The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-25 00:00:00

FIRE AT WRITTLE, NEAR ESSEX.

Essex Standard Office, Thursday, Quarter to Seven p.m.
An express has just arrived for the fire engines. An
alarming fire has broken out at Writtle, near this town, on
the premises of Mr. Craines, where the former fire took
place, for which a lad taa:ned Atkins was indicted at our
late assizes,—two of the large engines belonging to the
Essex Economic and Essex Equitable Fire Offices, have
just passed our office at a rapid rate, drawn by four horses
each. The fire is to be seen very distinctly from Chelms-
ford. This is the third fire that has taken place in the
same village within the last few weeks, and the second on
the same premises. There is not the least doubt of its
being the work of an incendiary.
Half-past Seven o'clock.
The flames appear to be considerably abated, but it is
pretty evident from the extent of the light, that their pro-
gress has been extensive. The promptitude with which
the engines were forwarded by post-horses, is very credit-
able to the respective agents of the fire-offices.
Half-past Eight o'clock.
We have just heard that the fire is nearly extinguished :
its ravages have been confined to a large double barn,
which, with its contents, was destroyed ; and a cow, calf,
and horse, in an adjoining out-house, were burnt to death.
A man has just been brought to town on suspicion of
icing the incendiary, and is now under examination.
The name of the man in custody is William Jennings—is
his possession was found a quantity of silver plate battered,
all ready for the crucible The plate is marked " G.,"
and it is ascertained to belong to Mr. Gardiner, of Al-
thorne, near Maldon, at whose house a burglary had
been committed. On his person were found a flint and
steel, and, in a tobacco-box, a quantity of tinder. This
man was seen near the premises immediately before the
fire breaking gut. He is committed (ten o'clock) for fur-
ther examination.

ELOPEMENT,—Last night, a military officer
statE Zm
lonLe°dPa tthis place, (lii." wich) eloped.with the (laugh-
ter of a widowed innkeeper_
as far as Colchester, j,ut. The fugitives were pursued
without effect.
Should the
party's intentions be dishonourable,w
which we can scarcely
believe, words are insufficient to
a
expressteartless seducer
our detestation
a and abhorrence of the act by
which
plunges a whole family into irretrievable
much to be lamented that the law, whieh: misery. It is
i
so alive to the
protection of property should not supply some
adequate
punishment for the moral delinquent. It is an
inexcusable, that whilst the man who steals a anomaly
p,ek"'-
handkerchief is liable to banishment, he, who inflicts a
Mental stab to the happiness of another, and plunders
Lim of the dearest jewel he possesses,—does so perhaps
with impunity,— 0 tenipora i 0 snores I—Essex
Standard.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE. Seven o'Clock.

['HE LONDON GAZETTE

OF THIS EVENING.

Office of the Lord Chamberlain to the Queen, St. James's,
March 25, 1831.
Notice is hereby given, that the Queen will hold Drawing-
rooms, at St. James's Palace, on the following days :—April 14,
April 28, May 12, May 26, and May 28.

Lord Chamberlain's Office, 25.
Orders for the Court's going into mourning, on Sunday next
the :27th instant, for his Serene Highness the Duke of Schelswick
Holstein Sonderbourg Glucksbourg, brother-in-law of his Danish
Majesty, viz.:—
The Ladies to wear black silk, fringed or plain linen, white
gloves, necklaces, and ear-rings, black or white shoes, fans, and
tippe s.
The Gentlemen to wear black, full trimmed, fringed or plain
linen, black swords and buckles.
The Court to change the mourning on Thursday, the 31st in-
stant, viz :
The Ladies to wear black silk or velvet, coloured ribbons,
fans and tippets, or plain white, or white and gold, or white and
silver stuffs, with black ribbons_
The gentlemen to wear black coats, and black or plain white,
or white and gold, or white and silver stuff waistcoats, full
timmed, coloured swords and buckles.
And on Sunday, the 3d of April next, the Court to go out of
mourning.

Attheyourt at St. James's the `23d day of March, 1531.
PRESENT,
The King's most excellent Majesty in Council.
His Majesty, by hnd with the advica of his Privy Council, is
hereby pleased to withdraw, and cloth herrby withdraw, so much
of his Majesty's Royal Proclamation, dated at St. James's
on the tweuty-third of November, in the first year of his
Majesty's reign, as declares tqat rewards of fifty pounds and five
hundred pounds respectively, shall be paid for the detention of
oftbnders therein named ; and his Majesty doth, by and with the
advice aforesaid, hereby declare, that no such reward will be paid
for any information which may be given respectiug such of-
fenders, from the date of this Order. C. C. GREVILLE.

BANKRUPTS.
JAMES ADAM, Rood-lane, Fenchurch-street, tkirnishing.
ironmonger, to surrender March 29, April 5, and May 6, at
eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Fisher, Walbrook-
buildings, Walbrook.
THOMAS RI-104)ES PALMER, Cecil-street, Strand, wine-
merchant, March 22, at two, April 8, at thr,e, and May 6, at
two, at the Court of Commissioners. Binns, Essex-street, Strand.
JOHN JOSEPH ROUTLEDGE, New Bond-street, haber-
dasher, March 29, April 15, and IMay 6 at two, at the Court of
Commissioners. Wight, Percy-street, Bedford-square.
JOHN DOUGLAS and CHARLES KELLY COOPER,
Woodeaves, Tissington, Derbyshire, cotton-spinners, March 29,
at nine, April 19, and May 6, at ten, at! the Court of Commis-
sioners. Allan, Fredetick's-place, Oid-jewry.
BENJAMIN BEACH, Hounslow, Middlesex, market-gar-
dener, March 29, at twelve, April 8, at elven, an May 6, at
twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. Loveland, Symond's-
inn, Chancery-lane.
THOMAS WEBB, Osborn-street, Whitechapel, tyre-smith,
April 8, at eleven, 15, at two, and May 6, at eleven, at the Court
of Commissioners. Baddeley, Leman-street, Goodman's-fields.
GILBERT BURRINGTON, Stock-exchange, stock-broker,
April 12, at ten, 15, at eleven, and May 6, at ten, at the Court of
Commissioners. Walton and Coles, Basinghall street.
GEORGE MUIR, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, draper, April 2, 13,
and May 6, at eleven, at the Full Moon Inn, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne. Wilson, Newcastle; Dunn, Raymond's-buildings, Gray's
Inn, London.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

A great number of Private Bills were forwarded a stage,
and others read a third time and passed.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Edinburgh against the plan of Ref)rm
introduced by Ministers. The Hon. Member said the
petition was most respectably signed, and worthy the
attention of the House.

Mr. HUME said certainly the petitioners were very
respectable as regarded property, but they belonged to a
certain class holding particular offices. The petition
could not be considered as the petition of the inhabitants
of Edinburgh, when he reminded the House there was
one presented from that town in favour of the mea-
sure, signed by 25,000 names.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. PRINGLE supported the petition.
After a few words from Sir G. STAUNTON, the peti-
tion was ordered to lie on the table.

Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the county of
Perth, against that part of the plan which proposed con-
necting that county with another.
Mr. HODGES presented petitions from several places
in the county of Kent in favour of the Reform proposed
by Ministers, and one from Sandwich against the dis-
franchisement of non-resident voters.

Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. PRICE supported the prayer
of the petitions.
Mr. HODGES then presented a petition fron the county
of Kent, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. The
petition was agreed to at one of the most numerous and
respectable county meetings he had ever attended, and
that unanimously.
Mr. JONES said there was one borough belonging to a
Noble Lord who was favounble to the measure of Reform
which, although it contained very few houses, was allowed
to retain ha elective franchise.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The framers of the Bill had
no intention to favour Lord Camden or any other Noble
Lord. It was not intended to increase the influence of
an} individual, its principle was strictly impartial.
Mr. GEORGE DAWSON—There was one circum-
stince in reference to a particular county, that required
some explanation, he alluded to the county of Durham.
—( Hear, hear, hear.)—lt had been stated that the Noble
Lord who bore that title had been mainly instrumental
in drawing up the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)—The conse-
quence was that Durham, which already sent four
Members, was to have six inure.—(Hear.) —What
he complained of was, that as the principle of the
Bill propoed to give the elective franchise to the greatest
population and the greatest number of houses, be
thought it unfair that Durham should have six
new Members. When Lancashire, containing sixteen
towns all larger in population and the number of
houses than the places in Durham, yet that county had no
additional Members assigned to it, it required some
explanation why Durham should be so favoured over Lan-
cashire. Such a system of legislature would never be
satisfactory to the country. 111-natured people would say,
that uhder the name of destroying rotten boroughs the
Constitution of the country had been cut up.—(Hear.)
It would appear as if Ministers wished to destroy Old
Sarum and Gatton for the purpose of giving additional
Members to Lord Durham.--(Hear, bear.) The way
in which this measure of Reform was managed by
the public was most disgraceful.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Speeches even in favour of the plea that had no effect in
that House were published at great length, whilst those
in opposition, however strong the effect they might have,
were partly left out. It was pitiful to see such papers as
the Times and others lending themselves to such
a system. The people of England ought, however,
to know the juggle that was carrying on.—(Hear.)
They were also entitled to' an answer to the question be
had asked, namely, why Durham should send six Mem-
bers, and sixteen placessin Lancashire, larger than any of
those in Durham, not send any ?
Sir GEORGE WARRENDER must say, is jus-

ticeio his Noble Friend who had introduced the it-wastire,
that he had been actuated by no feeling of private interest
towards individuals. He was decidedly opposed to the
measure, but be believed its promoters were perfectly im-
partial.
Mr. C. WOOD was sure his Majesty's Ministers were
actuated by no party or selfish motives, and he thought
that on the presentation of petitions it was improper to
discuss the question of Reform.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT deprecated long discussions on the
presentation of petitions.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought, that with respect to
population and other circumstances in Sunderland and
South Shields, there was enough amply to justify the
principle that they should send Members to Parliament.
Lord STANLEY said, that although population was
one, it was not the only ground on which representation
was to be given by the Bill. The design of his Majesty's
Ministers was to give a fair proportion of representation
not to the population alone, but to the interests of the place.
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he did not rise for the pur-
pose of arguing the question, or of answering the imputa-
tion that had been made by the Hon. Gentleman opposite,
which would net be in that stage of the business very
regular. Because it would give rise to discussion, and
would be going prematurely into a Committee upon the
Bill. He could then have offered an answer to the Hon.
Gentleman, but in going into Committee upon the Bill, he
(Ole Nob'e Lord) would state fully the grounds on which
the particular towns named in the schedules bad been se-
lected, and Members granted to represent their interests.
Mr. G. DAWSON observed that when he had stated
his Majesty's Ministers had acte4 unfairly to the county
imputation.
It Durham, be did not make it as a personal
It was one of those imputations, however, which rested
on facts, the ground of which required to be removed
in order to be contradicted.
Mr. RUT HVEN wished to call the attention of the
House to an observation that appeared in the public Papers
that morning of an expression made use of by the Marquis
of Londonderry last night, in the Ilouse of Lords.
The SPEAKER rose to order. It was utterly impas-
sible that a breach of privilege of the other House could be
corrected by a breach of privilege being committed in that
House.

M. RUTIIVEN, after nuking several attempts, and
being called to order, made some observations on a pet,-

date which he had to present in favour of the Reform Bill '
from the freeholders of the county of Down.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed that the petition •
was signed by 13,000 freeholders in the county of
Down; no doubt highly respectable individuals, but
as he had stated before, he was sorry to differ from them
upon the subject of the Reform ; nor did he consider the
petition contained all the respectability or the wealth in the
county, as he had stated in his letter, declining to present
the petition. He hoped Honourable Members for Ire-
land who came forward to support this measure,
would consider and weigh well the question, because
he felt convinced that when the principles of the Bill were
thoroughly understood in the Protestant Church of Ireland,
and the re-action of it took place, there would be a very
great change in the opinions that had been expressed.
Mr. JONES hoped, that because Hon. Members on
his side of the House were opposed to the measures et
his Majesty's Ministers, they were not to be cried down
on the occasion of a petition being presented in favour of
the Reform Bill, and not permitted to ut er their opinions
upon the subject. He for one certainly should not sub-
mit to be so put down.
Petition ordered to be brought up,
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS hoped the Hon. Member whom he
saw in his place would now name a time when he should
bring forward a subject of vast itnportance which he had
long since given notice of, and that he would abide by that
time, that Hon. Members might be prepared to meet the
discussion—he meant the subject of slavery. He for one
should certainly have liked that the measure, whatever it
might be, had been brought forward by one of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers.
Mr. BUXTON said that his object was to intro-
duce a resolution that would go to the entire abolition of
slavery. He had framed a resolution to that effect,
though Le had it not with him at the moment.
lie certainly concurred with the lion. Member, that it
would be most des rable that his Majesty's Ministers
should introduce the measure, and nothing would give
lam greater satisfaction than to find them come for-
ward to do so; but should they not feel so in-
clined, he should bring forward his,proposition on (as
we understood) Tuesday next.
Sir R. PEEL said that he wished to call the attention
of the Noble Lord opposite to a matter of detail respecting
the Reform Bill, but which was of great importance. For
the purpose of his argument, if argument it might be called,
he would take it for granted that the principle of the
Bill was very good ; and taking the principle to be fright,
he was quite sure the Noble Lord would agree with him that
the principle should be justly applied. It was of extreme
importance before going into the Committee that care
should be taken nut to make the disfranchisementsfall upon
places of larger population than the places intended to have
franchises conferred upon them. Returns of population
of different boroughs had been made; one of those returns
was of boroughs going to be disfranchised, as well as those
going to have the franchise conferred upon them. The
return professed to be a return of the population
of each city and borough ; but he apprehended that
it was not so. It was a return in some cases of the
Population in the parish in which the borough was
situated—in other cases, a return, not of the population
of the parish, but of the borough. Now it was clear
the House ought to take the population either of the pa-
rishes or of the boroughs, and apply that rule indis-
criminately to both. This could not fail to be
an acceptable propositon to both the friends and oppo-
nents of the measure. He was quite sure that this not
having been attended to was unintentional, but still that
could by no means diminish the injustice of the thing.
He took the case of the borough which he represented, in
order to show the injustice of the proposed measure of dis-
franchisement. The parish in which Tamworth was si-
tuated contained, according to the returns of 1821, nu less
than 7,500 inhabitants, whilst the number of inhabitants in
that part of the parish, comprehended by the borough, the
numnber did not exceed 3,500, so that if the population of
that part of the parish which comprehended the borough,
and not the population of the parish in which the borough
was situated were taken as the standard, Tamworth would
be deprived of the rights of leading one Member to Parlia-
ment. He would now take the ease of Caine, in which
it ap- peered by the population returns that the number
of inhabitants was 5,600. But then it must be considered
that the limits of that borough were identical with
the limits of the parish in which it was situated,
although the number of inhabitants actually residing in
the borough did not exceed 3,500. Now. if in this
instance, the standard taken were the number of inhabitants
residing within the borough, as in: he case of Tamworth, it
be evident that Caine, instead of returning two Members,
would only be entitled to return one. This being the
case, be could sec no just ground for depriving Tam-
worth of one of its Members, whilst Caine retained two.
He did not intend to move for any additional returns, but
as it was of importance that the principle of the Bill
should be impartially applied, he wished the Noble
Lord to procure returns showing the: population of each
borough, and of the parish in which the borough was
situated. In the parish of Bridgewater for instance, the
pariah was in equal extent to the borough, but only one-
third of the persons residing the parish was entitled to vote
for Bridgewate. If the population of the parish in this
instance were taken as tie standard, it would appear that
the population of the parish was 4,000, and, therefore,
that Bridgewater would be entitled to send two Members
If in all cases the principle would apply according to the
population of the parish, as he thought it ought to be, lie
should be able to make out a strong case for the borough he
had the honour to represent to send two Members to Par-
liament.
Lord ALTHORY said he had stated to the Hon. Member
for Boroughbridge last night, that it was the determination of
Ministers to abide by the rule of disfranchising those bo-
roughs whose population fell short of the number limited in
the Bill ; but if a mistake had been made in the population of
returns which might work an injustice, it was not the in-
tention of his Majesty's Ministers to abide by these returns.
Their object was to procure all the information they
could to atend to any suggestions which might be well
founded, and if these returns were inaccurate to remedy
the defect.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS complained of similar de-
fects in the population returns of the borough of Rad-
borough of Radnor and other boroughs in Wales, and he
asked the Noble Lord, would there be any objection to lay
before the House the answers given by the officers
of those boroughs to the questions contained in circulars
from the Home-office.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL disclaimed all intention of
doing any injustice, and expressed his willing-
ness to lay those returns before time House
If it should turn out that the application of the rule to
the rule to the parishes, rather than to that of the bo-
roughs in which those parishes were interested were more
favourable to an extension of the franchise, he thought it
ought to be applied, and the taking the statement of the
Right Hon. Baronet to be accurati Tamworth would still
be entitled to send two Members.
(LEFT SITTING.)

Led never used !be expression if he hid, be ohould be
exceedingly sorry for It.
The subject then dropped.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, their Lordships would
recollect that some time ago he had given notice of his
intention to move for certain returns relative to the
population of different towns and counties, for the
purpose of bringing before their Lordships the whole
question of Reform. It would be in the recollection of their
Lordships that he had postponed bringing forward that
question sine die. Owing to indisposition he had requested
a Noble Friend of his to give notice last night of his inten-
tion to bring forward that motion on Monday next. That
had not met with the convenience of borne of the Noble Lords
in that House, and the matter was postponed till Thursday.
He begged to say that that day would be extremely
inconvenient to him, and he should therefore bring forward
the motion on Monday.
The NOBLE Loan then presented a petition from Ca-
Auxton-juxta Neath, against tithes; and was addressing
the House when our Reporter left.

DAY AT ONX O'CLOCK.

New 5 per Cent.
India Stock
Ditto Bonds 2 4 pm.
South Sea Stock fki
Old Annuities shut
New Ditto
3 per Cent. Ann. 1751
Ex BilLs, Xl,OOO lB 23 Pm
—5O) lB 23 pm.
Ditto Small ld 20 pm.
Ditto Commercial pm.
Ditto Advertised pm.
Bank for Account
India !hr Account
Cons. fc>r April 12 77f 8f 9 8%

PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONIC O'CLOCK.
Austrian Bonds Neapolitan —
Brazilian Bonds Peruvian Bonds
Buenos Ayre4 Bonds — !Portuguese Bonds
Chilian Bonds ... — •Prussian, Old
Colombian Bonds — Ditto, New —
Dtto, 1824 liN • Russian 9014%
Littlish
Greek Bonds - .18Z —
Oitto, 1,25
Guatemala — Exchange 2sf. 30c.
Mexican Bonds .. 2 per cent.
izittu, 192") -- Exchange 251: 30 .