The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-22 00:00:00

some mill-owners, Protestant Dissenters in Marple,
Macclesfield, and Morley Lindon End, Wesley, Teachers
of Wesleyans Sabbath School, and from the congre-
gation of tbenezer Chapel, Hazel-grove, Cheshire,
from North Meols Trapp ; weavers in Rochdale ; silk
spinners at Newton ; machine-makers at To3morden ;
and Society of Friends, Rochdale, Lancashire ; from
Marsh Gibbon ; Grendon Underwood ; Edgecott ;
Dorton ; Newport Pagnell ; Olney ; 'Woughton ;
Weston • Ashwood ; Akeley ; Leckhamstead •, Castle-
thorpe ; kilton Keynes ; Passenham ,• Fulmer ; Pidding-
ton ; Fenny Stratford ; East Stratford ; Stony Stratford ;
Lavendon ; Westcott ; Boarstall ; Great Linford ;
Hogshaw Beachampton ; Brill ; Swanbourn ; Lud-
gershall ; Upton ; Barton ; Quainton ; Thornton ;
Claydon ; Water Stratford ; Oakley ; Hardmead ;
Newton Blossomville • Chelwoode ; Hitcham ; Ember-
ton ; Calverton ; Lillngstone ; Little Hampden ; Shal-
stone ; Shenley ; Lenborongh ; Stoke Pogeis ; Biddies-
den •, Ravenston ; Chilton ; Preston ; Warrington,
Buckinghamshire ' • from 250 people at the Stock-Ex-
change, London ; Woolwich ; Covent-garden ; Regent-
street ; Iron-works, Farringdon-street ; from Tower
Hamlets (6) ; and 20 other districts in the metropolis.
Mr. HOBHOUSE on behalf of an Hon. Member, who
was absent, presented a number of petitions from Che-
shire, praying for the total repeal, or modification, of the
Corn-laws, and for the adoption of the Ministerial plans
for Commercial Reform.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from Stoke
Golding, in Leicestershire and other places, against any
further grants to the Popish College of Maynooth.
Mr. HINDLEY presented petitions from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, praying for the repeal of the Corn-
laws, and for a revision of the tariff.
Mr. RICH presented a petition from Kentish Town,
praying for a reduction of the duties on Corn, Sugar, and
Timber.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
Sir R. H. INGLIS, seeing his Right Hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Control (Sir J. C. Hobhouse)
in his place, begged to put some questions to him upon
the subject of idolatry in India. In the first place he
perceived that some returns in relation to the matter
moved for by a Right Rev. Prelate in the other House
had not been presented to Parliament in a complete form,
and he begged to know whether the deficiency could be
supplied ? He also wished to ask his Right Hon.
Friend whether he could state to the House that any

measures had been taken, or were now in progress, for
the purpose of putting an end to the connection between
the Officers of the East India Government, and the
practice of idolatry, in consequenee of their being ap-
pointed as superintendent over the collection of the
tribute in the temples.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said that he would take care
that the returns referred to by his Hon. Friend should be
presented in as complete a form as possible. He also had
to state that he had lately received a memorandum from
India, from which it appeared that measures were about
to be taken for the purpose of putting an end to any
connection between the officers of the Company
and the idolatrous practices in the natives. He had
on the receipt of the memorandum, written at once to
the Government of Madras, expressing his satisfaction
at the measures about to be taken, and requesting that
no time should be lost in carrying them into effect. He
should always use his best exertions in the subject.
Mr. BAINES expressed his gratitude for the exertions
of the Right Hon. Gentleman in attempting to suppress
practices which could not be creditable to this country.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from a place
in Gloucestershire, praying for Church Extension.
Mr. LEADER presented a number of petitions from
various places in the metropolis praying for a repeal of
the Corn-laws and fiscal reform.

Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Dr. James
Henry, in Ireland, complaining of the conduct of the
enumerators appointed to take the late census in that
country. From the inquisitorial nature of their ques-
tions they had raised great opposition, and thus ren-
dered the returns imperfect.
Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition from the North
American Colonial Committee against any alteration of
the timber duties.
Mr. LEADER presented a number of petitions from
Leicester and the neighbouring villages, signed amongst
others by 11,200 females, in all by 17,000 persons, pray-
ing for the immediate abolition of the Corn-laws.
Mr. HINDLEY said, seeing the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary for the Colonies in his place, he wished to advert
to a petition which he presented the other evening from
the Aborigines Society, complaining of the conduct of
Colonel Gawlor. It appeared that in consequence
of an alleged murder by a party of the natives in
South Australia Colonel Gawlor ordered some of
them to be hung. He (Mr. Hindley) wished to
ask the Noble Lord what had been the conduct of the
protector of the aborigines in the colony, or whether he
had any powers by which he might maintain the rights
of the native tribes.

Lord J, RUSSELL replied in a very low tone. We
understood the Noble Lord to say that the parties bad
been tried, and that their trial was conducted with the
concurrence of the protective.
Mr. THORNILY presented 52 petitions from dif-
ferent parts of the metropolis, praying for the repeal
of the Corn-laws.

Mr. WAKLEY presented five petitions from various
parts of the metropolis to the same effect.
Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition signed by
1,323 residents of Market Harborough against any alte-
ration in the existing Corn-laws.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the third reading of
this Bill being read,
Mr. HINDLEY said, of course, he would not oppose

the passing of the Bill, particularly as its operation was
to be limited to the space of one year. He hoped the
Bill would receive better consideration next year, than
it did this.

Mr. HUME complained that the usury laws were
made subservient to the landed interest. _ _ _

Mr. VILLIERS thought the Bill was 'calculated to
benefit the commercial classes.

The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
The Loan Societies Bill was read a third time, and

Lssed

Mr. WAKLEY, pursuant to notice, rose to move for
" A copy of any correspondence betty e'.‘n the Lords of the
Admiralty and Mr. Warner, relative to a certain discovery
said to be applicable to naval and military tactics," also
" copy of the report of Lieutenant Webster, R.N. on
the same subject." The Hon. Gentleman proceeded
to say, that, having noticed the subject a few day's
since, connected with the discovery of Mr. Warner,
and, finding that a great deal of sympathy was
entertained in that House towards that gentleman, and
also finding since that time that there was a very strong feel-
ing on the subject out of doors he (Mr. W.) was anxious
that the matter should not rest precisely where it was
when it was last discussed before the House. It ought
ought not to be called a discussion, as it was merely a
conversation arising out of a question which he (Mr.
Wakley) had put to the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Staffordshire (Lord Ingestre). The answer
of the Noble Lord to his (Mr. Wakley's) question,
excited in his mind the greatest astonishment. He (Mr.
W.) was exceedingly surprised that the subject had been so
much neglected by the Admiralty, and he but partook of
astonishment which was almost universal. From articles
published in the Times on the subject it appeared that the
invention was brought under the notice of his late
Majesty William W. so far back as the year 1830. The
subject was then referred to Admiral Keats, who was
engaged in investigating- for two years, when Admiral
Hardy joined him in his examination of the
invention. At a subsequent period various changes in
the administration of the country took place, and Mr.
Warner was led to go abroad ; on his returning, he
found Sir James Graham First Lord of the Admiralty.
Shortly after that period a Committee was appointed to
investigate the matter, and Admiral Sir Robert
Stopford was to act as chairman to the Committee.
Before the labours of the Committee were brought to a
conclusion, the Admiral went to take the command in the
Mediterranean. Ultimately, however, Viscount Mel-
bourne's attention was called to the subject, and Lieut.
Webster, R.N., was appointed to make an investigation,
and report on the matter, and it was to that report that
he (Mr. Wakley) wished to call the attention of the
House. Viscount Melbourne concurred in the appoint-
ment of Lieutenant Webster, who made his report in
1839, a period now of very nearly two years since.
That report Lord Melbourne referred to the Admiralty
Board ; yet on a recent application the secretary of
Lord Melbourne informed Lieut. Webster that Lord
Melbourne had received no report whatever from the
Admiralty. This was a mode of conducting the business
of the
to country which he (Mr. Wakley) was at a loss
comprehend, and was not even calculated to raise
in the public mind a feeling of respect for the Lords of
the Admiralty.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) had
never witnessed any of the experiments, and was
ng
any
upon therefore incapable of for
others ;
forward butl the
those ho opinions
opinion on them,
his opinion was founded
and
representations ofopinions
had been brought
impossible that they should
in so tangible a
shape that it was utterly
impressaiosn
anxiouson the public
mind.theWhat o u
shee
should(Alr W. ) v,
be
fail to make a strong
put in possession of
for was
the report which Lieutenant Webster
thatind.
presented to
to the Admiralty. He thought the House was entitled
to see it. The Hon. Gentleman then read some
from the report, in which Lieut. Webster statede thatx r extracts
t
was convinced of the efficacy of the invention, and that it
would vest the sovereignty of the sea in the hands of the
first Power that adopted it; that he was convinced that
it was impossible for any thing that floated to resist it,
either in its immediate vicinity, or within a range of
five or six miles, and that one hundred sail of the line
would be useless against a vessel so constructed.
The report then proceeded to eulogise Capt. Warner
for his forbearance and patience under the neglect he
had suffered and difficulties that had encountered him,
and concluded by entreating their Lordships not to
neglect the man on whom the safety of the country de-
pended. Subsequently Lieut. Webster addressed a letter to
Sir W. Parker on the subject, in which, after again urging
the claims of the inventor and the merit of the invention,
he said that the responsibility of neglecting it would rest
not with him, but with those who might have to answer
for their conduct to the British nation. This was the
report of the officer, who, under the sanction of Lord
-Melbourne, was appointed to make the investigation, and
to report upon it. And how was Captain Warner
treated ? If he had been the greatest imposter
he could not have been treated with greater
neglect ; and Lieutenant Webster, an officer in her
Majesty's service, met with similar treatment. Was it fair
under the circumstances that the matter should have
been shelved from that day to this ? But other parties
had been treated worse than these gentlemen, and they
were the British public. Captain Warner did not blame
Lord Melbourne, but the Lords of the Admiralty ; and
he (Mr. Wakley) much regretted that although
notice had been given of the motion not one •of
them was then pitsent. He did not desire to make
any specific motion on the subject, hut he thought Capt.
Warner ought to be informed that the House sympathised
' with his case, which might prevent his carrying his in-