Sir R. Wilson said, that under the ex- | And although some gentlemen in the isting system the will of the magistrate was law" stat pro ratione voluntas." He hoped, however, the feelings manifested in the House on the clause respecting that class of persons, would induce his hon. friend not to press it, since it might have the effect of causing the bill to be lost, and he should extremely regret if the metropolis were deprived of its advantages. Mr. Bathurst opposed the bill. The examination of magistrates would, in his view, be found very objectionable, while it would tend to expose those persons entrusted with very responsible duties to unnecessary odium. Mr. Alderman Wood hoped, that as the clause respecting magistrates was so much opposed, his hon. friend would not press it. The bill contained so many excellent provisions, that he should be sorry the benefit of it should be lost to London and Westminster. House appeared to hold a different opi- later than a few days since, been personally The bill was then read a second time. LORD CHICF JUSTICE GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.] Mr. Davies Gilbert moved the order of the day for going into a Committee on this bill, Mr. Bennet said, that no slur was at tempted to be cast on the magistrates, much less any intended degradation.—which he had often heard, and which had no Degradation! Could it be a degradation to the magistrates to have an appeal made from their decisions, when the courts of law constantly appealed from each other's decisions, when every day's practice showed it to be familiar both in and out of that House? In the country places generally he did not think the conduct of the magistrates was other than became English gentlemen. But to the disgrace of lord lieutenants of counties in the neighbourhood of London, far different persons were appointed to the magis tracy. The scandalous abuses tolerated by them need not then to be related, for every hon. member, who had taken the trouble to inform himself on the subject, must have long since been satisfied of the disgusting fact. It was perfectly notorious that the magistrates in London had deprived many honest men of their pro. perty, while they licensed their own pub. lic houses, knowing them at the same time to be converted into brothels of the worst description. There was, beside, no law granting them a discretion to take away a license, although there was a law enabling them to refuse one. The hon. member then cited a case from Burrowe's Reports, confirmatory of his position, in which lord Mansfield had decided that a magistrate who had taken away a license, was guilty of an act for which he should be punished. Mr. Primrose objected to the principle of the bill, which, by attaching the office of the justice general, as was proposed, to that of the president of the session, would give to a civil judge a criminal jurisdic tion. He wished, therefore, that the bill should be altered, and that, at all events, it should not be discussed during the absence of the lord advocate. Mr. W. Douglas said, the bill created new duties, which would occasion great expense to the judge who was to perform them, while there was no provision made to answer it. He did not see the propriety of continuing the office as an effective one, after the demise of the nobleman who at present held it as a sinecure, and at the same time withdrawing the salary. Mr. J. P. Grant concurred with the two speakers who had preceded him, and requested Mr. D. Gilbert to withdraw his bill. Mr. D. Gilbert professed himself unacquainted with Scotch law. The bill was put into his hands with a request to bring it forward; he had done so; but finding the sense of the House unfavourable to it in its present form, he should ask leave to withdraw it, in order to bring it forward at a future time in a more improved form. The bill was accordingly withdrawn. MARQUIS CAMDEN'S TELLERSHIP BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Bankes rose and observed, the noble, disinterested, and patriotic manner in which the noble marquis had relinquished the extensive emoluments of this office, was a magnanimous sacrifice to the service of his country, which it was impossible for the House to pass over without some signal mark of its approbation. He had sacrificed, in effect, a much larger sum than the marquis of Buckingham had done in a similar way; for, considering the noble marquis's time of life, and reckoning on the ordinary calculations of longevity, the amount of what lord Camden had thus generously sacrificed could not be less than 100,000l. After a very eloquent panegyric of the generous and patriotic conduct of the noble marquis, he said, he thought the least the House could do, was to recognise it by a public vote of approbation and thanks, in which he was confident of the unanimous support of the House. He concluded by moving, "That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the public spirit and disinterested conduct of the most noble marquis Camden, in making, during his life, this large sacrifice of private fortune to the service of his country, and that it becomes this House to record with due commendation such an instance of distinguished munificence, so honourable to the giver, and so justly intitled to public gratitude." Mr. Calcraft said, that not being present at the former discussion, he now merely rose to express his applause and admiration of the conduct of the marquis of Camden. He was glad that the House would hand down to posterity the expression of their sense of an act so truly noble, and so deserving of imitation. Mr. Valentine Blake, after expressing his opinion of the conduct of the noble $ marquis, proceeded to suggest, that the House should not stop at merely recording their sense of the disinterested act which he had performed, but should present an address to the Prince Regent, praying that his royal highness would be pleased to bestow some signal mark of favour on the marquis of Camden. Mr. Wilberforce disagreed altogether with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, as to the course he suggested. He thought the act of the noble marquis truly great, and his great and noble reward would be found in the thanks of the House and the applause of his country. There was a noble simplicity in the act, which he would wish to let stand on its own merits. No mark of honour that the throne could bestow could raise the noble marquis higher than his own act had done-an act the more truly patriotic and disinterested, when it was considered that the fortune of the noble marquis, though respectable, was not affluent. It was honourable to the feelings of the House, that this was not taken up as a party question—that it was not guided by any party sentimentbut that the universal voice of parliament, echoing as it did the voice of the country, thus proclaimed its sense of the noble marquis's conduct. Lord Castlereagh said, that as to the conduct of the noble marquis, there was but one feeling; it was a sacrifice as unexampled, as it was disinterested and pure; and though his noble friend did not court public notice, yet nothing, he was convinced, would be more gratifying to his feelings, than the unanimous expression of the approbation of the House. He hoped therefore that the hon. gentleman would not throw any difficulty in the way which the House were inclined to pursue. The resolution was agreed to nem. con., and the bill was read a second time. one day for an opinion, and the king's money for a different opinion the next day. Colonel Wood said, the report of the committee was deserving of the highest consideration, it having been composed of most respectable and enlightened individuals. He thought the House should be extremely cautious in interfering with the administration of justice, and vindicated the character of the professional men in the county he represented. On the whole, he believed the judicature was an essential blessing to the principality, and should be sorry to see it removed. of judicature between people inhabiting different parts of the realm, conduces of itself to no positive advantage; that the original motives which made the ancient separation of Wales from England, prudent, and even necessary, no longer exist in these days, and that no new political event has occurred to render the continuance of it beneficial. 2. That it is highly expedient that the administration of justice, and the judicial establishments of Wales, should, as nearly as possible, be assimilated to those of England. 3. That it is highly expedient that farther provision should be made, in order to secure the independence of the Welch judges. 4. That it is highly expedient that the Welch judges should not have seats in this House. Lord Castlereagh said, that the committee who had sat on the subject had gone deeply into the question, and he could not but regret that they had not brought in some specific resolution. He objected to the present motion as of too sweeping a nature; and, besides the difficulty attending the introduction of the English system of laws into any country, the twelve judges of England were excluded from the House merely because they constituted part of the other House. Such was, however, not the case with the Welsh judges, and he therefore saw no reason to exclude them from the House. He should move the previous question. Mr. Wynn entered into a detail of the circumstances which took place on the committee, and supported the motion. Mr. F. Lewis contended that the Welsh judges had often been appointed more for parliamentary purposes than for the administration of justice. He supported the motion, as he conceived the system required much amelioration. Mr. Bathurst opposed the motion, as he saw no necessity for such a change; besides, there was no application made for it from Wales. Mr. Barham contended, that the sys. tem ought to be revised and amended. He knew a case where a judge was consulted in his private character a few days before judgment, and on his giving judgment a few days after, a Welsh attorney held up a paper, saying, "My lord, here is your opinion given to me on such a day, and it is quite contrary to the one now delivered." He was reprimanded, but still persevered, declaring it was a very odd thing the judge should take his money Mr. Scarlett concurred in the object of the resolutions, but recommended his hon. friend to withdraw them, and bring them forward in another shape. A specific measure, founded on the same principles, would, he thought, deserve the approbation of the House. Mr. Campbell consented, and the resolutions were withdrawn. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, May 24. CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, The Lord Auckland addressed their lordships in support of it. He dwelt on the hardship and cruelty of employing children under ten years of age in the sweeping of chimnies, which this bill went to prevent. Another great hardship was, that of sending children out to do what was called crying the streets for employment; and that was also to be done away. number of apprentices kept by each master was to be limited to four, in conse quence of which, these would meet with better treatment from their masters; and no female children were to be employed in climbing. It was also provided that the summary convictions should take place before two justices. All these provisions had met with the approbation of the principal persons employed in the trade of sweeping chimnies, and also with the approbation of colonel Stephenson, surveyor-general of the board of works, who would give every possible encouragement to the use of machinery. His lordship concluded by expressing his hope that the House would agree to this bill. The Lord Chancellor argued strongly against the bill in its present shape, and, to a certain extent, against its principle. The learned lord referred to several inac curacies or inconsistencies which still remained in the bill, which rendered it very unfit for the sanction of the House. In the bill as originally sent up, these were more numerous and striking, but still it contained a great deal which he regarded as highly objectionable. With respect to the prohibition against crying the streets, he wished to know what was the legal interpretation of that phrase. Was it intended that chimney sweepers should no longer give notice by the sound of their voice that they were in the streets ready to be employed? If so, the masters would give notice as effectually by knocking at every door, and making a loud noise with their brushes. Another absurdity in the bill was, that of inflicting a penalty for employing "any female girl, or woman." Now, it would be difficult to find a girl or a woman who was not a female. He disapproved of the principle of legislation on which it proceeded: it would be much better to afford the relief which might be deemed necessary, by some general bill, which would extend its enactments also to other trades, which, more or less, might be considered as requiring legisla tive regulation. The Marquis of Lansdowne denied that there was any absurdity in the wording of the bill. That clause which went to check the inhuman practice of making females clean chimneys, was thus worded: "Any female child, girl, or woman;" so far it was correct, and it was very proper to put a stop to so shocking a practice. He earnestly hoped that their lordships would not throw out the bill. The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that if machinery were to be employed, boys would still be exposed to as much danger as they were hitherto. He objected to this bill, because it was not fit for the legislature to lay down rules of humanity to individuals; because, by doing so, the very principles of humanity would be rooted up for greater cruelties would then be practised, than any which the bill went to provide against. It was impossible, without great injustice and public inconvenience, for their lordships to legislate on subjects of this kind." It was somewhat of the same nature with the bill for regulating the labour of children in cotton factories; and with the poor laws. These latter originated in a mistaken spirit of humanity, the attempt to enforce which by law, had produced effects the very opposite of those which were intended; together with all that complicated mass of evil, which was now feit in every part of England. If the legislature attempted to lay down a moral code for the people, there was always a danger that every feeling of benevolence would be extirpated. It was like making a law to regulate the mode in which a painter was to execute his work. The painter might conform to the law, but his taste would be destroyed. For these reasons, he should oppose the bill. Lord King supported the bill, because he understood it met with the concurrence of most of the master chimney-sweepers, and because he thought it would be productive of great benefit. Lord Auckland addressed their lordships, in reply. He said, the bill did no more than adopt practical rules, that had been laid down by persons in the trade, for the better conduct of the trade; and as it tended greatly to promote the principles of humanity, by mitigating the hardships to which children were subject, he hoped their lordships would not object. The House then divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 32; Majority against the bill, 20. The bill was consequently lost. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 24. MARQUIS CAMDEN.] The Speaker reported the marquis Camden's Answer to his letter concerning the Resolutions of the House of Friday last, as follows: "Arlington Street, May 23rd, 1819. Sir;-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd instant, communicating to me a resolution of the House of Commons, unanimously agreed to on Friday last. "I trust, Sir, I feel, as becomes me, the high and distinguished honour conferred upon me, by the approbation which the House has been pleased to express, of the conduct I have pursued, in devoting to the exigencies of the state, a part of the emoluments received by me, as one of the tellers of his majesty's exchequer : an office, most graciously conferred upon me by his majesty, in consideration of the public services of my father; and, if I fail in the attempt to express, as I feel, the deep and lasting impression made upon my mind, from having been thought worthy of so marked and honourable a distinction, I trust to the indulgence of the House of Commons, to excuse the very inadequate terms, in which I am enabled to convey the expression of my satisfaction and gratitude. "The kind and flattering manner in which you, Sir, have been so good, as to express your sentiments upon this occasion, demands my peculiar acknowledgments, and I request you to accept my most sincere and cordial thanks.-I have the honour to be, &c. CAMDEN." The right hon. the Speaker, &c. &c. &c. COTTON WEAVERS OF CARLisle.] Mr. Curwen rose and said :-Mr. Speaker -The duty I am called on to discharge is one of the most painful I had ever imposed on me in the many and eventful years during which I have sat in parliament. I intreat the attention of the noble lord and the House to the statement I have to make on the part of the Cotton Weavers of the city of Carlisle. The petition is signed by upwards of 1,200 persons. It discloses a state of suffering which cannot fail of commanding the pity and commiseration of all within and without the walls. They represent, that on working from 14 to 17 hours a day, and that for six days in the week, their earnings do not amount to more than from five to seven shillings, and that many of them can obtain no work whatever. They state their families to be destitute of necessary food and cloathing, and a prey to misery and disease. Afflicting as is the present moment, the future presents no rational hope of amendment. They blame not their employers, the depreciated state of the cotton manufacture is the true cause of their sufferings. These industrious, honest, and unfortunate individuals, from their long, patient, and calamitous endurance, are so bent to the earth, so spirit-broken, as to be compelled to petition this House, as a boon, that which bespeaks the extinction of one of the most powerful feelings of the human heart. In despair of obtaining bread at home, they ask you to expatriate them to convey them to your colonies. In ceasing to be inhabitants of Britain, it will yet be some consolation to promote the interests of the country that gave them birth, grievous as it must be to sacrifice all ties of kindred and affection, rather than continue to exist on bounty, exhausting the sources of benevolence to preserve a miserable existence.-Such is the heart-rending representation that it is my duty to make, and deeply do I lament to have to bear testimony to its accuracy. What a contrast does this present to the exposition of the noble lord! Where are now his dreams of prosperity? Is this his boasted flourishing state of the nation? In what estimation are all the glories of the war to be held, when purchased at the expense of such extended anguish and misery -It has unhappily fallen to my lot to be the first to supplicate the House to devise means for expatriating large bodies of the people. Painful and grating as this application must prove to the House, I fear, ere long, it will become but too familiar. The House cannot, I am satisfied, separate without taking into their serious consideration the present situation of the manufacturing population. I move you, Sir, that the petition be brought up and read. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. RESTRICTION ON CASH PAYMENTSPETITION OF THE MERCHANTS OF LONDON IN FAVOUR OF] Sir Robert Peel said, that he now stood in a situation which he had never experienced before, although he had sat in that House forty years. The petition which he was about to submit to the House was from a body of men entitled to the very first consi deration-a body of men who, in the time of public distress and pecuniary want, were the very first to come forward and relieve the government. He should wish to call to the recollection of some members, who he believed now heard him, whether they did not remember a meeting of the merchants and bankers called in 1797? At that time the Bank restriction act was projected, and could not have passed if that very meeting of the merchants, manufacturers, &c. had not expressed themselves strongly in its favour. He begged the House would pay particular attention to the petition which he how held in his hand. It was one of no common character, but that of a great and important body, all of the first respectability, praying that those resolutions which were intended to be submitted to the House might not be carried into effect. He begged leave to state his opinion, that the petitioners were the best judges of such a measure. He would add also, that although they were inti |