The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-22 00:00:00

POST OFFICE CLERKS.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from the Officers
and Clerks of the Post Office; praying to be relieved from the
per centage deducted from their incomes.—Ordered to lie on the
table.

A petition was presented from the Licensed Victuallers and
other Inhabitants of Peterborough, against the Beer Duty
Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. BERNA LI, presented a petition from certain Publi.
cans against the Beer Duties Bill, which, after a few words
from Mr. F. PALDIEII, and Mr. 111o.wcic, was ordered to lie on
the table.

DEPORTATIONS FROM JAMAICA.
Dr. LUSHINGTON called the attention of the House to
a Petition which he held in his haPd, and if the allegations
they contained should turn out to be founded on truth, there
never was a case which more imperiously called on the House
to do justice to the complainants, and he thought they ought to
go still further and punish other parties. This Petition came
from two individuals who were natives of Jamaica, who had
resided there all their lives, married natives of that island, and
had families. They were carrying on a lucrative business up
to the time of their forcible deportation from Jamaica, were
pbssessed of houses, lands, and slaves, and were entitled to all
the rights of British subjects. The House should be acquainted
with certain facts, which preceded that of which they com-
plained. In May last a Petition was presented to the House
of Assembly, signed by 3,000 persons of colour, by Mr. Ba-
bington. In this they prayed to be allowed certain privileges.
—They. claimed to be made eligible to sit on Juries, to be re-
ceived into those poor-houses, for the support of which they
were taxed ; to be allowed to act as overseers, and to fill cer-
tain public offices. This petition attracted considerable at-
tention in Jamaica. A Bill was introduced in the Assembly
to give them the rights thus claimed, which Bill, however,
was rejected on the second reading. The two individuals,
whose case he now brought before the House, signed a Peti-
tion in October; and, in consequence of this, so they be-
lieved, they had been apprehended as " aliens and dangerous
persons." lt fortunately happened that before the Government
could carry its intentions with respect to them into effect, a
writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out, and the case came be-
fore . tbe Judges of the Court of King's Bench in Jamaica.
The question to be discussed was, whether these persons were
aliens or not. If they were aliens, a power existed for send-
ing them off the island. The case was most fully gone into,
and it was proved to the Court that they were British-born
subjects, and entitled to all the benefits which attached to that
character. These were not people in a low line of life,
,Et nanthtie)Th''
p y as
they
un-
knownP°g-
to the respectable inhabitants of the island. The proof
of this was found in a Memorial having been presented to the
Governor in their behalf, which was signed by one Member of
the Council, Mr. Hislop, six Magistrates, and one Provost..
Master-General. Front such a memorial having been presented
he must come to the conclusion, that up to that time nothing
appeared against them. Front the 7th of October they had.
been kept to the . 25th, when they returned to their wives and
families. • They offered hail to meet any charge that might be
brought against them, but the Court of King's Bench declared
no bail was necessary, as there was no charge against them.
They went free, and as he should have supposed, clear of all
suspicion. Things remained thus till the 29th November,:wheu
the House would be surprised to hear, these parties were again
taken up on precisely the same charge for which they had
been arrested before—for being " aliens and dangerous pa-
wns." It miht be expected that the first step which the Go-
vernment of Jamaica would have taken on this proceeding
being judged necessary, would have been to take measures for
giving the whole ,case the most open investigation. , What
would be the astonishment of the House to know that, without
any investigation—without any opportunity being alibi-tied to,
them for making a defence, or for communicating with their
lnwaoenwrdeeda
dn.
friends or relatives, they were hurried on board a ship, and the
gperorsuonndad
next morning transported to St. Domingo, where they were
not because they
Domingo,
of that Island.
jects were this to be treated. It surely was
there and on that
ground
addressed.
He could not conceive on what grounds British soh_
those whom he
n When these
aittteladr t.,eo.
pp
L' e
fia
hall
i- I
weeeefseri Este.ela
defend
ll.atlyti
eNtani :o:he
aaissnraeuanrni
eaetww shade
sohurie.l
ntii
)hosaftdanbde colour
en
taaks
they were likely to.
be in imminent danger from the Government
He held in his hand a Haytia",
when a Jamaica Paper, nwsinth an
Gazette, from which it ap
:the writ of Habeas Cor us n
obliged I''
dependt n
yey wi
'weeer receosmetn
aipicelcai
ore
uendng t
and tohfa ttdhaetnhgseeeyrr
serving'
wiunsegr
le
,ocuratbo, 1 ,
ft:
of British merchants,till ' for
the. charity they could
subsistence on th native country. '
From •
with their St. Domingo
communicatethe G
pset.neDdotmoicnogmoewtiothlourtl., a" 1
they forwarded a Petition to overnthent of Jam •
answer had been amt., but
to that petition returned. The means
no
dependedcould
• h they had not bp, expected to be con.
on whic •
d to them, and when these were likely to fail, they this-
tinue
1 of wathes and such articles of nro ert
knew not how an outrage
poset
d an sag et r g 4 .
sesse ,They arrived here three weeks
If these facts were true, he agO.
so flagrant could be justified. If they were false, he called_
for the proofs of their falsehood. He had seep the peti-
tioners, anti had examined them and cross examined them as
closely as he could, and he could find -
nothing
d 1 1 fo
out that did.
not corroborate their first statement. He desired to know
why these men had been sent off the • daliens, after
having as
having been Proved before the . Court of King's Bench to.
be natives of Jamaica. Wh
• ~ y were they thus hurried away
without inquiry and unheard ? He begged to say, that if the
answers were not most satisfactory, he should feel it to be his-
duty hot to let the subjeCt rest there. He should call for aa

inquiry with a view to benefit these individuals, to prevent a 1
recurrence of like proceedings, and to save the character of the
British nation from being lowered by its supposed .approbation
-of what had occurred.
Mr. W. HORTON was willing to give such information as
he possessed. He did not know what reason the Learned Gen-
tleman had for connecting the signing of a petition with the de-
portation of the petitioners. He did not know there could be any
possible connection between them. These parties had been
represented by the Magistrates of Kingston to be aliens and
dangerous persons, and it was in consequence of this that the
Duke of Manchester had decided on putting the provisions of
the Alien Act in force in their case. He was certainly pre-
pared to allow that if it appeared that these persons were not
aliens, then a serious responsibility would fall upon the Go-
vernor. It was understood that subsequent to the proceedings
in the Court of King's Bench, the Duke of Manchester had
found that the parties were aliens; and, notwithstanding those
proceedings, if such proved to be the fact, he unquestionably
-had• the power, under the Alien Act, of removing them frOm
the country, It was the anxious wish of his Majesty's Go-
vernment that the most minute information should be supplied ;
but they did not intend to take any permanent steps until such
information was in their possession.
Mr. BROUGHAM was truly sorry that no contradiction
had been given to the facts stated in the Petition. Those facts
were, that the Government of Jamaica arrested and sent out of
the country these individuals, whose alienage or natural-born
rights had been decided in their favour by the Supreme Court
of that Island. And here he must correct the statements of
the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the proceeding before that
Court was ex parte. The Duke of Manchester was represented
there by the Attorney-General, who objected to the production
of the certiti•mtes of birth to shew that they were British-born
subjects. Having acquiesced in the decision of the Court in
the first instance, what did the Duke of Manchester do ? In
four months after having, as they were informed and as it was
charitable to suppose, heard something, or thought he heard
something, which proved that they were aliens, he took them
up 'and sent them away without allowing them even to column-
icate with Counsel. It seemed to him impossible that such
acts could be justified, but he would not prejudge the Duke of
.Manchester, because he was now in some sort on his trial.
Mr. GOSSET made some observations from under the Gal-

lery which were generally inaudible. We understood him to
state that the parties in question had been supposed to be the
, persons who supplied arms to the rebellious negroes and con-
spirators. He mentioned some estates in the north of the
island, where several stand of arms had been supplied, as was
,„proved upon some trial, by a Missionary.
Mr. W. HORTON explained.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that supposing the Duke of Man-
chester to have been in possession of fresh evidence and even
-supposing what the Hon. Member who spoke froniunder the
Gallery to be true, why did he not bring the petitioners to trial?
The charge against him was, that he had sent them out of the
country without suffering them to appeal to the laws.—(Hear !)
Dr. LUSLIINGTON expressed his surprise at the line of
defence adopted by his Hon. Friend. He also wondered that
the Hon. Member under the Gallery should have made his
statement upon the authority ofletters from Jamaica. It hap-
,pened that he had a-letter in his possession from the Rector of
the place where the trials occurred, and it stated that Baptiste,
the person upon whose evidence alone the charge was made
out, to be an agent of the French at St. Domingo, and "as
murderous, as diabolical, as insidious a being as ever was let
loose upon the earth." He maintained that the Duke of Man-
chester ought to have informed the Government at home of
every thing connected with such arbitrary proceedings. All
the petitioners wanted was, that they should be put upon their
trial, and receive the justice to which they were entitled.
Mr. GOSSET said, that the letter written to him was from
an inhabitant of St. John's, who was present at the trials.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
COMBINATION LAWS.

Mr. HUME presented Nine Petitions from various classes
of Journeymen against the Combination Laws•--Laid on the
table.

ART ISA NS' COMMITTEE.

Mr. HUME presented the Report of the Committee upon
Machinery and Artisans. The Hon. Member stated the Re-
port to be favourable to the Repeal of the Combination Laws,
and of the laws prohibiting the Lmigration of Artisans; but re-
commended that the question of the exportation of Machinery
should have the frequent attention of the House, and that
another -Committee should be appointed for the
.purpose of
considering it in the next Session. He gave notice that on
Monday next he should move for leave to bring in Bills in ac-
cordance with the recomwendations of the Committee.—The
Report was ordered to be printed.
Petitions were presented against the Beer Bill from Saffron
Weldon and Bishop Stortford, by Sir E. HARVEY; from Nor-
wich, by Mr. W. SMITH ; from Brentford and Houton' by
Mr. RYNG ; from a Deputation now in London, from difrel-ent
parts of the country, by Mr. INIABERLY ' • from Southampton,
by Mr. FLEMING ; from Thetford, by Mr. R. CoLnoitHE ;
from Aylesford, by Mr. ROBAUTS; from Asbbourne and
.Richmond, by Sir E.KNATC II U ; from Salisbury, by Mr.
'' '' ; from Brentford and another place, by Sir F. BUR-
; and from Great Yarmouth, by Mr. RUMBOL T.
Petitions were presented in favour of the said Bill by Mr.
Mi3Ncx., from two individuals who complained of having
been ruined by the monopoly of the Brewers.
Also a petition from the Land-owners and Farmers of the
town and neighbourhood of Reading, to the same effect. They
,prayed to be rescued from the Brewers, whom they described as
. a set of " voracious monopolists."—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. F. PALMER presented two similar petitions from the
Tradesmen and Mechanics of Reading, and the Inhabitants of
Newbury.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. ESTCOURT brought up the Report of the Committee
-on the Vagrants' Bill.
A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to several Private Bills, and that they had passed a
Bill for repealing the Spitaltields Act.
Mr. ELLICE gave notice, that on Thursday next he-should
move for information relating to the conduct of Sir W. Lum-
ley in the Island of Earbadoes.
NEW LAW COURTS.

`Mr. LIT T LE TON rose to present a petition from Mr. John
•Soane, complaining that language had been unjustly-used which
was injurious to his professional character and interests—be did
-not say in that House, because that would be infoanal. The
petition prayed that the ground plan of the new courts which
had been erected by him should not be altered according to
the recommendation of the Select Committee, without further
-investigation. It stated the course which had been taken in
-forming the plan and carrying on the works of the building,
'describing it to have been suggested and sanctioned by the
Judges and the Lords of the Treasury. Mr. Soane, therefore,
submitted to the House, that he was net responsible for any
censure which the building might deserve, and that others ought
to stand forward to take it upon than Attached to the Petition
was a ground plan and a design which Mr. Soane recommended
as a substitute for that suggested by the Committee.
Mr. SCARLETT agreed in all that had been said in dis-
praise of the building which now projected into Palace Yard,
and wished to see it entirely removed. He thought the requi-
site conveniences might be provided for without it, if the
Duchy of Lancaster Court continued to be used for its present
purposes.
Mr. BANKES made an observation which we could not hear.

Mr. LITT CETON, in answer, said, that it WAS not his in-
tention to move to refer the Petition to a Select Committee. _

Sir J. YORKE said, that although 141 r. Soane made the de-
sign, yet it was clear that he did it from order, and therefore
ought not to be held responsible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had stated
upon a former occasion that the Treasury were responsible, be-
cause they had sanctioned the design. There were parts of it cer-
tainly, to which he objected; but the object strongly expressed,
~,by the House, at the time the money was granted, was, the ex-
peditious accommodation of the Courts of Law. He repeated,
that whatever criticisms fell upon Mr. Soane, the Treasury
were bound to share.
Mr. DENMAN said it was proper that what the Right Hon.
'Gentleman had said should be well understood; for, somehow
or other, the blame had all fallen upon Mr. Soane. The Hon.
anti Learned Gentleman took this opportunity of Condemning
the repairef Windsor Castle, and described it as a capricious ;
and wanton waste of money.
After some further remarks from Mr. Bright, Sir J. Yorke,
Mr. Bankes, Lord. J. Russell, Mr. Iynett, and other Members
w ,
the petition as ordered to be printed
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented Petitions from Canter-
bury, Dover, and AShbourne, against the Bonded Wheat Bill.
. Laid on the table.
Mr. SCARLETT brought in a Bill to extend the Jurisdic.
tion of the County Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster,
to be
f Lancaster
and to improve the same.—Read a first time and ordered
read a second time on Monday.
Sir F. BURDETT presented a Petition from an Individual.
whose name we could not hear, complaining of losses and suf-
ferings experienced by the Petitioner, in the county of Armagh,
in thelatter part of the last century, in consequence of depre-
dations committed by Orangemen.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILMOT -.HORTON presented Papers relating to
Thin erara.—Ordered to be printed.

DUTIES.
The CHANCELLOWROO ofL the EXCHEQUER moved the
-.readihg of the Order of the Day for going into a Committee
,upon Wool Importation and Exportation_ Duties Bill.
CURTEIS opposed the motion. Although the Mea-
-sure had arrived at this advanced, stage the House had never had
ortunity of discussing it. lie trusted he should be sup
:fortedlH-
by. the Irish Gentlemen, as wool was a most important
,3re in the.trade of Irelaud. He.thought the.doctrint of free

trade had really been put forth to kind of frenzy. He op.
posed the motion.
On the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moving
that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. CURTEIS moved as, an amendment that the word
" now" be altered " to this day six mohths."—(Loud laughter.)
The SPEAKER begged the Hon. Member would be good
enough to alter the form of his amendment.—(Renewed
laughter.)
Mr. CURTElS•apologized for his mistake, and moved that
the House should " go into the Committee" that day six months.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought there would be no incon-
venience in going into the Committee, though he concurred in
the general view taken by the Hon. Member for Sussex.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT supported the motion, which he
thought would lead to the advantage of Ireland.
Mr. S. WORTLEY opposed the motion, though he for one
should not stand against what appeared to be the general opi-
nion of the House. -

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON supported the motion.
Mr. BENETT (of Wiltshire) was convinced that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had taken correct views of the sub-
ject, but he drought the Import and Export Duties should be
equalized.
Mr. T. 'WILSON fully concurred in the general principles
which had been adduced respecting free trade, but he did not
approve of the giving away a positive benefit on the mere ex-
pectation of receiving from a rival a corresponding benefit in
return.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the prin-
ciple of the Bill was, whether the Duty on Wool should be
reduced, and whether the exportation of wool should be al-
lowed, leaving the quantum and the detail of each to be dis-
posed of in a Committee. This was the usual and more con-
venient course.

Mr. H. SUMNER supported the motion.
Lord MILTON totally differed from his Hon. Colleague
(Mr. S. Wortley), and thought the measure was a wise one,
and likely to be beneficial to the country. He wished to en.
courage the importation"of every description of foreign wool,
in order that it might be mixed up with the English. This was
his view of the principle of the Bill, and he did not give himself
much trouble,about the detail. He was satisfied that foreign
competition would be unsuccessful.
Sir J. SHIFFNER supported the motion.
Mr. CRIPPS also spoke in favour of the motion, conceiving
that the English commodity would find a market abroad : and
that there was no reason for our fearing foreign competition at
home. He thought however that some alteration in the detail
would be advisable.

Mr. 11. DAVIS opposed the motion, and noticed the partia-
lity, which he said had been shewn to the silk manufacturers,
when the Silk Duty was altered, while the wool dealers were
left without any protection at all. The latter were entitled to
a bonus as much as the former, though they had not ,brought a
large audience round the House.
The Amendment was then negatived without a division,
after a few words from Mr. Cu wrErs, and the House went
into a Committee. In the Committee

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
that it might be better for the House to discuss each part of the
Bill by itself. The first clause merely
.provided for a repeal
of the present duties on the importation of wool, leaving
the amount of the alteration (which was in the nature of a
reduction) to be decided afterwards. He' did not concur in
opinion with the lion. Member for Sussex on this point, though
that Hon. Member appeared to think the duty was so precious
a relique of our antiquated system. The duty had always been
treated as an article of revenue ; and was never intended (as
was erroneously supposed) to be merely a protection to the
agricultural interest. He believed its repeal, however, would
be as beneficial to the agriculturist as to the manufacturer.—
The question then was as to the time for carrying the reduc-
tion into effect. Upon this part of the subject he denied that
there was any partiality. The date he oposed to fill up was
that which was recommended by the Wool Committee. lie
admitted this ; afterwards, these Gentlemen saw new lights ;
and wished the time to be extended, saying, that so early a
day as the 10th of September, would be ruinous to the trade.
He was rather sceptical on this point—(a laugh)—particularly
when the Gentlemen, in imitation of the Silk-dealers, called
out for compensation as to the loss upon stock in hard. He
therefore thought himself justified in proposing the day first
mentioned by themselves. Ile moved therefore that the blank
in the clause be filled up for the "10th of September.

Mr. BRIGHT called upon the Houle to make a distinction
in this clause for the benetit of those who held wool which had
actually paid the duty. This was the case with many of his
constituents, who would be seriously injured by the unquali-
fied operation of the present law. As to the proposed date, he
would only say that the later it was the better.
Mr. HART DAVIS supported the opinion of the last
speaker. '
Mr. BENETT (of Wiltshire) denied that there was any
sound reason for entertaining the distinction called for by the
Hon. Members for Bristol. There would be no end of such a
principle if it were entertained at all. It mast be extended to
the draper and the tailor.
After a few words from Mr. CURTEIS, the motion was
agreed to, . and the subsequent blanks were filled up in the
clause; and the clause itself, after a few words from Mr. H.
SUAINER, Sir E. KNATCHBULLi and the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER. was agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pro-
posed the Clause for allowing the exportation of Wool after the
10th day of December next. He had proposed this late day
out of respect to the manufacturers, though he did not think
there was any reason for their fears if an earlier day was fixed.
Mr. PEIRSE spoke (as we understood) against the clause.
Mr. W. WHITMORE supported the clause, which he con-
ceived would lead to the exportation of linen yarn. He
thought the measures of Government on this subject were wise,
and likely to prove beneficial to the country.
Mr. T. WILSON opposed the clause. Yarn was already
exported to a considerable extent, so that the argument of the
Hon. Member did not appear to him (Mr. W.) to bear upon the
question.
Mr. BENETT (of :Wiltshire) opposed the clause.
Mr. CRIPPS thought the measure ought to be qualified as
much as possible.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY opposed the Clause. He
thought it quite anomalous in legislation that we should give
away an article of which we had the exclusive growth, and
from which we derived an exclusive trade. By adopting this
clause we should be giving away without any return. Free
trade had been talked of, but there was nothing of free trade in
this, for there was nothing of reciprocity. Foreigners wanted
long wool, and wherever long wool could be grown, it had been
introduced. He had endeavoured to persuade Government that
they had been acting on wrong principles in this measure, and
as a Country Gentleman who deprived his income from this
source, he declared that he deprecated the whole measure.
Mr. CRIPPS explained.
Lord MILTON supported the clause. He conceived that
it was a measure calculated to benefit the whole country with-
out reference to one class or another. He was convinced we
could take this wise measure with safety, from the silence of
the farmers who would certainly complain if there were any
danger to their interests. The tendency of the existing laws
was to check and cramp the growth of wool in this country.
Being of this opinion he could not do otherwise than support
any measure which had the effect of repealing these laws. He
was convinced that the adoption of this clause would have that
effect, and therefore he should vote for it.
Mr. CHARLES GRANT observed, that prohibitions were
no part of the ancient policy of the kingdom. But putting this
aside, he should like to know what could be advanced in favour
of the present prohibitive system with respect to wool. It could
not be defended except upon the ground taken by the Hon.
Member for Yorkshire, that there was something peculiar in the
soil of this couutry exclusively favourable to the growth of long
wool. In answer to this, he could only refer to the conviction
formerly entertained, that the Spanish wool could not be grown
in any country but Spain. Not only, however, had this been
disproved, but the Saxon wool was absolutely an improvement
upon it.
Mr. S. WORTLEY denied that such good wool could be
produced in this country as in Saxony or Spain.
Mr. BENETT said, that the denial of the Hon. Member for
Yorkshire, had no sort of effect whatever, unless he , produced
proofs of what he said.
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the clause was
agreed to
The Committee divided upon the Export Clause :
For the Clause - - 180
Against it - - 20
-Majority in favour - 160
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved that the duty, instead of
being two-pence, should be one penny.
Mr. Robertson, Mr Curteis, Mr. Mansfield, the Chancellor
. of the Exchequer, Mr. H. Sumner, Mr. S. Wortley, gir
J.
Newport, Mr. Whitmore,
Sir T. Acland Mr. Dennis Brown,
Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. T. Wilson, Mr. Benett (of Wilts), and
• Lord Milton, severally spoke on the question.
The House then divided.
For the Amendment - 102
Against it - 83
The Clausel‘asiajaornrietynded was a-greed to-. -19
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then consent-
ed to let the Dety on Yarn be the same as the Duty just re- .
duced on Wool.
.

Bill having passed through the Committee, the House
resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.
The remaining Orders were disposed of, and she House ad-
jburned at OwE o'CLoca.