The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-28 00:00:00

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1822.

land, and Scotland, after having submitted it to
Mr. LUshington. The letter was to the follow-
ing effect : lam commanded by the Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury to call your at-
tention to my letter of the 11th, and the enclosed
order, and to urge the necessity of your trans-
mitting the required return with all possible
dispatch to the Treasury, with an explanation of
the reasons which have hitherto retarded it."
.No answer was received to this letter until this
morning, when. the returns were sent by the
Commissioners of Excise to Mr. Lushington:
The letter which accompanied the returns gave
no explanation of the delay. It merely said,
that in consequence of the letters received by
the Commissioners from theSreasury, they had
the honour to forward the returns relative to the
breakfast powder. The letter was dated March.
26th. He had now the original returns in his
hand, but would present copies to their Lord-
ships.—The witness was desired to withdraw.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN observed, that
there was no neglect of duty either on the part
of the officers of their Lordships' house, or at the
Treasury. It appeared that the neglect lay with
the Excise. He thought, therdore, that their
Lordships were bound to follow up the present
proceeding by making an order for calling one
of the COMmissioners of Excise to the bar.

Here some conversation took place between
the Earl of LIVERPOOL and Earl GREY, in the
course of whichrthe former observed that the Com-
missioners of the Board of Excise usually corre-
sponded through their Secretary. Though the
correspondence was in the- name of the Commis-
sioners, they might not be present. It would
therefore. be proper to examine the Secretary
first, in order to see what explanation he could
give., _
_ _

This suggestion appedeedlo be approved ; and
on the motion of the Marquis of .LANSDOWN. it
was ordered=" That the Secretary of the Board
of Excise do attend this House on Monday next
at five o'clock."

Mr. Adrian again appeared" at the bar, and
presented returns from the Commissioners of
Excise for England, Ireland, and Scotland, of
instructions given for the seizure of roasted
wheat, or other substances sold under the name
of " breakfast-powder;" and for proceedings
against persons selling the same..
hi answer to questions, from' the Earl of LI-
VERPOOL, llr. Adrian stated'that the name of the
messenger whom he sent with the letters he had
written to the Commissioners of Excise was Tho-
mas Woodyer. He had not ascertained from
that messenger the fact that he had delivered
them without delay. - • -
It was then ordered, on the motion of the
LORD CifANCELLOR, that Thomas Woodyer do
attend the House on Monday next, at five
o'clock.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MR. HUNT.

Sir F. BURDETT said, that several of his friendi in the
House had had no- opportunity of examining the Report of the
Committee on" Ilchester Gaol, and he should, therefore, with-
draw for the present the notice he had given for an address to
the Crown to remit the -remainder of the sentence on Mr.
Hunt. The Hon. Baronet, in a subsequent part of the even-
ing, gave notice that he should bring the motion forward on
Tuesday next.
Mr. CALCRAFT presented a Petition from the Owners
and Occupiers of Land who attended Hertford Fair, complain-
ing of agricultural distress. The Petitioners, the Honourable
Member stated, had not hitherto been in the habit of meddling
with politics, but they:now prayed that the House would with-
draw its confidence from Ministers, as they had licit afforded
any substantial relief to the agricultural interest.—(A laugh.)
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. LENNARD said, that the notice he had given for yes-
terday of his intention to move for repealing the Seditious
Meetings Bill, had dropped in consequence of there being no
House. Ile therefore gave notice that be should make the
motion on the Bth of May.
Sir R. IVII4SON wished to call the attention of the Hon.
Secretary opposite to a letter he (Sir R.) had received from a
person who was in confinement under a conviction for selling
vegetable powder, which sale had been considered a violation
of the provisions of the Act of Parliament, for regulating the
duty on coffee. He thought it very extraordinary that any
conviction should have taken place under that Act ; but at all
events, this individual stated, that he had been induced to
withdraw his plea, and suffer judgment against him, on an as-
surance that mercy would be extended to him. It appeared,
from his letter, that on the expiration of his imprisonment un-
der another conviction—(for he was one of those who were tried
with Major Cartwright)—a Detainer had been lodged against
him for the penalties under this Excise conviction. Under this
Detainer he was now suffering imprisonment, and was likely to
suffer it for life, unless the House interfered or the Crown ex-
tended mercy to him. He (Sir R.) trusted the Treasury Would
remove the Detainer.

Mr. LUSHINGTON said, the general question as to this
vegetable powder had beeh referred to the consideration of the
Commissioners of Excise, and they were of opinion that the in-
terest of the Revenue was considerably involved in it. Of the
particular case alluded to by the Hon. Member he knew no-
thing ; but it appeared that he had suffered judgment to pass
against him, and the question was therefore merely whether he
was a fit object of mercy. The general principle was most
important, for it applied to tea and many other exciseable
articles.

Mr. ABERCROMBY said, the interests of the public were •
to be attended to its well as those of the Revenue. If he under-
stood the nature of the construction put upon the Act of Parlia-
ment in question, it appeared that if any :*.ie discovered a
most wholesome substitute for coffee, he would not be at li-
berty sell it, lest his doing so should affect the Revenue. If
this was a right construction of the Act, he trusted it would be
altered, for it was a fraudulent Act, and concluded in the most
equivocal terms.
Sir R. WILSON thanked the Hon. Secretary for his answer,
and trusted that the case of the unfortunate individual would be
taken into consideration.
• CRIMINAL LAW. _ _

Sir J. MACKINTOSH gave notice, that on the first of May
he should submit a motion to the House respecting the Crimi-
nal Law.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRRSS.

Mr. SYKES presented a petition from Richmond, in York-
shire, complaining of Agricultural Distress. It was sinned,
the Hon. Member said, by nearly 1000 individuals of hi re-
spectability, owners and occupiers of land at Richmond and
in its vicinity. That part of the country was distinguished for
its fertility and the industry .of its inhabitants, so that it was
evident there could be no foundation for the idea which had
been thrown out that the North was generally free from that
devastation which was sweeping away the agriculturists. The
petitioners would have entrusted their petition to the Noble
Member for Yorkshire, had be not been confined by illness ;
and they would not entrust it to the Hon. Member (Mr. Wort
ley) because they did not approve of his politics, and conceived
that he was not attached to their interests. They had autho-
rized him (Mr. Sykes) to say that they did not join the Hon.
Member in his approbation of the expo:6 of the Noble. Mar-

quis, and they did not think that the reduction of a shilling per
bushel on malt was all the relief that the agriculturists had a
right to expect ; and they had particularly ranarked that
the Hon. Member had given no one vote this Session in favour
of retrenchment. He (Mr. Sykes) merely statel the opinion
of the petitioners on this subject without giving his own :
his principal object being to give the Honourable Member an
opportunity of answering the complaints of some of his con-
stituents. _ _

The petitioti was then brought up. and read. It complained
generally of distress, and prayed for relief, by the passing of
some measure which should enable the petitioners to obtain a
fair price for their produce.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thanked the Linn. Member for
giving him the opportunity he had mentioned. Ile had paid
attention to the Petition on its being. tead, but he did not hear
that his votes or any votes were the subject of complaint. All
that the Petitioners wanted appeared to be high prices, and
high prices he should be happy to find for them if he could.
The Hon. Member should in fairness have stated that in this
respect his Noble Colleague was as indisposed as himself to
forward the views-of the Petitioners. He (Mr. S. Wortley)
would, he repeated, be happy to give them the means of ob-
taining high prices, but he was determined net to do so at the
expense of the outer classes of the community.—(Hear, hear I)
—His opinion was, that the first security of the country was in
the maintenance of its public credit ; and ft was because he
did not wish to touch this security that he had objected to take
off taxes. He thought the Petitioners had been grossly misled,
and if their doctrines and those df Mr. Webb Hall were adopt-
ed, a dangerous convulsion would follow. With respect to his
approbation of the plans of the Noble Marquis, he could only
say that he still thought it was most satisfactory to find there
was a surplus Revenue of five millions. He did not mean to
assert that his opinions were infallible any more than those of
other people, but such as they were he. gave them. Had he
not voted according to his conscience, he should most sensibly
feel any reproof from his 'respectable Constituents; but whe-
ther his opinions were right or wrong he had voted upon them.
Those opinions were altogether unchanged ; and had he to
give every vote over again, each vote would be the same as the
formes.—(Hear, hear, hear!)
Mr. N. CALVERT said, he really should like to hear how
farmers were to live, in the present state of things, without
high prices. He for one must say, that if he were relieved a
little from those grievous burthens, taxes, poor-rates, and
tithes ; if in short, the English were placed -on an equality.
with the French grower, he would have no objection to all the
ports being thrown open ; for, with fair play, he was sure the
English farmer, could- compete -with all the world. He only
*anted a living profit.
: The Petiticin wag then ordered to lie on the table.
A Message from the Lords here announced their Lordships'
assent to several Bills. _ _ _ - •

. Mr. HOME DRUMMOND presented a Petition from an
individual at Glasgow, complaining that the restriction upOn
Scotch Distillation was unfair in its operation, and gave an
undue advantage to Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. -H. BLAIR, we believe in favour
of Petition,
Mr: S. WORTLEY said, he certainly thought considerable
relierwould be offered to agriculture by the bonding of barley..
Mr.. LUSHINGTON said.a.few words (which were quite
inaudible), in.answer to Mr. S.- Wortley, and the Petition was
then referred to the Agricultural Committee:
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. MABERLY moved that the orders of the House last
year, from several returhs of particulars relating to the public
accounts, should be renewed.—Ordered.
Mr. MABERLY then said, that he trusted the= Returns
would be made by. Wednesday next, as he had been compelled
to postpone a motion which_ he conOdered of considerable im-
portance for want of them. His object was to see wliether
a saving could not be effected in this branch of the pui!lic
expenditure._ .He begged tq observe, that the RetUrns
should not be produced by the day he hadllentioned, he
should feel it to be his duty to move that the offfeers-whose
business it was to produce the Returns sitbuld attend at the Bar
of the House.,
Mr. LUSIIINOTON siiotieefeWwords which we-cottld not.
hear, and the conversation then dropped.
Mr. TIERNEY presented a Petition from certain Inhabi-
tants of Knaresborough against the BillforproViding a sum-
mary method of recovering Small Debts..-,Ordered to lie on
the table.