The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-02 00:00:00

6(16,

In writing Sold wholesale 7.id Retail, in London, by Wright,
No. 46, Fleet-street ; Barclay and Sons, Fleet Market; New-
her), and Sons, St. Paul's Church Yard ; Sutton and Co. Bow
Church Yard ; Sanger, 350, Oxford-street, .opposite Bond-
street; Evans and Sou, Long Lane, Smithfield ; Johnston,
Greek-street, Soho ; Butler and Sons, Cheapside; Godfrey
and Windus, Bishopsge►te-street : and by all Country Venders,
at 25....9d per Box.

***lt is necessary to inform the public that KEARSLEI"S
is the only original and genuine Medicine, and has been pre-
pared by them for more than thirty years.

Powr WlNE.—There are annually sent to
England 25,000 pipes of Port, selected from the
best wines made. The Portuguese sell it for
45,000 res, or 45 mikes, each equal to ss. 7d.
sterling---which is 121. 11. s. 3d. a pipe. Allow-
ing the expence to the factor at Oporto to be
Bs. 9d. a pipe, and his gain 71. clear on each pipe,
the whole gain on 25,000 pipes of Port Wine
will be annually the sum of 175,0001., supposing
Port Wine to be sold at Oporto for 20/. a pipe,
and which is certainly a sufficient gain above the
Portuguese price. But the price of Port Wine,
as sold by the Oporto Factor, or Merchant,
is forty pound a pipe, and his gain on each. pipe
(allowing 8 shillings and 9 pence for expence)is
271. above the Portuguese price, and the whole
gain annually on 25,000 pipes is .the enormous
sum of 675,0001. Suppose the freight of each
pipe Si., the duty is 551. a pipe. The English
wine merchant, therefore, pays 1001. a pipe' at
the time he sells a pipe of wine. Many persons
have left off drinking wine, and those who do,
limit the quantity of their daily consumption,
and less wine is sold in consequence. The duty
on 16,250 pipes of Port Wine is greater than
the revenue, 892,635/., on all wines for the year
1821, so that the quantity warehoused is now
immense, with little probability of being spld.—
If the duty on all wines were equalized, and the
duty not more than 201. a pipe on Port Wine,
the Oporto* factor or merchant would be forced
to content himself with 151. a pipe on Port Wine;
and the revenue would be increased, as three
times the quantity of wine would be consumed,
because in Great Britain Port Wine would fall
to 501. a pipe.
* In the year 1772 he sold it for £5 a pipe, and in 1782 for
£lO a pipe.

journ.

The Earl of BLESINTON gave notice of his
intention to move, on Friday next, for leave to
bring in a Bill to facilitate the Registration of
Deeds in Ireland.
ALTERATION IN THE CORN LAWS.
Lord KING rose to ask for information on a
subject which had made a great impression on
the country, viz. a report of an alteration in the
Corn Laws. It appeared by the votes in. ano-
ther branch of the Legislature, that a new Com-
mittee had been appointed to take hail consi•
deration the state of Agriculture. A rumour
had been heard of their intention to recommend
an alteration in the Corn Laws: in consequence
of that' rumour, it was natural to ask the Noble
Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government,
whether the Committee intended to lower or
raise the price of corn ? Any delusion upon
that subject would occasion alarm in the public
mind. Another rumour stated that a bounty was
to be given on the exportation of corn. A more
absurd project, in the noble Lord's opinion,
could not well be conceived. The Committee
was formed of official persons and country gen-
tlemen. The officials were to support the taxes,
and the landed proprietors the rents. How both
purposes could be answered the Noble Lord was
unable to decide; unless, indeed, they raised the
price of corn. If the House referred to the
names in the Committee they would find all were
fathers of that detestable Corn Law of 1815.
The object of that measure was to increase the
price of gold. That law unfortunately passed
through that House, and received not only the
authority of his Majesty's Ministers, but the
support of the Right Reverend Bishops, whose
character might have led them to abstain from
supporting the Bill, because it had the effect of
keeping up tithes. The object was to raise the
price of, corn under the fear or dread of plenty.
To use a word expressed in the other House of
Parliament, many were suffering under the hy-
drophobia of plenty.—(A laugh.)--It would not
surprise him if the Bishops were to dispense with
the prayer for plenty. The Noble Lord wished
to ask whether his Majesty's Government bad
formed any opinion on this subject ? If Govern-
ment had expressed no opinion, he should ask'
the Noble Earl whether he himself had formed
any opinion, or whether the country was to be
left to the mercy of the persons composing the
Committee ? .If that were to be the case, he
should then say, " Good Lord deliver us."—
Judging from the manner in which they dischar-
ged their duty on a former occasion, he should
say little benefit was to be expected from their
labours.
The Earl of LIVERiOOL said, he should make
but few observations in answer to the Noble
Lord. With respect to the Corn 43i1l of 1815,
if the Noble Lord would refer to the debate
upon it, he would- perceive that it was not the
intention of his Majesty's Government to raise
the price. A Noble Lord contended that 80s.
should be the minimum price, and he (Lord Li-
verpool) with a Noble Lord near him, decided
if the Bill passed that eighty should be the
maximum. On the subject of the inquiry in the
other House of Parliament, to which the Noble
Lord alluded, he would only repeat what he
stated on a former day when he moved for do-
cuments. He certainly did not conceive that
any measure that might be adopted for alteration
of the corn laws could have the slightest effect
in relieving agricultural distress. The Noble
Earl also stated that any measure which might
come up from the' other House would be a mea-
sure which had no tendency to raise the price of
corn. Ii might be expedient to enact pro-
visions with respect to the importation of
corn. Nothing deserved more consideration than
the question whether it would not be better to
admit corn, subject to duty—what the scale
price may be would depend on the nature of the
regulations recommended by the Committee, and
which would be brought before the House.—
The object at the same time would be to pre-
vent excessive importation as well as unlimited
prohibition.

Earl DARNLEY defended the vote he gave in
support of the Corn Bill of 1815. Much
obloquy had been cast on that measure which it
did not deserve. In supporting that Bill he ad-
mitted that it was a measure of necessity, and
voted with a large majority. The Noble Earl
considered the agricultural distresses of • the
country without remedy, but still thought a re-
duction of taxes might do much for the farmer.
The Earl of BLESINTON adverted to the Dis-
tilleries of Ireland, and expressed a hope that a
correspondence between a Noble Lord-and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove advan-
tageous to the Irish distillers.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL considored the con-
versation irregular, and moved the House to ad-

•
Lord CALTIIORPE said the object of the Corn
Bill passed in 1815 had been defeated by the
system of averages. The Noble Lord defended
the present Agricultural Committee, and observ-
ed that he should look forward with great confi-
dence to the result of their labours.—The House
then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Captain O'GRADY presented a Petition from the Grand
Jury of the City of Limerick, complaining of the Act of Par-
liament which enables the Corporation to assess the city and
liberties at a higher rate than they were able to bear.—Ordered
to lie on the table.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. LAW LEY presented. a Petition from certain occu-
piers of land in the county of Warwick, praying that the

REVENUE.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the gross and net amount
of the revenue of the United Kingdom, in the year ending Jan.
5, 1812, specifying the amount for England, ‘Vales, Scotland,
and Ireland, and the sums set apart as a Sinking Fund, with
the charges for management.—Ordered.
NAVY.
Mr...FIUME moved for a Return of the sums voted for in
each year, from 1815 to 1821, to the Navy for wear and tear,
ordinary ,repairs, building ships in his Nlajesty's Dock-yards,
or merchants' yards, shoving the total expense incurred in the
last seven' years ended.
Mr. HUME then moved for Returns of the sums voted on
estimate for the Navy in the Appropriation Act in each year
from 1817.
• Sir J. OSBORNE said, there could be no objection to pro-
duce the paper; but it seemed unnecessary, as the return would
only shew what was already to be found in the Appropriation
Act, and in the Journals of the House.
Mr. HUME was aware of that, but as his statements had
been doubted, he wished 16'1: the paper he had moved for,
that it' might be seen what the expense had really been.—.
Ordered.
Lord A. HAMILTON presented a Petition from Kirkcud-
bright, setting forth the hardships under which certain classes
of artisans laboured, and praying the-House to take their case
into its consideration—Ordered to be printed.
Sir G.. CLARK moved for a return of the number of persons
on half-pay or in the receipt of military pensions, who were
now in Holy Orders.—Ordered.
CANADA.
Mr. IVILIIIOT presented a copy of an Act relative to Tithes
pasied in the provinces of Canada.
A short conversation followed, which was very imperfectly
heard in the gallery, in which Mr. BENNETT, Mr. WiLmoT,
and Sir I. COFFIN participated, in the course of which the Act
in qUestion was described to have been framed with a view to
prevent misunderstanding on the subject of demands for tithes.
—Ordered to lie on the table.
ILCHESTER JAIL.
HOBHOUSE held in Isis hand a Petition which he had
yesterday mentioned it was his intention to present to-day. 4--
He thought, differing as the Members on the two sides of that
House did on many points, that none of them would be of opi-
nion that this was unworthy of consideration. The Petition
was signed. by 5,000 persoas of the town of Blackburne, in
Lancashire., They complained of the hardships to which,
Mr. Hunt was subjected, by the late regulations in fiches-
ter Jail, and called on that house to address his Majesty,
praying him to commute in some way the remainder of Mr.
Hunt's punishment, or to cause those regulations to be
rescinded which were the immediate subject of complaint, so
that Mr. Hunt.might be left to endure that description of con-
, finement to which he had been sentenced. Besides the Petition
which lie had to present, he understood the Woethy'Alderman
had one which was signed by 4,000 persons. Another petition
on the same subject had been presented that night already, and
other petitions from different places proved the interest ea-
cited.for Ali.. Hunt out of doors. He wished, the allegations
contained in these petitions to be .inquired into, as he was
convinced that the more this was done, the more would
Mr. "Hunt become an object of public sympathy. The case
of Mr.-Hunt was one of great hardship. To this conclusion he
had come from reading the Reporti of the Royal Commissioners
as well as of the Magistrates and Sheriffs, and the Petitions
which had been presented. It appeared that Mr. Hunt had
been so treated, that after he .had been in confinement six
weeks, Sir John Acland had, thought it right to put a stop to
the practices which had prevailed. This Sir John Acland was
the individual whose absence from illness had been At much
regretted by the Commissioners.—His situation, however, in
point of comfort, had afterwards been materially deterio-
rated, and on the 15th of November, 1820, Sir C. Bampfylde,
the' High Sheriff; had considered it necessary to interfere in
behalf of the prisoner, and prove that he thought the Magis-
trates had been wrong. Mr. Hunt was restored by the High
Sheriff to that intercourse with his friends which had. for-
merly been allowed by Sir 'l'. Acleind ; but on the very day
that Sir Charles Bampfylde went• out.of office, the obnoxious
resolutions were again resorted to. He did not know that a
case like this had ever come before the House—a case in which
the hardships endured had caused frequent interference in his
behalf, which had always been followed by a return to the
severity which had preViously been the subject of complaint.--
The close confinement again inflicted was continued from
February till July, when that inquiry took place which had
been set on foot partly in consequence of the petition pre-
seated from Mr. Hunt to that House. Though through the
discoveries which then took place, Mr. Bridle, the gacler, had
beendeclared unworthy of the office he held, he was allowed
to fill• it 108 days after being declared so unworthy. On
the 10th November, Bridle was dismissed, and the new-keeper,
Mr. Harding, came to the prison. From the 10th November,
to the 22d January, Mr. Hunt had opportunities of seeing his
female friends and relations, as, under the system acted upon
through the interference of Sir T. Acland aid Sir Charles
Bampfylde; but to the great surprise of Mr. Hunt, on the 22d
January, another order brought him back to that deplorable
state, from which he had, been twice rescued. Not only were
his friends and relations excluded, but even his physician and
attorney were denied access to him, and when he wished his
medical attendant to be admitted, he was told he might go to
the county surgeon, and take the county medicine. Mr. -11unt
he thought had kot enough of the county medicine, and he did
not think it unreasonable that he should have his own medical
man to attend him. Mr. Hunt wrote a private letter to Mr.
Justice Bayley. He had not made a public application to the
Court of King's Bench, as he could not afford the expense.

Mr. Hunt had since written to the Right Honourable Secre- •
tary, who had referred him to the Sheriff; by the Sheriff
he was referred to the Magistrates, and by the _Magistrates
:he was referred to the judges. The consequence was,
'Mr. Hunt remained in what he called solitary confinement,
which he (Mr. Hobhouse) did floteexactly call by that name,
but which was nearly equivalent to it under the circumstances
of the case. It was not to be endured that a prisoner should
be thus treated. The Commissioners who had well discharged
their duty, had reported that contradictory and irritating or-
ders had been issued respecting Mr. Hunt and another pri-
soner. Unnecessary obstacles were interposed to his inter-
yarse with his wife and children—the room in which he had
•been allowed to see his friends was small, cold 2 very damp,
.and without a fire, and such was the conduct of the Magis-
trates, that a prisoner had been brought before them 'with ten
pounds of iron on his wrist, yet it had not occurred to them to
sorder it off. It was strange to hear such statements advanced
-respecting a prison in that country where they were then sitting.
He could hardly believe that such statements could be true of
an English jail. But he had more to disclose. It appeared
-that in many cells a large chain was attached to the floor or
to the bedstead, for the purpose of being fastened to the wrists
•or legs of its prisoner. The part of the yard appropriated to
the prisoners had been turned into a garden for the jailor, so
that those confined could neither walk there, nor play at fives,
instruments of punishment, of a peculiar construction, had
been found in the prison, some of which were such as had
hardly ever been heard of, but in connection with the Spanish
Armada. Fetters had been put on the criminals when about to
be led to execution. What must be thought of treatment so
.different from that which was common in other places ? One
who had lately suffered had complained that the bell' was not
tolled for him ; but what must be the feelings of the sufferers •
he had alluded to, when at such a moment they found themselves
,-treated in the way he had described ? lie considered it i
a fortunate 'circumstance for the public that Mr. Hunt had
been sent to Ilchester, as he had been the means of bringing
-many abuses to light, which, but for his going there, might
never have been discovered. A prisoner ought not to be
-punished as Mr. Hunt had becn, and he therefore hoped the
Right Hon. Secretary. of State would devise some means to
-prev'ent the continuation of these hardships. He then moved
that the Petition should be brought up.
Mr. DICKENSON maintained that the Magistrates had
done all in theirpower to guard against giving cause for com-
plaints like those urged on the part of Mr. Hunt.
Mr. BENNETT thought the fact of their not having op-
posed the new regulations proved that they met with their ap-
probation. •
• Mr. W SMITH thought it fortunate that the abuses corn-
•plained of had been discovered through the interference of Mr.
• Hunt. To him it appeared that prisoners should have the
!power of communicating the grievances of which they might
have to complain to Members of that House. He hoped the
Petition would be alloweitto lie on the table, and that it would
._cause the evils complained of to be speedily remedied.
Sir R. WILSON supported the Petition, and commented
-on the conchtet of the Magistrates in suffering ten pounds
weight of iron to remain on the wrists of a prisoner examined
before them.
Mr. P. MOORE did not know Mr. Hunt ; buf he knew
:that he was a British subject. lie had been barbarously treat-
- ed, and was entitled to the protection of that House. He
• hoped every subject in England would feel that Mr. Hunt's
case might one day be his own, and take it up accordingly. If
Ministers did not interfere in behalfof those who were thus op.
pressed, they would not do their duty.
The Petition was brought up, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Alderman WOOD had a Petition to present from the
individual to whose case the attention of the H ouse had been
•-called, but he would postpone presenting it, and he would now
bring. before them a petition which he had received from 801.
ton, in Lancashire, signed by four thousand persons, praying
-the House to interfere, by addressing the Crown, and calling
.on his Majesty to remit the remainder of Mr. Hunt's sentence.
The Petition also went on to state, that had the Parliament
,been reformed, that individual would .not have been punished
so severely. He then noticed the alleged abuses in the jail of
l'lchester ; described the treatment Mr. Hunt had received, his
-application to 111 r. Justice Bayley, and the consequent order
fur the admission of his attorney and surgeon. He expressed
an opinion, that it was quite possible for the visiting Ma-
gistrates to make such alterations as would relieve Mr. Hunt.
The Petition was then brought up and read, and ordered to
be printed.