The Sun.
London, England, 1812-04-30 00:00:00

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Mr. STEPHEN begged leave, before the House
resolved itself into a Committee, to move that the
petitions in support of the Orders in Council should
be referred to the Committee.

After a desultory conversation, in which Mr.
Tierney, • the Chancellor of the Exchelner, • the
Speaker, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Brougham, and Mr.
Stephen, took pats, it w;s agreed ilyit the petition
of the manufacturers of Glasgow should be referred
to it, reserving the right to-moves at a subiequeut
period for the referiing
.of any other petitions
which might be presented in favour of the Order§
in Council.

On the motion of Mr. WHITBREAD, the Peti.-
Lions of the Manufacturers and others 'complaining
of distress, were referred to the same ; togedier
with the Petition of the Mere', ants of Fhill, against
the system of licenses, on the motion of. Mr.
TtERNEY.

•
Mr. WHITBREAD wished-to know whether Mr.
Ryland was now in England.?
Mr. Rose said, he unders►ood by mere accident,
totda?, that he was gone to-America.
The SPEAKER wished to be inrormed by the
House, whether witnesses should be allowed to
hear the examination'of thoie who preceded them?
After a conversation, in which Lord Stanley, Mr.
Tierney, Mr. Ryder, Pi u d Mr. Bathurst took parts,
it was agreed to resume the case until some in-
stance should occur to which exception might be
taken. • . .

On the question that the. House should go into a
Committee, _ _

Sir T. TURTQN wished to know whether they
were going into Committ.e merely to ascertain the
cause of the..present distress-, without any
doh of aflotding relief •by the repeal of ale Or

der in Council ? He tvislierl also 'be informed,
whether the declaration of his Majesty's Govern-
ment on that subje6.l was to be persisted in? If so,
the inquiry was not only illusory but insulting.
Mr. STEPHEN Saida few words in explanation of
his former sentiments.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied
that; the going into a Cornmivee was illusory or in-
sulting. On the contrary, nothing could be more
respectful towards the Petitioners. As to the De-
chration; it certainly spoke the sense of his Ma-
jesty's Government; and in his opinion, atter that
Declaratiou, America' could not hold out in her
demand for the repeal of the Orders in Council„
without making a common cause with France. Tile
Declaration of the Government afforded no room for
Parliament to refuse inquiry into the extent of the
mischief.

Mr. WHITBREAD observed, that the Petitioners
would think from what had passed, that the House
had compelled the Right Hon. G:nt. to do what he
otherwise would'not have done-7-namely, gilt-1i the
Committee. He thought the policy which bad been
just discloged with resped to America, would lead
.to a war with that country.

Mr. WILBERFORCE hoped Gentlemen would go
into the Committee with a desire to relieve the suf-
feriogs of the people, and purge their_minds of the
prejudice apinst the Orders in Council.
Mr. iiROUGLTiI.M declared his ready 'acquiescence
to the suggestions of the Honnurablt- Gentlemen.
He had nu bias in his mind farther than to atiend"to
the complaints, he would not say the distresses of
the Petitioners. •

After a few observatons from Colonel. Duck ETT,
the House went into a Committee.

Evidence was Wen heard for some time, after
which the House adjourned.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AratL

HAY-MARKET THEATRE.

MORRIS U. COLMAN.

In this case (het Lorto CHANCELLOR observed,
that it was a petty theatrical war which he could
not terminate, since he knew not how to manage
this or any other Theatre •in this Court, and of
course would nof further interfere in the matters of
the Petitions, but leave sthe parties to their own
scrambles.—No order.

COHEN V. LIPPED/.

Sir SAMUEL Rom LLY moved for a writ to enjoin
the.defendant not to quit the kingdom till he gave
security to the plaintiff for a sum of 6,0001. a ba-
lance of account due to the plaintiff, on the credit of
goods by him shipped for the Baltic, upon an ad-
venture or .peculation in trade, under the agency 01
the defendant, who was about returning to Russia
without giving security to the plaintiff for that sum.
—Motion granted.

COURT OF KING's BLNCII, APR IL 27.

THE KING V. PUNCHER AND .WATTS.

The two defendants were brought up to receive
judgment, having been couvide4 at the last Asszts
for the county 6: Devon, of conspiring, together to
procure a Stamp similar to those used id slacriping
wrappers of paper, and of imprinting said Stali-p on
certain outer sheets or wrappers of. paper, thereby
defrauding the Revenue.
The sett tence:ot the Court was, that Puncher (who
was the Master) to pay a tine of tool. and be: im-
prisoned in the jail of Exeter for Twelve calendar
Months ; and that Watts (rue servant) be imprison •
ed in the same jail nine calendar•mont

GORDON V: L,VELL.

,Mr. SCARLETT applied to have the judgment ar-
rested in this case, in which a verdict had bean found
for the plaintiff, with one shilling damages. He
moved this oa two grounds, first, that the offence
for which damages were asked was stated to have
been cOrnaiitied on an impossible day; or on a day
without a year; secondly, that khe verdi& was
taken generally on all the counts, and might be
suppoed to extend to a count where special da-
mage was alleged, as to which, however, no - proof
was ohered.

The. Court being r.ganst Mr. Scarlett on the first
point, be said he should then move to have the terms
of the verdict amended, by the exclusion of the
count for special damage. After that Was done, it
would be in his client's power to remove the case
by error into the Exchequer, there to abide the issue
,of a_case depending there, on .the point, whether
words which. would not be actionable if spoken,
become atiionable in consequence of being written.
It being the praCtice, however, that this should
'be done by Summons at the Judges' Chambers, and
not by motion in Court, it was recommended to Mr.
Scarlett to adopt that course of proceeding, it being
understood that the plaintiff should not be entitled
to enter up judgment in the mean time.

WEDNESDAY, ,APRIL 29,

THE KING V. EAMER.

In this case and another, which' were two con:
viEtions on the. Game Laws for using. d .gs for the
purpOse of killig:gatne, the first v.,.;ts -quashed, be-
cause• I he information did not set out that the defen-
dant had no estate in rizia of his wife, which is one.
of the -qualifications in the A.
In the second case, the consiaion was against the
defendant, who was hunting with-hi master, who
was a qualified person, and who..appeareil and stated,
that the defendant 'was his groom, and hunted with
him by hi, command. The Justice thought proper,
nevertheless, to convi& the defendant, under an ovi,
nion that no person must join in the chase who was
not qualified.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH skid this was strange doe-
trine.---it Would soon reduce hunting to a solitary
amusement, if all the grooms and whippets-in
qualified sportsmen.
Conviction quashed.

Tile Rule was rnide absolute- against the Pro-
prietors of the Righton Remld, for a libel on gins
Soturrset..

Mr. PARKE stated that the defendant had professed
his willingness to give up the original letter, which
contained the scandal, to-Lord Charles S. but he did
not know froin,whence it cattle..