On this page
-
Text (5)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
were not brought forward by Us friends , they themselves would take the sense of the Lords upon it . In the end , the 21 st inst . was appointed for the second reading . June 21 st , the Bill was lost ( on the motion for second reading ) by a majority of 42 . ( Particulars hereafter . )
Untitled Article
390 v Intelligence . —Parliamentary
Untitled Article
Peterborough Questions . I These new tests of Chui ch-of-England orthodoxy were again brought hefore the House of Lords , by petition , on June 7 , when Lord Dacre and Lord Holland made each an admirable speech in favour of liberty of conscience . ^ This matter is not likely to rest , and therefore we hope to be able hereafter to register the entire debate . )
Untitled Article
House of Commons , May 31 . Poor-Laws . Numerous petitions were on this and preceding days presented against Mr . Scarlett ' s projected measure . That gentleman now moved the 2 nd reading of his Bill . His measure embraced three great principles ( see Mon . Repo * . XVI .
319 , 499—501 ) referring to the three great causes to which the evil of the Poor Laws might be traced , viz ., 1 st , the restraint on the circulation of Jabour ; 2 nd , the unlimited provision for the poor ; and 3 rd , the indiscriminate application of that provision , which
led to profligacy , idleness and vice . The present Bill was designed to remove the first of these , and to prevent the removal of the poor from parish to parish . The poor man ' s labour was his property , and he ought to have the free use of it , and security from restraint and encroachment . After some debate , the House
divided and the numbers were , for the second reading 6 t ~ > , against it 82 ; consequently the Bill is lost . Some of the members that voted against the Bill seemed to admit the principle of it , and to object only to the details . The proposer , who laid great stress upon the rendering of his measure to put down litigation , intimated that the petitions against
it were promoted by legal practitioners . It was urged on the other side that litigation would be much increased if the proposed Bill were to pass into a law . For this Session , nothing further will evideutly be attempted in ( his momentous eoncern ; but it is scarcely possible that the public interest can long allow the matter to rest , with all its weight of evil upon it *
Untitled Article
June 4 . -s Criminal Code . Sir James Mackintosh brought forward his promised motiou , pledging the House " to take into its serious consU deration , at an early period of the next Session , the means of increasing the effi cacy of the Criminal Law , by abating its
undue rigour in certain cases . " Numbe rless petitions had been presented to this effect from all parts of the country . ^ learned gentleman urged the motion with a great weight of argument and with his usual force of eloquence . Hereafter , we hope to be able to record his speech on
our pages . The Attorney-General opposed the motion in a feeble speech and concluded with moving the Previous Question . The motion was vigo rous ^ supported by Mr . Powell Buxton . m / . Peel argued for leaving the subject fa the hands of the government . The iiiX
patience of the House prevented othd gentlemen from being heard , and a division took place , the result of which ( an ^ nounced with great cheering ) was , that there was a majority of 16 for the motion , there being for It , 117—against it , 101 .
Untitled Article
ward , he thought that the principle of the measure he proposed was as fair and free from objection as any that could bq devised . Since that period , however , the new lights which he had received on this subject , and the conscientious
ob-June 10 . Unitarian Marriage-Bill . Mr . W . Smith moved that the second reading of the Marriage-Service Bill be postponed to that day six months . When he had before brought this subject
forjection of several clergymen of the Church of England , had induced him to think differently ; and at present he shoold move the second readiug this day six months , rather than press the House to a division .
The Marquis of Londonderry thought nothing could be more honourable or handsome than the way in which the hon . gent , declined to press a Bill with which he was not altogether satisfied . After a few words from Dr .
Phillimore , Dr . Lushington , Dr . Dodson and Mr . Hudson Gukney , the motion was carried ; and the Bill consequently in its present shape was lost . After which , Mr . W . Smith obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the said service .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1822, page 390, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2513/page/70/
-