the impediments which would occur by the erection of the pier. It must be well known to many Members of that House, that sometimes a single tide would fill in the harbour of Dover, and that the backwater would subsequently clear it; but the pier intended to be put up would impede the flood-tide, and also the returntide and backwater, so that the navigation of the river would be put in great jeopardy.

feet at high water, would be highly injurious to the navigation. He thought, also, that that was the real opinion of the Board of Admiralty, for he believed that they were now prosecuting the persons who erected a projection near Woolwich, which only extended ten feet into the river. Besides the injury to the navigation, the watermen were entitled to some consideration, for they were generally persons who had been impressed, and passed the best part of their lives in the navy, many of them being disabled and dismissed without pensions. One man, after coming home with him after the battle of Navarino, with the loss of an eye, applied to him for remuneration; and on his forwarding the application to the Admiralty, he was told that the man who had only lost an eye was not disabled from service, although he had always understood that the loss of an eye entitled a man to compensation as much as the loss of a limb. After that the man lost the other eye, having also had six wounds, and the only reward he could obtain for the poor fellow was 6d. a-day. If that was the way the Admiralty remunerated disabled seamen, he thought it was time to inquire into all other classes of pensions. If the country was so poor that it could not afford to reward such men, let the same course be adopted with regard to all other persons, and be would, for one, if necessary, serve his country for nothing. He had been led thus into the subject, because the House would recollect how men had been pressed for the navy during the war. If a man were a good likely-looking sailor he was immediately pressed, whilst recruits were wheedled into the army by bounties of 17. or 181.. The sailor, however, was seized, confined as a prisoner to the ship, and at last driven into accepting a bounty of as many shillings as the soldier got pounds, and after all when he had become blind, he was put off with the miserable pittance of 6d. a-day.

Sir Robert Inglis rose to Order. He thought the gallant Admiral was wandering from the question in making an irrelevant attack, not only on preceding Administrations, but on the present Ministry; and that the subject of the petition did not warrant his going into the topics he had introduced.

Sir Edward Codrington considered that he was quite in order in alluding to the situation of that class of persons who would be most grievously injured by the proposed Bill. It was important to them that they

Captain Elliott said, he had been called up, by the observations of his hon. and gallant friend, to say a few words on the subject. The gallant Admiral had objected to the pier, because it would throw a number of persons out of employment who had peculiar claims for the consideration of the House; and because the pier would be an impediment to the safe navigation of the river. The pier at Woolwich, to which the Admiralty had objected, was a solid piece of masonry, and therefore formed a positive impediment; but the Gravesend pier was to be built upon iron stauncheons, which would admit of the flux and reflux of the tide. With respect to the pension of 6d. per day—

The Speaker considered that any discussion on the principles of pensions was out of order.

Captain Elliot would not go further into the subject, than to say, that the sailor referred to had been examined by a medical officer, who had recommended that he should go for a time into the hospital, as there was a hope that his sight would be restored.

Petition referred to the Committee on the Gravesend Pier Bill.

TITHES PARISH OF UTTOXETER.] Sir Oswald Mosley stated, he had a Petition to present of rather a novel character, as it related to tithes of a particular parish

the parish of Uttoxeter, in Stafford. Although the tithes (amounting to 1,2001.) were amply sufficient for the purpose of remunerating the incumbent, and although they were vested in the hands of the ecclesiastical body-namely, the Dean and Chapter of Windsor-yet they were some way or other applied to other purposes, and the incumbent, who was the working minister, had only the paltry pittance of 20l. a year, with the Easter dues, which were too small to attend to a parish of 5,000 souls. He was obliged to keep a curate out of his small salary; and, if he had not some little private property of his own, he would not

Petition to lie on the Table.

have enough to live upon. The tithes were | pair the broken windows in the Church. originally granted to the Dean and Chapter With regard to the tithes of this particular of Windsor, for the moral and religious parish, they were as much private property improvement of the poor of the parish, but as any other species of property derived instead of being applied to these purposes, from the same source, and he did not bethe Dean and Chapter had stated they lieve that the House would act so unjustly could not tell what use was made of them; as to interfere in the case of Mr. Tyrell, and, therefore, the petitioners prayed that while others were allowed to retain their an inquiry might be directed, to see they property. were applied to those purposes for which they were originally intended. The petition was signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the parish. An hon. Member of that House (Mr. Tyrell) was stated to be lay impropriator, and, consequently, the receiver of the greater portion of the tithes. Mr. Tyrell explained, that he held the tithes under a lease from the Dean and Chapter of Windsor; that he had received the property by inheritance, and not liking it, had endeavoured more than once to dispose of it for a suitable consideration, but had not been successful. He had now let the tithes, but not till he had made every effort to come to an arrangement with the parish on the subject.

Mr. Edward Buller called the serious attention of the House to the statements of the petitioners, which were of the greatest importance to the interests of the Church as well as to the public. It was the existence of such things that was shaking the foundations of the Church, which might be a national blessing.

Mr. Cobbett said, the hon. Member appeared not to be aware, that one-half of the tithes in the kingdom belonged to layimpropriators. Perhaps he was not aware of that. Such, however, was the fact, and to get rid of the inconveniences arising out of this would be very difficult indeed; too difficult, he feared, for the King's present servants to undertake. With regard to what was said about the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, he (Mr. Cobbett) would only remark, that the Dean and Chapter of Winchester had been accused of similar things; and they had sought to justify themselves by alleging that the Aristocracy had a larger share of the Church property than they had. They did not content themselves merely with general statements, but they also mentioned by name many of these Church cormorants, and they gave the name of one nobleman who was said to receive more of what was called Church property than the whole of the twenty-six Bishops, while his conduct was such, that the inhabitants of one parish had been obliged to sue him at law to make him re

AFFIRMATION OF QUAKERS.] Lord Morpeth rose to submit his Motion to the House for leave to bring in a Bill to allow the Affirmation of Quakers to be received in all cases in which oaths were at present required to be taken. At present Quakers were only disqualified from two officesnamely, any office under the Crown, and from serving on juries; he proposed that the Affirmation of Quakers be received in all cases, and thereby they would be qualified to do that from which they were now debarred. His Bill would also prevent the repetition of those trifling delays which had I recently taken place in that House on the hon. member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) taking his seat, and again yesterday when that hon. Member was ballotted to serve on an Election Committee. Looking at the question upon general grounds, he could not see how a Legislature that had taken away the necessity of an oath from this religious class, in cases of life and death, could stop short in admitting them to all the privileges, and immunities of the State, from whose imposts and support they were not exempt; and to which they contributed so much by their industry, enterprise, good order, and wealth. There could be no expectation, whilst the state of society continued as it was at present, that the Quakers would be called on to take a seat in the Cabinet. From the naval and military departments and generally from the service of the State, they would continue to be excluded by their own tenets; but there were many places which they were well qualified to fill, and to which they might prudently aspire. He would illustrate this by relating a circumstance which came immediately under his own notice, connected with this subject, and which, indeed, had first impressed his mind with the necessity of having those disabilities removed. He remembered the case of an individual, a native of Barnsley, in Yorkshire, who had been introduced to him in consequence of his taste in literature. This young man was in a humble walk of life, and a vacancy occurring in the

Post-office department in Barnsley in con- | Sessions in the Old Bailey on the 27th sequence of a recommendation from him, December last, Robert Channens was inand a representation in favour of the in- dicted for wilful murder on the high seas. dividual, signed by almost all the respect- A Quaker went into the box to serve on able inhabitants of Barnsley, his Grace the the Jury-an objection was taken; it was Duke of Richmond (the Postmaster-Gene- over-ruled, and the trial proceeded. The ral) appointed him to the office. But it prisoner was found guilty. On a subseturned out that as a Quaker he could not quent day he was called up to receive take the oath required to be taken previous judgment, and his counsel took an objecto his entering the office. The young man tion to the verdict. He was represented then wrote to him saying his objection to to have said, that he knew of no alteration taking the oath had offended some of his in the law, that every or any subject friends, but he could not commit a cool could not be tried for any crime, unless it deviation from what he conceived to be his was on the oaths of twelve men. In the duty, without embittering every hour of present instance, it would appear that only his life. He begged the pardon of the eleven men had been sworn. The learned House for troubling them with this state- Judge proceeded to pass sentence, and said ment, but it was only an instance of what the objection should be taken into conmight occur any day in any part of the sideration, and it was referred to the whole kingdom, and he hoped the measure he was of the Judges, who decided that the objecabout to introduce would have the effect of tion was good, and that the trial was not preventing its recurrence. He had origin- legal. The man had certainly solved the ally confined his intentions to the point of difficulty, by dying in the mean time in eligibility to office, and he had extended prison. The hon. and learned member it more in deference to the views of others for Chester (Mr. Jervis) seemed to infer than his own. As to the Quakers, he had that there was a difference between civil never heard a wish or suggestion on their and criminal cases, and that a Quaker part to be allowed the privileges his mea- might be compelled to serve in civil, but sure was intended to give. Though he not in criminal cases. He could only say, took up this subject from a feeling of he could discover no such discrimination in justice towards them, he stood forward not the law. At all events, he thought there as their advocate but as the advocate of the was sufficient uncertainty and anomaly community. The Quakers were a highly apart from the distinct and positive reasons useful and sensible class of men, and would on which he grounded his Motion, to make doubtless make excellent and intelligent the adoption of the measure highly deJurors. Giving them power to become sirable. He could not, however, quit Jurors would be a sensible and agreeable these judicial topics without stating how relief to those who were at present liable glad he was to find himself countenanced to serve on Juries. It appeared that there by very great and very recent authorities. was but little doubt as to the present state At the late Assizes for the county of of the law upon the subject of Quakers Durham, one division of which was so serving on Juries, they were liable to be ably represented by his hon. friend (Mr. summoned, and in some cases they had Pease). Mr. Justice Alderson closed his actually been so. There was an instance address to the Grand Jury, who had been in the county of York, where a Quaker appointed to try the same question, with served upon a Jury at the Assizes at York; these words:-It has been declared, no and the same man was afterwards prevent-doubt on the best ground, on the aued, on the ground of his being a Quaker, from serving on a Jury at the Quarter Sessions in the same county. At the late Assizes at York, a respectable and very opulent Quaker was summoned there to discharge the duty of a Juror. He applied for release on the ground of being a Quaker, and his consequent inability to serve; his application was refused, and he was kept dancing in attendance at a great distance from his own home and business, and without profit to any body, because he did not eventually serve. At the Admiralty

،

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

thority of an Act passed in the 22nd,
year of the reign of George 2nd, that the
affirmation of a member of the Society of
Friends is to be taken in a Court of Justice,
where an oath is to be taken, as an equiva-
lent to an oath by other persons. The conse-
quence is, that Quakers may now serve
as constables, or in any similar office;
and I dare say I shall very soon
the day when Quakers will execute the
duties of Grand Jurors and other duties
in the same way as others do. That is a
desirable circumstance, for I do not see

see

why they should retain to themselves any 'immunities, when all those privileges 'hitherto withheld from them have been 'granted to them.' It appeared, then, that Mr. Justice Alderson both anticipated and approved of the present Motion. He knew it had been thought that the strong opinions entertained by members of the Society of Friends with respect to capital punishments might interpose some obstacle to their taking part in the administration of the criminal law, however, that objection did not apply to them exclusively, but equally to many other sects. As Moravians were coupled with Quakers in all recent Acts of Parliament, he proposed to include them also in the operation of this Bill. The case of that class of religionists called Separatists was already in the competent hands of the hon. member for Cambridge. He believed it was thought that both that hon. Gentleman and himself should have extended their object. He hoped that none would object to the definite and practical, though perhaps narrow plan, although they did not endeavour to fill up a more magnificent, though less definite outline. The right hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. R. Grant) admitted when he brought forward his Motion on the subject of the Jews, the propriety of doing away with all remaining disqualifications that pressed on Quakers. He did not mean to insist upon the disqualifications which he proposed to remove as a flaming grievance, or his Motion, as one of transcendant relief, but he would call upon the House to adopt the measure at the same time on high grounds, when he reminded them, that if they consented to this Bill, they would sweep away the last disability on the Statute-book imposed by positive enactments, or religious scruples; and he was not without hope that not only would there be no opposition, but that no time would be lost in forwarding the Bill. The noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow Quakers and Moravians to make affirmation in all cases where an oath was now required.

Motion agreed to.

NEWRY ELECTION.] Sir John Byng having been Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire respecting the Newry Election, had to move according to notice, and according to the Resolution of the Committee, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to give directions to the Attorney-General for Ireland to

prosecute Mr. James Lisle for corrupt practices at the said election.

Mr. O'Connell said, that there could be no doubt that the individual in question ought to be prosecuted, since he was the person who, without the candidate's own consent, had sought after him, had brought him forward, and had returned him; but there were other persons besides Mr. Lisle who might have been guilty of bribery and corruption at the Newry election, and he recommended that the Attorney-General should be invested with a discretion to prosecute any other individuals who, in the course of his inquiries might appear to him to have been culpable.

Mr. Baring did not mean to oppose the Motion, but he could not avoid remarking on the different practice of the House in the Stafford and in the Newry cases. In the latter case, the one individual charged with bribery was ordered to be prosecuted; in the former case a Bill of Indemnity was brought in, in favour of all the persons charged with the same offence. Motion agreed to.

GENERAL REGISTRY OF DEEDS.] Mr. William Brougham rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a general Registry of Deeds and Instruments relating to Real Property; and said, that the importance of the question rendered it necessary for him to trespass on the attention of the House, for a short time, by entering into some details. No measure proposed for the Reform of the Law, was of greater inportance than that which he was about to propose; and there was none, he was convinced, which would lead to greater benefits. He should feel considerable hesitation in grappling with so important a matter, did he not know that it had already been under the consideration of Parliament, and discussed with a minuteness which left little either of information or of argument to be supplied. The question was brought be fore the House of Commons in the time of the Commonwealth, and was then defeated. Cromwell then stated, that he must abandon the measure, because the sons of Zernich (meaning the lawyers) were too strong for him. Subsequent Parliaments had noticed the matter, though nothing was done until the appointment of the Real Property Commission in 1828. That Commission consisted of eight distinguished members of the legal profession, with the present Solicitor-General at their head, and, after investigating the subject with

« AnteriorContinua »