The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-27 00:00:00

MARINE INSURANCE DUTY.

Captain PEC HELL presented a petition, signed by the
merchants and shipowners of Shoreham, Kingston, Brighton,
Worthing, Lewes, Newhaven, Arundel, and Chichester,
against the Marine Insurance Duty.
GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS.

Mr—WAKLEY said he was again placed in an
unfor-
tunate situation, from there being no Minister in the
House. It was the same thing every day—there was
no Minister in the House, although there was so much
important business before the House.—( Cries of Hear, hear.)
However, he saw a Gentleman below him connected with
the Government (Mr. R. Steuart), and perhaps it would
be sufficient to appeal to him on the present occasion.
What he wished to move for was a copy of any memorial
that may have been presented to her Majesty from the
Counsel of the Cotton Spinners who were lately tried at
Edinburgh, praying for a mitigation of the sentence passed
on them. He made an application the day before yester-
day at the Home Office for a copy of this document ; but
was told that if he desired to have it, he had better move
for it in the House.

The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member must be quite
aware that he ought either to have given notice that it was
his intention to make such a motion, or ought to have had
i•omc communication out of the House with a gentleman
connected with the Home Office. According to the gene-
ral rule, a Member on making a motion for copies of any
documents was supposed to have the concurrence of that
department of the Government to which the motion ap-
plied. He had only made these observations, in conse-
quenc• of certain expressions that had fallen from the Hon.
Gentleman.

Mr. WAKLEY said it might be the ordinary usage of
the House, that a motion of this kind should not be made
without notice having been first given. But he believed it
was presumed by the Constitution, and the persons who sent
them there, that they were always attending to their duties,
and he was not aware there was any regulation of that
House requiring that notice of a motion should be given.
The SPEAKER assured the Hon. Gentleman that the
usage complained of was instituted for the general conve-
nience of the House.
Mr. R. STEUART begged to assure the Honour-
able Member for Finsbury, that the Ministers had other
duties to perform than those which they had to per-
form in that House ; and so long as his experience in
Parliament had • lasted, the Ministers had never been
expected to be in the House until the usual hours for
commencing the regular discussions. They had the op-
portunity of seeing the substance of all petitions presented
to the House in the papers furnished by the House, to-
gether with the number of signatures to each. As re-
' spected the motion of the; Hon. Member, lie was unaware
whether the Home-office would have any objection to it or
not. The Hon. Member ought to have consulted with the
Noble Lord at the head of that Office last night.
Mr. WAKLEY still considered that it was the bounden
duty done responsible Minister of the Crown to be present
at the sitting of thn House. The Hon. Member was mis-
taken with respect to the accommodation which was af-
forded to the Ministers by the papers of the House; they
stated no more than the number of a class of petitions
without any details. Ho did not consider that it
was treating either the House or the country
with proper respect, for the Whole of the Ministers to be
absent day after day during the whole session, and lle
would say so were his dearest friend in office. He 'lid
not suppose that it was possible there could be the
slightest objection to his motion ; but under the circum-
stenrmt he WuUld *itiidta* it until the Noble Lord the
1 Secretary for the HOme Department was in his place.

EAST INDIAN JUDICATURE,
Mr, WARD pfestiited h petitionto which he in
treated the attention of the House—most numerously
and respectably signed, from the Presidencies of Madras
and Calcutta; against an Act of the Legislative Council of
Bengal, which set aside the 52d section. if the 30th of,.
George 111., which latter Act gave to the subjects o.
the Presidencies the right of appeal from the Provincial
Courts in India to the Privy Council in England. The
now Act of the Legislative Council gave a general juris-
diction to the Provincial Courts, and to a very great ex-
tent (lid away with the right of appeal. The petition was
signed by 2,000 persons, amongst whom were the most re-
spectable British and Hindoo merchants in Bengal. Those
of the petitioners who were native British subjects had me
morialised the Council against the Act ; but they were in-
formed that the Act would not affect them. They found,
that it did to a great extent interfere with their right of appeal.
The petitioners concluded by praying that a general code
of laws be prepared, which shall be applicable to the condi-
tion of all classes without distinction of religion or colour ;
that they may obtain the right of appeal to a Court
which shall b© independent ,of the East India Company ;
and that the Act of the Legislative Council before referred
to be repealed. The Hon. Gentleman moved that the
petition be laid upon the table, and printed ; and he further
gave notice that on the 6th of February he would call the
attention of the House to it, with a view of considering the
propriety of repealing the Act alluded to by the peticoners.