The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-10 00:00:00

LIBEL LAW.

Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from several inha-
bitants of Westminster against the practice of the present Law
of Libel, under _which individuals were committed before a
Bill had been found by a Grand Jury. The power to do this
was given bra clause fastened to,a Revenue Bill. The • Hon.
Member offered some observations in condemnation of such a
power, alluding particularly to its exercise in the case of Mr.
Butt. The petition was ordered to lie on the table and be
printed. •

Mr. MONTEITH presented,. a petition from Renfrew
against the Attornies Licence Bill.
Mr. BYNG presented a petition from Clerkenwell against
the Assessed Taxes generally, and the House Duty in par-
ticular.
Mr. ELLISON
Presented a petition from Northumberland
against the Hides and Skins Bill; and 'another from the same
county against the repeal of the Duty on Wood. •
Mr. M. GRANT presented a petition from Bantragainst
the Attornies Licence Bill. • Mr. CURWE N presented a petition from Cumberland against
the Duty on Excise Licences. r '
IRISH FREEMASONS.
Ms. PRENDERGAST presenteda petition from the Free-
masons of Connaught, praying that they ini,g,ht be allowed the
same exemptions as were allowed to' English Freemasons un.
der the different laws against unlawful assemblies. Ordered
to lie on the the table.

AGRICULTURAL HORSE TAX: •
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from Battersea, to which
he begged the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchegner.—
The petitioners were principally market gardeners, and com-
plained that their horses were taxed, although they considered
that this tax, as to them, had ceased by the repeal of the Agri-
cultural Horse Tax.

Lord ALT.HOBP supported. the prayer of :the petitioners.
The horses were taxed as husbandry horses, and the tax being
taken off under that name, it was not fair to continue it upon
individuals by another name.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished the
subject of this petition had, in the first instance, been brought
before the Treasury. Doubts had been entertained whether
these horses were exempted; because they were employed
only partially in agriculture. They were employed as carriers
of the garden produce to market. -The case,' he believed, had
been before the Judges; but he was disposed to give relief to
the petitioners if it were possible. -
Mr. DENISON explained. He conceived that the occa-
sional employ of horses- in the way alluded to, ought not to
take away the exemption.
Tho CHA NCE LLOR.of.the EXCH EQIS ER explained.
If it were-occasional employment, it would certainly not take
away-the exemption, •
~ .
After a few words from Mr. Bright, Mr..Ellice, Mr. Curwen,
Mr. Denison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ,and Mr. Hob-
house, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

EXCISE LAWS.
•
111 r. BENNET presented a petition from an individual
named Harrison, complaining of the prosecution of the Exeise
Laws against him on an' unfounded charge of disposing of
French -gloves. . The Public Offices, he complained,: had' re.:
ferred the queition whether the goods were contraband or not,
to his:rivals in. trade. , - . •

, - The -CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said; he would
read the petition. The casehad never•been -before him at the
Treasury. The prosecution must have been carried on by in-
dividuals who conceived themselves injured by the sale. He
was about to *pose the repeal of the. prohibition against im-
porting goods of this.kind ; but, in, this particular• instance, he
theughtit must have been clearly proved that the goods were
contraband, otherwise the conviction would not have taken
place. _ _ _ _ _ .

Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, he wished to• know whether the
Exchequer fees to jurymen, in cases of this ;kind, had been
altered ? Formerly the amount of the fee depended on whether
the verdict was given for the Crown or not.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said the practiCe had been altered.
Mr. HUME objected to the payment of • special juries alto-
gether. They were suPposed to be of a class superior to com-
mon juries, and had therefore less: occasion to require the fee.
He wished to know why this distinction was allowed to remain.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said the subject would properly come
under consideration on the Jury Bill. It was too important to
be gone into as an incidental subject. •

Sir. HERRIES denied that any undue severity. had been
shewn towards the petitioner. He had every opportunity to
defend himself. The reference on the question of contraband
was not to the persons interested in condemnation, though it
was necessary, to have persons acquainted with the subject
present on the inquiry.
Mr. BENNET explained, and the petition was ordered to
be printed.