The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FKB. 15.
Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Middleton, and Mr. Featherston,
from the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in the Registrar's
Office of that Court, brought up papers, which were ordered to
be laid on the table.

Lord DA CRE presented a petition from Royston, in the
County of Cambridge, and one from Melbourne and its vici-
nity, praying for immediate negro emancipation ; also a petition
from the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Guardian of the
Union of Bedford, praying that the landlords of low rented
tenements might be charged with the rates.
Lord MINTO presented a petition from Jcdburgh praying
for Vote by Ballot, in the prayer of which it was unnecssary for
him to say he could not concur.
The Earl of RIPON seeing his Noble and Learned
Friend in his place, who had given notice of a motion
for Monday next, wished to know whether he would object to
postpone bis motion till Tuesday? If he would agree to that,
he (Lord Ripon) would postpone the second reading of the
Sodor and Man Bill from Tuesday till Thursday.
Lord BROUGHAM said it would givo him great satis-
faction to do so, especially as he found he should not be able to
put the House in possession of the detailed particulars
of his notice of motion till to-morrow, which he had hoped to
have been able to have done to-day. The motion was then
agreed to be postponed from Monday till Tuesday, and the
second reading-of the Sodor and Man Bill from Tuesday till
Thursday.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition, signed by
five thousand persons, from the barony of the Gorbals,
which constituted a considerable portion of the constituency
of Glasgow, to which he requested their Lordships' particular
attention. The petitioners prayed for vote by ballot. They
expressed great regret that the Reform Bill had limited
the suffrage as it had, and they also prayed that it
might be reconsidered in that respect. He was about
to present a great many petitions praying for Vote by Ballot,
and the extension of the Suffrage, and in a great many of
which a prayer for the shortening of Parliament was also
added. Front those petitions it appeared that the general feeling
of the country was that there should be Vote by Ballot
and Extension of the Suffrage. The Noble and Learned Lord
then presented petitions to such effect from a large body of
the inhabitants of Berwick-on-Tweed, agreed to at a public
meeting ; the borough of Canterbury ; the Royal Burgh
of Cupar Fife; Llanddgwiffny ; Park -lane and its vici?"
nity, in the county of Lancaster ; Lewes, in the county
of Sussex ; Yeovil, in the county of Somerset ; Ludlow, in
the county of Salop ; the electors and others of Widdlescombe ;
the inhabitants of East Chinock, in Somerset; Cardigan,
Mandeville ; the inhabitants of Barwick, in Somerset ; West
Cocker, in the county of Somerset ; East Glinton, in Had-
dingtonshire ; Rochester, Chatham and Stroud, in the county
of Kent ; Margate, Fromewell, in the county of Somer-
set ; Dumfries and Maxwelldown, Shrewsbury; Wakefield,
Hereford, and some other places. The Noble and Learned
Lord then said he had a number of petitions likewise to pre-
sent on the subject, which he should have the honour of calling
their Lordships' attention to on Tuesday next—petitions pray-
ing for the shortening of the bondage of negro slavery. Those
petitions were from Millburnton, in the county of Somerset ;
\\ ellington, in the county of Somerset; Diss, in the county of
Norfolk ; Holt, in the county of Norfolk • the Mayor, Alder-
men, and Common-Council of the town Of Liverpool ; a place
in the county of Devon; Florseington, in the county of
Devon ; Fromewell, in the county of Scrnerset ; Pierhead, in
the county of Cumberland ; Alsinghain, in the county
of Southampton ; a congregation of Dissenters assem-
bling in Birmingham ; a congregation of Dissenters
assembling at Walsall; a Meeting of Dissenters assembling in
Devonshire-street, London ; Hoxley ; Kilmarnock, Ayrshire,
adopted at a public meeting held Ist Januaty last; llartpool,
Durham ; the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council
of Hereford; \Vales next the Sea in Norfolk; Dudley, the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, and other inhabi-
tants of the borough and city of Lichfield, agreed to in Com-
mon Hall assen.bled. The inhabitants of Ledborough in
Yorkshire ; and from some other places.
GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNERS.

Lord BROUGHAM said he had a petition, signed by
almost all the most respectable bookbinders of London and
Westminster; and also one from the inhabitants of Brighton,
adopted at a public meeting held on the sth inst., to present
to their Lordships, strongly recommending their Lordships to
take some means for obtaining the mercy of the Crown, if pos-
sible, in favour of the unfortunate men who were lately convicted
of seditious practices in Scotland. The Noble and Learned
Lord said, in consequence of what had been stated in.
your Lordships' House upon this subject, and which had
been taken up with the greatest zeal elsewhere, it was
supposed that he had attacked the conduct of an individual.
Nothing could be more just than that.--( Hear, hear.) It
might be that he (the Noble and Learned Lord) had
been misinformed ; but he had taken—as he always did—
his facts from the petition which had been put into his
hands, and he was not answerable for what the petition con-
tained. He had stated the facts, and made his comments
upon those facts. In some of these instances the facts
stated in a petition were not entitled to receive full credit ;
but in this instance he entirely believed every one tittle of the
facts, and now still believed every one of those facts to be cor-
rect ; and his firm conviction was, that when those facts
came to be fully disclosed to their Lordships, they would be
of opinion that they would have warranted him in making his
comments much more stringent than he did. But if he was
wrong, he could only say that he was not present any more
than his Hon. Friend. His Hon. Friend was 400 miles oti.
He, however, never attacked his Hon. Friend. He had said
it was the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland that were to
blame. If it were to be said that he had been misinformed,
a production of the papers which he was now about to
move for would show that. If that production was refused,
it would be an admission that he was right. If it was not
refused, then it would be seen wherein he was misinforrned.
His statement was, that first one indictment was preferred
with wrong charges, that then they were imprisoned upon
the wrong charges; that then the indictment was deserted,
and that they were kept in prison till a right indictment wag
framed : but in order to make it the more right, they in-
cluded in it the wrong indictment. That_ was his
statement—all the rest was matter of inference. He
would now move for the following papers, which would
at once prove whether there was the least error in hie
suggestion :-Ist, a copy of the indictment or criminal letters,
raised at the instance of her Majesty's Advocate against the
prisoners; secondly, a copy of the interlocutor pronounced by
the High Court of Justiciary. If he had been wrong, the
return to those would be nil. Thirdly, a copy of the
second indictment, if there was a second, or criminal
letters against the same persons ; fourthly, the dates of the
first arrest of the same persons respectively, of their subsequent
liberation, and of their trial and conviction. These were
dates, and would not be "nii." Then came the fifth, which
was for copies of the record and verdict, and sentence of the
Court of Justiciary on the same persons at the said trial.
The return to the last could be made in 48 hours, because the
Horne Office would be in possession of the papers. The
prisoners had been brought from Scotland, and put into the
hulks. They had been seven months in prison on the
tight and wrong indictment, and were now in hulks, which
was a grievous aggravation of imprisonment—the most grie-
vous men could be subjected to. He was wrong in stating..
the other night, that two months' imprisonment was all
they could have undergone in this country—three months'
imprisonment was all they would have undergone, if they had
been tried or convicted in Cumberland or Yorkshire for the
same offence.

Lord MELBOURNE thought that the Noble and Learned
Lord would have acted more according to the usage of their
Lordships' House if he had given notice of his intention t 0
move for these papers. But, at the same time, consi-
dering that they only related to the proceedings of
the Court, there could be no real objection to their pro-
duction. He would not offer any opposition to the motion

of the Hon. and Noble Lord, but he entirely denied the
inference which the Noble Lord would draw from the circtlm•
stance that the return to some of these papers might be
nil. He did not know whether these papers might be in
the Hume-office or not. It was not necessary that they
should be there. to justify the Secretary of State for bring-
ing up the convicted persons from Scotland. It was
o::ly necessary that he should have found the conviction to
have taken place, and that the sentence had been passed upon
them by the Court. As to the question whether the punishment
awarded to such offences by the law of Scotland was not too se-
vere, and that of England more proper and apportioned to the
offence, he admitted to be a question of difference bet3veen him-
self and the Noble Lord. For his own partlhe did not think that
the Scotch law was to severe, and he thought that the sen-
tence should be carried into effect in this case. He was ready
to argue the matter with the Noble and Learned Lord, but he
would only say at present that it gave him great concern that the
Noble and Learned Lord took such a view of this question,
o hich was to the working people themselves of the deepest
consequence, and they were already too much disposed to look
unfavourably upon the laws by which such offences were re-
pressed. He was sorry to think that the high personal
character of the Noble Lord and the high character of the
situations which he had held should be lent to the condemna-
tion of the law officers of the Crown, of the Courts of Jus-
tice in Scotland. and of the law itself. The Noble Lord's
declarations on this occasion would give greater encourage-
ment to the offences of which these persons had been convicted,
and do the working classes more injury, than would be reme-
died by his lectures on political economy, or the rebukes which
he might throw out in that House against the petitioners in
their favour.

Lord BROUGHAM said that the corrections of the
Noble Lord would never prevent him from standing up to do
his duty, whether to rebuke petitioners or to comment
upon the conduct of the Ministry, or upon the law
officers of the Crown, who are amenable to Parliament
as well as the Ministers in the discharge of their duty. He
would rebuke even the judges of the land, when they appeared
to him to deserve it. The judges knew that they were not
above the law which it was their duty to administer, or the
Legislature from which those laws emanated. Au insinua-
tion had been made that he who had held high offices
ought to be the last person to make such remarks. He who
lnving exercised those functions knew the duty of a judge
ought to state his opinion, when he thought that other judges
were acting wrongly. As lie knew and felt that, he would not
shrink from any commenton conduct of his own. When he held
office he would not shrink behind the defence of a Ministerial
advocate. He arraigned the conduct of the Judges and not
the law officers of the Crown, and it was therefore he called
for the papers. As to his (Lord B.) arraigning the law, he was
placed in this dilemma—lf he advocated the law of England he
condemned the law of Scotland, when he was obliged to
notice the discrepancy by which an offence was punished
as a felony of the highest class on one side of the
Tweed, and as a trivial offence upon the other. He would
advise the Noble Viscount, instead of sneering at ex-
Chancellors for commenting upon the conduct of Judges and
taunting me with my lectures on political economy, he should
apply himself to remove the discrepancy to assimilate the
laws of the two countries, and to do equal justice to Scotland,
as well as to Ireland.
The Duke of WELLINGTON would not enter into the
controversy between the two Noble Lords who spoke last.
The subject would receive the fullest consideration in another
place, as a Committee had been appointed to enquire into the
state of combination among the working classes. He said—
My Lords, I cannot avoid expressing the satisfaction which I
feel, that this subject should have come early under the con-
sideration of Parliament ;. for, I believe there is no griev-
ance existing in any country in the world equal to the
extent of the abuses going on in all parts of this
united and hitherto called civilized kingdom ; I believe no
grievance exists equal to the abuse and injury inflicted on
the labouring classes by the system of combination.—( Hear.)
believe, my Lords, that, from all accounts which
I have received, there is scarcely any individual in
the country, depending on his labour for subsistence, or any
one employing labourers who has not reason to complain of the
Combination Laws in this eountry. I intrcat the Noble Lords
opposite, who have the Government in their bands, to turn
their attention to the subject, and to watch what passes before
the Committee, so that they may propose a measure to Parlia-
ment to put down the system of combination which prevails
throughout this country—if they do this they will satisfy the
object of the Noble and Learned Lord, and bring the law into
the same state in both parts of the kingdom.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to move the
biocolid read' the Bill for allowing Clergymen to hold
Stock tock Companies. He said it would
merely be necessary for him to state the nature of the
evil which the Bill was intended to remedy, and then the
provisions of the Bill which were intended to meet that
evil. According to the law as it now stood, and as it was
laid down in a recent decision of the Court of Exchequer,
none of the large Joint Stock Companies which were now
so common were enabled to recover any sum of money which
was due to them, if by chance any one of the shareholders
should happen to be a clergyman, and sharing in its profits.
By the 57 George the Third, all clergymen were prohibitee
from dealing at all. The words were not from buying and
selling," as in the former Act, but they were absolutely
prohibited from dealing. That was not founsl out till
the recent proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. A
Company brought an action upon a bill of exchange,
against the drawer—the defendant pleaded that two
clergymen were shareholders in the Company, and that
therefore all contracts made with the Company were
void, and that he was not liable to pay. The case
was fully argued, and in the month of January last the Court
unanimously pronounced their opinion that by the 57 Geo. 3,
they were left no option, but to decide that the transaction
was illegal. There had been no appeal from the deci-
sion, and, therefore, their Lordships were bound to take it as
the state of the law. By that decision, any person who
had laid out his money in any great undertaking which had
lately been carried out, if they had a clergyman for a partner,
were liable to lose all that they had laid out. The Bill was
not intended to put parties into a different situation than they
intended—it was merely to prevent them from departing from
the contract had entered into at first, and forcing them to com-
plete it. He trusted their Lordships would have no objection
to make the Act retrospective, so as to put an end to all actions
now pending .of the nature contemplated by the Bill,
giving at the same time the defendant the full costs of
his defence, connected with the legal point embraced
in the Bill. The Bill was limited only to next
Session of Parliament ; and the reason of that was, that there
was a Bill for abolishing and for regulating pluralities,
now before the other House, which would provide for
the manner in which clergymen might deal. Of course it would
never be allowed that they might buy and sell ;
but, on the
other hand, it was impossible that they could debar
Clergymen from holding Bank Stock, or from insuring
their lives in any Company which divided the profits among
the insured. He trusted their Lordships would cordially give
the second reading to that relief Bill.
Lord DEN 11 A N thought it was absolutely necessary this
Bill should pass, although he was not an advocate fur ex post
facto law. But this Bill was requisite, in order to prevent a
dishonest man getting rid of his own liabilities by means of
p articular enaetments in a Bill brought in for other purposes.
This case differed from that of a common informer, who was
set in motion by: the Legislature, and if he, in obedi-
ence to the laW; sued a poison for that which was made
an offence, it was hard that he should be deprived of
his costs. Ha thought that persons who had set up
a dishonest defence to actions already commenced relating
to this matter ought not to have their costs ; but, at the same
time, he should be sorry to risk the fate of the Bill by propos-
ing any amendment of that sort. He would, however, submit
to the consideration of their Lordships whether it was not pro-
per in such a case that costs should be granted to the plaintiff.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that the preamble
of the Bill should state m,:re definitely the grounds on which
die measure was introduced.
The Bill was then read a second time, and the House ad-
journed till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEs. 15.
In consequence of the Ballots for Members to serve on the
Bristol and Sligo Election Committees being fixed for this day,
the gallery was not opened till lialf.pAst four o'clock.

ROXBURGH ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The LORD ADVOCATE appeared at the bar, and stated
that he was directed by the Committee appointed to inquire
and report upon the petition against the return for Roxburgh to
inform the House the Committee met this morning pursuant to
adjournment, when they received a letter from Mr. James
Duff, one of the members of the Committee. stating that he
was prevented by illness from attending this day ; and they ac-
cordingly adjourned to Eleven o'Clock to-morrow morning.

BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from a
gentleman named Mills, Engineer of one of the Brighton
Railway Companies, stating that it had been asserted,
that it was with his consent, and the consent of the subscriber::
on his railway, that the Bill carried last Session had passed
—but that this was not the truth : for that this Bill had been
passed without the knowledge or the consent of the sub-
scribers to the Railway Company with which he was connected
Petitions on various subjects were presented by the Marquis
of Chandos, Mr. Barnard, Sir J. Y. Buller; Sir R. Ferguson,
Mr. Babies, Mr. Wilson Patten, and Mr: Chalmers; but from
the noise that prevailed in the House, we could not catch the
purport of them.

SLIGO BOROUGH ELECTION.
The Clerk of the Committees appeared at the Bar with the
reduced list of the Committee appointed to inquire into the
merits of the Sligo Borough Election petition.
The Members were called over, at the table, as follows :
Thomas Bowes, George Henry Dashwood, Francis Aglionby,
Hon. Thomas Dundas, Richard M. Milnes, Lord Russell, Sir
P. H. Campbell, Sir R. B. P. Phillips, John Parker, George
Houston, and Rowland Alston.
Mr. CRESWELL presented a petition from the Mayor
and Burgesses of Liverpool, praying that they might be at

The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition from
Leith in favour of the Vote by Ballot.
The SPEAKER said that any other Member who had pe-
titions to present with respect to the Ballot would present
them in succession.—(Here a complete array of Members
rose, which caused considerable laughter, and cries of " Order,

order I" from the Chair.)
Captain MIND S presented several petitions front dif-
ferent parts of Devonshire in favour of the Ballot.
Mr. HARVEY wished to ask whether the vast number of
Gentlemen who had risen in consequence of the call from the
Chair wished to know whether the petitions they held
were confined to the Ballot alone, or whether they did pray
for other matters? The House ought to know, for he, for
one, held some petitions which, though they prayed for the
Ballot, prayed also for other measures.
Mr. LAMBTON begged to assure the Hon. Member that
the petitions he had presented were fur the Ballot alone.

BALLOT.
Petitions in favour of the Ballot were pn•ented by the
Hon. F. H. Berkeley, from Bristol ; Mr, Fort, from Clithe-
roe; Mr. Warburton, from Bridport, and four parisks in
Oxfordshire; Colonel Evans, from the parish of St. Jame:),
Westminster; Mr. Handley, from Lincoln ; a Noble Lord,
from Auchterarder, Perthshire; and Mr. T. D'Eyncourt, from
Lambeth.

Mr.— D'E YNC 0 URT also presented a petition from Char-
shalton, in Surrey, praying for the Ballot, an extension of
the Suffrage, and a shortening of the duration of Parliaments.
Sir W. MOL ESWORTH presented a petition from
Leeds, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. From
another place in Yorkshire, in favour of Universal Suffrage
and the abolition of a Member's qualification.—( A laugh. )
Also one from another place in Yorkshire, in favour of the
Ballot. The prayers of all these petitions he most cordially
supported.—( Laughter. )
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from Manchester,
signed in two days by 15,000 persona, in favour of the Ballot.
Petitions in favour of the Ballot were also presented by
Colonel Butler ; by Mr. Dundas, from the City of York,
signed by 1,000 persons ; by Mr. Hawkins, signed by 800 in-
habitants of Newport, in the Isle of Wight ; by Colonel
Sharp, from Dumfries ; by Mr. Hodges, from various places
in Kent ; and by Mr. R. Walker, from Bury, in Lancashire.
Mr. HARVEY said he had nine petitions to present in
favour of Parliamentary Reform from nine principal places,
viz , Southwark, the town of Chelmsford, the borough of
Colchester, Braintree, and another place in Essex; from North-
ampton, from the Protestant Dissenters of Carmarthen,
from the town of Ipswich and the City of Glasgow,—all pray-
lag for an extension of the Suffrage, for an abbreviation of
the duration of Parliament, and for the rote by Ballot,
The petition from Ipswich prayed for something more : it
prayed for the abolition of the property qualification, and it
also prayed for what might not be unacceptable to some Mem-
bers of the House, especially those on the other side of the
House, that Members should be paid.—( Great laughter.)
The petition from the City of Glasgow, was the result of a
large meeting convened in that City at the instance of what
were termed the moderate Reformers, when an amendment
was moved, proposing, that Universal Suffrage should be
substituted, and that it should take precedence of the Ballot,
which was carried by a majority.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition (from whence
we did not hear), praying for the Ballot, Household Suffrage,
and Triennial Parliaments.

BRISTOL ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The Clerk, at the table, then read the revised list of the
Members ballotted to serve on the Bristol Election Commit-
tee; as follows :—Nicholas Ball, Robert Charles Tennyson
D'Eyncourt, 'William Currie, William Gibson Craig, George
Wilbraham, Ralph Etvrall, W. B. .Brodie, and Charles Wood,
Reformers ; and Sirs C. H. Coote, E. Stanley, and Thomas
Marsland, Tories.
IPSWICH ELECTION COMMITTEE.

On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Dr. M'Cann, the
medical attendant of Mr. Duff, the Member for Bamffshire,
who was this day absent from the Ipswich Election Committee
through illness, was called to the Bar, and was examined by
The SPEAKER, who asked—Are you, Mr. M'Cann, a
member of the medical profession ?—1 am.
Are you the medical attendant of Mr. James Duff, a
Member of this House ?—I am.

When have you seen him last ?—At four o'clock this day.
Is he, in your judgment, so ill as to be unable to attend his
duty as a Member of this House?—He is.

Is his illness so severe as"to preclude the possibility of his
attendance to-morrow or next day ?—Probably to-morrow.
Do you expect he will be able to attend to-morrow P—l
don't think it will he safe for him to attend to-morrow.

Will he, do you suppose, be able to attend the next day ?
I should hope he will, but lam not quite certain.—( Laughter. )
What is the nature of his illness ?—A severe cold. ( A
facetious Member on the Ministerial side of the House
near the bar here emitted a very singular sound, something
composed of a " Hem," a wheeze, and a cough, which created
great laughter.)
The witness continued—He has a severe cold, and symp-
toms of inflammation.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that Mr. Duff be ex-
cused from further attendance on the Committee.

The SPEAKER put the question. There were several
" noes" from the opposition side of the House ; and strangers
were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place; and the
question was accordingly carried in the affirmative.
NATIONAL LOAN FUND ASSOCIATION.

Mr. B. HALL presented a petition for leave to bring in a
private Bill for the above Association.—Referred to the
Committee.

ST. PANCRAS PAVING BILL.

The lion. Member also presented a petition from certain
inhabitants of tho borough of Marylebone to consolidate the
paving rates.

BALLOT.

Mr. SANFORD presented several petitions from parishes
in the county of Somerset—in the neighbourhood of a Noble
Lord, to whom they referred—praying for the Ballot ; and
stating, that whereas in 1835, all the tenants of that
Noble Lord, with the exception of four or five, voted
for the Reform Candidates for West Somerset ; that
Noble Lord having changed his steward, and engaged another,
a violent partizan on the Tory side, all his tenants but a very
few voted at the last election for the Tory candidates.—
( Cheers from the Ministerial benches, answered by ironical
cheers from the Opposition benches.