The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TU.ESDAN, APRIL 27, 1,841

bad never dropped an anchor had paid tha toll. Tha rule
for a new trial therefore must be discharged.

DRAPER V. SIIURMAR AND OTUERS-LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was
an action brought by the plaintiff, a lace manufitcturcr at
Chard, to recover the sum of 4781., being the value of a
bale of lace forwarded by the defendants, who arc car-
riers, to Nottingham. The property was conveyed by the
defendants in their waggon to Cheltenham, and there put
upon the railway to be conveyed to Nottingham, and in
consequence of some sparks being communicated from
`the engines to the carriages, the property was consumed.
It was alleged for the defendants, that, there being no
other mode of communication, they were justified in send-
ing the goods by the railway, and that their liability coated
as soon as the goods had been transferred to the railway
carriages, and that the action should have been brought
rgainst the Cheltenham Railway Company. The Jury
found a verdict for the plaimiX, and a rule had been sub-
sequently obtained to set aside the verdict on the above
grounds; but the Court was of opinion that the finding of
the Jury was correct, and the rule, theref,re, must be
discharge 1.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 26.

MUNTZ V STURGE.

This was an action brought by the Mayor of Birming-
ham against the defendant, to recover his share of the ex
penses incurred in that erection of busting!, &c., for •h 2
purposes of the late erection fnr that town. The facts
had b-en agreed upon by both part:es. and the ca,e came be-
fora the Court upon a qp( ci..l case, for tll, opi iun of their
Lordship . The defendant did not consider himself
becaucc two days before the diy of nomination he
had given distinct notice that he would not go to a poll if
the show of hands was decidedly agsiast him. The re
queStion ti be decided war, what constituted a candidate.
The care was argued by Mr. Erie for the defendant,
and Mr. Humfrey for the plaint' ff.
That COURT considered the question al of ton much im-
portance to be decided hastily. They would consider of
their judgment.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
Tne Indemnity Bill was read a second time.
Several private Bills were advanced a stage.
Lord STRAFFORD presented petitions from the
County of Tyrone against lay patronage in the Church
of Scotland.

PATort (:f the In3pecto-s of 17.1ctories, and rcturas relafive
to the Birmingham polce.—Adj.)urnesi.

ROUSE OE COMMONS, APRIL 26

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.

Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Coventry and Warwick Roads Bill, and
the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be en-
grossed.
Mr. BERN AL, in moving that the Lords' Amend
mer.ti to the Dovenby and Paocastle Improvement
8.11 be al-reed to, expressed a hope that the House
would take into consideration the difficulty in which
Committees ou private 13.1 is were placed, in conse•
(-pence of the thtermiration of the Lords to throw from
private Bills all clauses for exempting towns or indivi-
duals from tolls on any part of turnpike roads.

After a few words from Mr. Estcourt and other
Hon. Members, who thought that something should be
done to relieve the Committees on private bills from the
difficulty in which they sere Owed by the resolution of
the Lards refel•re.l to, the amendments were acre to.
'l'fic Kiddermintt ,r Small TentAr.crits Rating Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. THESIGER preseated a petition from St.
Anne's, WestminAer, for the abolition of toys on the
Metropolitan Bridges.
The ItJxburil,li and Dumfries It ad Bat was read a
se,;ond time.

Mr. 131lOTHERTON presented a petitio❑ from
the inhabitants of Broadway, Westminster, pr lying for
the abolition of the tolls on ttie Vauxhall add Waterloo
L'ridg s.
Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the
Commercial Committee of the Island of Bombay, pray-
ing the House to t die into its consideration the state
of our relations with China, with a view to urging the
Government to adopt such measures as should sccm to
them best calculated to promote the speedy renewal of
the trade. The Hon. Mem ntr said he would move to-
morrow that the petition should be printed, with a view
to calling the attention of the House to the subject.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from
Trace, in favour of Lord Morpctli's Irish Registration
Bill, and aminst that of Lord Stanley.
Mr. HI NDLEY presented two petitions from Ash.
ton-under-Lyne against the Corn-laws. _ _

Sir G. StRICIKLA ND presented a petition signed
by 6,500 inhabitants of Saddleworth, in the West
Riding of Yorkshire, praying the attention of the
House to the evidence taken before the Import Duties
Committee in such a mariner as should lead t) some
satisfactory Parliamentary enactment. Alio from the
Poor-law guardians of the union of Todmor-
den, praying that the guardials may be relieved
from the burden and responsibility of the present
system of vaccination.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from
the board of guardians of the city of Lincoln, praying
the House to enable the guardians to grant out-door
relief, and complaining of the bastardy clauses ;
also from Slcaford, complaining of the uncon-
stitutional powers of the Poor-raw Commissioners,
and praying the House entirely to do away
with Assistant-Commissioners, and to give to the guar-
dians power to grant out door relief.
Mr. DILLON BROWNE presented petitions from
the counties of Londonderry, Cavan, Ross, and Galway,
in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill, and
against that of Lord Stanley.
Mr. G. EVANS presented a petition from the
county of Dublin to the same effect.
Mr. BAILEY presented a petition from the city of
Bristol, praying for a revision of the commercial tariff ;
also a petition from the same plsce in favour of Church
Extension.

Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Birming-
ham, praying that the Borough Court in that town may
not be abolished by the County Courts' Bill, but that
provision may be made for extending the new regula-
tions to the existing Court ; also two petitions from
public meetings hell in London, praying for a repeal of
the Corn-laws.

Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition from a
place in Sussex, praying that Unions under the Gilbert
Act might not be abolished without the consent of
the Guardians ; also a petition from Ashur,t, praying
for Church Extension.

Sir G. CLERK presented two pctitions from South-
wark in favour of Church Extension.

Mr. C. VILLIERS presented a petition from the
Uaivcrsal Rational Religionists of Finsbury, praying
for an inquiry into grievances of the labouring classes.
Petitions for the Repeal of the Corn-laws were pre-
sented by Lord Duncan from Warrington ; by Mr.
Muntz, Mr. Hayter, and Colonel Salwcy, from the ope-
ratives and inhabitants of different parts of London; Mr.
Hindley, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Villiers from Cheshire.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from two
ladie, Mrs. and Miss Chambers, the wife and daughter
of Mr. Chambers, formerly a banker, in Boud-street,
complaining of the severity of the treatment of Mr.
' Chambers, who had been now sixteen years in gaol, and
praying that the-law under which it was inflicted ought
be altered.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from a
place in Ireland; in favour of a repeal of the Legis-
lative Union. Also petitions from places in the counties
of Antrim, Mayo, Fermanagh, and Tyrone, in favour
of Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration 13i11, and against
Lord Stanley's.
Mr. INGHAM presented a petition in favour of
Church Extens:on.

Mr. PALMER presented a ?cation in favour of
Church Reform.

The Glasgow House of Refuge Bill was read a se-
cond time.

Captain PECHELL pre!ented a petition from
Arundel praying the House to pass a law for the bet-
ter Observance of the Lord's Day, so as to prevent in
future a similar exhibition being made by commanding
officers of regiments to that which was lately made by
the flogging of a soldier on the Sabbath in Hounslow
Barracks.

Mr. LITTON presented petitions from Colerain,
Port Stewart, Ballywillan, and other places in the
North of Ireland, on the subject of lay patronage.
Also petitions from Dublin and another pliee, against
any further grant to the College of Maynooth, and
two petitions in favour of Lord Stanley's Registration
Bill.

Lord MORPETH presented a petition in pursuance
of a meeting of ireeholderF, held in Dublin, in favour
of the Bill brought in by the Government for the
Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland—it
made in addition to the petition already presented by
him, on that subject the number of signatures nearly
200,000. Also a petition from Saddleworth in Yolk-
shire, to the same effect.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition against the Se-
vern Navigation BIP.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions from
places in Ireland, iu favour of the Bill introduced by
the Government for the amendment of the laws of Re-
glitration in Ireland.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from a Grand
Jury in Ireland, and one from Finsbury in favour of
his Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill, and 'against
that of the Government.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Provost,
Magistrates, and Council of Musselburgb, and one
from the inhabitants of the same pLce, praying for a
modification of our tariff, tr.:cording to the plan proposed
by the Import Duties' Committee.
Sir M. WOOD gave notice that on an early day he
would move for a Select Committee to consider the
various plans for the improvement of the metropolis,
and the best manner in which the tolls and bridges over
the Thames might be abolished.
Sir G. GREY gave notice that on the lnh May
he would move for a' Sel2et Committee to consider
whether it might not be expedient to convert Labra-
dor into a Penal Sottlem,nt.
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

Mr. C. LUSHINGTON gave notice that he should
to-morrow present a petition from the Society of
Friends in Great Britain, remonstrating against the
grievances to which they were subject, and especially
against the imposition of Church-rates.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY.

Capt. PEC HELL movel for a rettrn of the number
of instances of corporal punishments inflicted in the
navy of Great Britain. The Hon. Member sa;d he
wished this return as an addition to that moved for by
the Hon. Member for Lambeth respecting the army.
PENSIONS.

Mr. HUME moved for a return of pensions granted
by letters patent by the Crown since the ar....cession of
Queen Victoria; also for a return of the amount of noney
levied by the Commissioners of Sewers, from 1832 to the
present period.
Sir C. GREY said he wished to put a question to
the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire,
with reFerence to one of the Orders of the Day, namely,
whether it was the intention of the Cabinet,
of which the Noble Lord formed a part, on
the 25th of June, 18:32. to give the right
of voting at ekctions of Members of Parliament
for counties in Ireland to all persons occupying tene-
ments for which they paid an annual rent of 101. The
lion. Gentleman said it would eXplain the meaning of
his question if he stated to the House, that having re-
ferred to the Noble Lord on the subject, the Noble
Lord had referred him to the Bill. That Bill, however,
did not afford the means of deciding the question.
The question referred to Junc, 1825, and the Bill of
May, 1830, was evidently not in the state in which it
stood before the House at a subsequently period.
Lnrd STANLEY said the lion. Gentleman had
been kind enough to put into his hands a copy of the
Mirror of Parliament of 1832, and at the same time he
had asked him to give an explanation of a speech of his
which he there found reported.—(Laughter.) That
speech was made by him (Lord S.) in explanation of the
Bill as it stood at the time for consideration by the
House, and as it was intended to stand by Earl Grey's
Government. In explanation of his speech he had taken
the liberty of referring the lion. Gentleman to the Bill
as he would find it upstairs, considering that a more
authentic explanation than any which he could furnish.
however, he well recollected the passage, because he

bad often looked at it since, and he had noticed on
various occasions that that speech contained a
fundamental error throughout, arising out of
a misprint he had no doubt, which made the whole
statement perfectly unintelligible. The only explanatiarr
he could give was this, he was made to speak through-
out of a rent of 101. He had little doubt the mistake had
ari: en from substituting the word " rent" for " interest,"
whereas he had been speaking as the Bill spoke of an
annual interest of 101. It never was the intentian of
Earl Grey's Government to introduce the words in the
report as part of the Reform Bill. He had no doubt
that the error had arisen from the slim t-hand
writer having., in copying out his notes slier-
werds, mistaken the mark, so that the word interest
had been mistaL,n for the word rent or rental.
It certday never was intended in the time of Earl
Grey's Government to take such a course, and there
were many Hon. Members present who could corro-
borate that starement.—(Hear, Lear.)
Colonel suiTHffitt, begged to ask the Noble
Lord oppa,ite when it was intended to bring forward
the Miscellaneous Estimates ?

L'ird J. RUSSELL could not fix the precise day,
but he should give due notice to the House.
Col. SIBTIIORP gave notice that to-morrow
sehinight he should call the attention of the House to
the appointment of Mr. ITzard as Solicitor to the Houle
Department.

Mr. GODSON inquired whether the Committee.
which had in en appointed to inquire into the opera-
tion of Joir,t Stock Companies (except B itiking Com-
panies) was intended to include Insurance Companies ?
Mr. LABOUCIMRE said there was no doubt
that Insurance Compan.es would be included in the
inquiries of the Committee.
S:r E. KNATCHBULL complained that several
returns connected with the Poor-laws, which had been
moved for some time since, had not been laid on the
table. He should next week move that they he fur-
nished forthwith.
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' BILL
(IRELAND).
Oa the motion of Lord MORPETII the House
then went into Committee on the Parliamentary Voters'
Bill (Ireland).
The preamble was postpoceJ.
On clause 1 being read, Lord HO WICK rose to move
the following amendment, at page 2, Inc 11, after the
words "no person " to omit all the words to the
end of the clause, and to insert " claiming under
any Act cr Acts now in force, to be entitled
to be registered, and to vote as a Parliamentary elector
for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold
property in his actual occu@ation, shall be required
to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear
yearly value required by such Act or Acts,
except as hereinafter provided." The Noble
Lord said that in moving the amendments of
which he had given notice, he feared it might
seem to the House that he had taken upon
himself the responsibility which (lid not properly
belong to then. It might he thought, that to bring
with advantage before the House a proposition of so
much importance to the county franchise in Ire-
land, the person submitting it ought to possess
either that intimate and minute local knOwledge
of Ireland to which he (Lord Howick) had no pre-
tmsion, or else that he should have a claim to the con-
fidence and support of a powerful party in the House. He
(Lord H.) was fully sensible of his own inadequacy to'do
justice to the cause he had undertaken ; but if he had
not a minute local knowledge of Ireland, so, on the
other hand, having no personal connection with
that country, ho had not been mixed up with
those political and religious animosities which
there unfortunately prevailed to so great an extent, and
if he had no right to expect the support of the or-
ganized party of her Majesty's Government on the one
side, or of gentlemen on the opposite benches on the
other, if he had no right or title to expect the support of
any great party in that House, he did trust this very
circumstance would convince the House that he was
only speaking the simple truth, when he declared most
sincerely that in bringing forward this proposition he
sought no party interest or advantage ; and that his only
object was, if possible, to assist in promoting the adjust
went of a question which he was convinced could not
contiaue unsettled without imminent detriment to the in-
terests of the country, perhaps not without danger to
the safety of the empire, subjected as it had
hitherto been to fierce party contests both
in that House and in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
The importance of settling the question must be
obvious to all ; but it must bo equally obvious that if
both sides of the House insisted upon their own views
such a settlement was impracticable. In the course
he was taking he was not actuated by any
hostility to her Majesty's Government. His
Noble Friend who so ably conducted the business
of the Government in that House knew that nothing
could be farther from his mind ; but he had thought
it better to move some substitute, than to con-
fine himself simply to giving a negative to their
proposition. lie could not support the measure
in its present shape. The clauses for the regua
lation of the franchise in Ireland seemed to him
to be liable to very great and serious objections. He
felt the extreme importance of giving to Ireland a
simple and easily-ascertained right of voting ; he felt the
very great importance of giving to Ireland a constituency
of a wide and popular character. But the more
closely he had looked into that measure—the more pains
he had taken to make himself master of the question,
the stronger had become his objections. In the first plat,
he felt that the great change proposed was unnecessary
and therefore unwise. The right of voting both in
England anti Ireland had hitherto been based on pro-
perty.—(Tory cheers.) It was so before the Reform
Acts, and continued so the present moment. The
single exception which apparently existed in Eng-
land was the 50/. tenant-at•will right of voting,
but that was an exception not in reality but apparently,
because the clause proceeded upon the assumption that
when a tenant paid .50/. of rent, it necessarily impl:ed that
he was in possession of a capital fully equivalent to
that which a freeholder was required to possess.
The principle was the same in Ireland ; for much as had
bean said about the beneficial interest, yet all admitted
that some benefit or some interest beyond the lease and
beyond all other charges was necessary. The clause of
his Noble Friend would entirely set aside all principle.
A tenement of 8/. was no proof that the party possessed
capital ; in :Ireland, at least, it was not the slightest
proof of the possession of capital, in virtue of which
he should be allowed to vote. The clause of
his Noble Friend was therefore objectionable, as it
at present stood, as subversive of the principles univer-
sally followed in their legidation.—(Loud cheers.) In
his opinion that was highly inexpedient—he thought the
principle of basing the county franchise upon property
was not only consecrated by the long practice and
usage of the coasftution, but was in accordance with
sound sense and reason.—(Hear, hear.) There was a
legitimate inference that the possessors of proporty would
be the class most capable of exercising that franchise with
independence,and, having themselves a stake in the coun-
try, they would he most anxious to discharge the duty im-
posed upon them. The principle of the existing law he
held to be wise, and the defect of the franchise in Ire-
land was not in the principle, but in the manner in
which that principle was applied under the particular
test adopted of the amount of property which the
person claiming to vote was required te possess.
The evils of the present system were admitted on all
hands. It was generally admitted that they arose not
merely from the want of agreement which existed as to
the proper construction of the words, beneficiel interest,
but also from the circumstance that the only test
of value was the opinion of parties having
a strong interest at stake. All experience
was D...Ain-A the application of such a test. It was
with the view to obviate that objection and provide a
means of ascertaining the real interest, that tha first
amendment. which he was about to submit, had been
framed. What he proposed was that the value of the
property should be ascertained by the value
of assessment for the purposes of the Poor's-rate. It
appeared to him that this was a perfectly unobjectionable
test. It had indeed been said that the valuations at pre-
sent were imperfect, that the repo) is which had been laid
upon the table showed that they were net so cor-
rect as to enable the House to proceed upon them.
It undoubtedly did appear from these papers that the
valuations hitherto made had not been altogether satis-
It undoubtedly did appear from the papers that the
valuations hitherto made had not been altogether satis-
factory ; hut for other purposes, for the purpose of the
administration of the Poor-laws it was necessary that that
valuation should be correct. He was convinced that the
machinery to accomplish this object was already
in existence. Under all circumstances th's valuation
would be one which had no reference to the claim to
vote. The parties would have a direct pecuniary in-
terest in avoiding too high a valuation, and this would
always be stronger than the desire to obtain the fran-
chise ; if wrong in any respect, it would be
that the property would generally be calculated
upon rather a low scale. But then the im-
portant question arose, what amount of interest,
so ascertained, should confer the right of voting ?
If they were to take so high an amount as 101. excess
of value, as shown by the assessment to the Poor-
rates above the rent paid, they would practically raise
the franchise even higher than was contended for by
those Gentlemen who had taken the solvent tenant test.
He (Lord Howick) thought that in adopting a mea-
sure of this kind they should look a little further. If
they looked back to the history of what had
occurred in 1832, they would see that it was
the intention of Parliament to make some
extension of the right of voting as it then existed. That
such was the intention of those who introduced the
Reform Act, seemed to him perfectly obvious from
the!r recorded speeches. He should propose, therefore,
testeeiyorred increased
that in adopting the principles to which he referred.
they should take a lowera paryionugnta osf b
of excess
rent than 101. In p
severity, they were bound to wake a con-
siderable abatement in the amount of interest
constituting the right to vote. In the amend-
ment which he was about to move, he should.pro-
pose that a sum of 56 excess of value beyond the