The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1836.

not, at the conclusion of it, in any way before the Court,
and he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was accordingly
left to pay the costs to the amount of 701. or 80/. He
had no objection to the postponement of the Committee ;
his object was to get as good a Bill as possible, and he
knew not how that could be better effected than by hav-
ing all the amendments printed, for the consideration of the
House.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord LYNDHURST wished to call their attention to
one part of this measure. It appeared that the mode of
proceeding, according to the Bill, was to be this :—A
ci-
tation was to be issued to the party charged, then the
charge given in writing, and the answer to that charge was
then to be given in ; ater which a jury would be summoned
to try the case. But suppose the charge was not a valid
charge in law, what would be the consequence of that pro-
position? Why, that the jury would have to deal with a
matter entirely out of their province, for the object of a
jury was to decide questions of fact, and not points of law.
Their Lordships knew that in such cases at common law
the proceeding was by a demurrer.
After a protracted conversation, in which Lords Wyn-
ford, Langdale, Ellenborough, the Lord Chancellor, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Exeter took
part, the Bill passed through Committee pro fornza, and
was directed to loe re-committed on Monday next.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 4.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter to Four
Mr. SHIRLEY, the new Member for South Warwick-
shire, in the room of the late Mr. Sheldon, was introduced
by Lord HOTHAM and Sir G. CLERK.
Sir HENRY PARNELL brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Holyhead Road Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented three petitions from
operatives in Blackburne and Preston, praying for an effective
Ten Hours' Factory Bill.
Mr. MAXWELL brought in the Hand Loom Weavers'
Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second
time to-morrow.

Mr. WARBURTON preiented a petition from a gen-
tleman of the name of Thompson, who had invented a new
mode of lighting light-houses. He had been employed by the,
Corporation of the Trinity House to light the South Fore-
land. What the petitioner complained of was, that after being
employed for upwards of three months, a report had come up
that an explosion had taken place, and that the light-house had
taken fire. Instead of being confronted with the keeper of
the light-house, nothing further had been said to him, and
therefore no opportunity whatever had been given to him
of stating what he thought necessary. All that the peti-
tioner required was that the Company should employ him
upon a new light-house, and that that employment should
be under such inspection as would save him from the
danger of not having his invention properly investigated.
The Hon. Member hoped that the Hon. Member opposite
(Mr. Chapman), who was a member of the Trinity House,
would explain the subject.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN agreed with the Han. Member
as to the necessity and importance of paying due regard
to the subject of this petition ; but he was bound to say that
there were no grounds for the statements of the present
petition. This Gentleman had had an opportunity of try-
ing the experiment of lighting these light-houses, but it had
failed—as might have -been expected an explosion took
place which almost blew off the lantern, destroyed twenty-
one windows of the thickest plate glass, and threw them all
at once into Cimmerian darkness.—( A laugh.) If a ship
were at that moment going through the Godwin Sands,
and found itself in utter darkness, and the ship were conse-
quently lost, would not the Hon. Member ( Mr.W.) rise in his
place, and call them to an account for allowing this exhi-
bition to go on, when they were convinced that the exhibi-
tions of the lights, as they were, were as perfect as they
could be ? With regard to the expense which the peti-
tioner had been put to, he (Mr. Chapman) was bound to
say that he had been paid these expenses, besides rec(iving-
-350/. for his time and trouble. But the plan of the peti-
tioner, as it came originally before them, was for the purpose
of upsetting the present system of lighting by. means of gas,
&c. had' been told to put down anything like a moderate
compensation and it would be allowed. The sum he had
named was so large, that if they had allowed it, the Hon.
Member for Middlesex would have been the first to have
started up, and denounced against such a waste of the public
money.

Mr. WARBUItTON was not satisfied with the ex-
planation of his Hon. Friend. Why had not the light-
keeper been called before the inventor, and an examination
taken before the Trinity Board, at which the in-
ventor was present? That was what was only due to
the inventor, and it was the course he would still recom-
mend them to adopt. He (Mr. W.) did not commend
the Trinity House for having had the experiment made in
an actual light-house ; they shouldhave had the experiment
made on shore first, when they would have seen how it
answered. He would still recommend the Corporation
to establish that light house on shore, there to con-
tinue a fair trial of the discovery of this gentleman, being
satisfied the discovery was of such importance, that ere long
it would be the only method that could be adopted in this
or any other country.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON was also of opinion
that the experiment should not be made upon an existing
:ight-house, as, if the light was suddenly extinguished, a
whole fleet might be lost.---( Hear, hear.) It appeared to
that in justice to the individual, a full and fair examina-
tion of the discovery should have taken, place.