The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-17 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 17, 1833.

Palmer and Co., appeared before the same commissioner,
and obtained leave to carry on the indigo concerns of the
ltte firm for another year, which, during the List year,
hid produced a profit on the outlay of 112,000 rupees.
The Court inquired when another dividend would be made,
to which Mr. Dick-ns repiied, that the estate would be in
a positicn to allow a dividend of 3 per cent. in June, and
another of 6 per cent. in November.
Accounts had reached the Presidency from the head•
quarters of His M 46th Reeiment, which marched
on the 18th of December from Hyderabad for Masuli-
pat itn, stating that cholera had broken out in the camp,
and about a dozen deaths had taken place previous to the
25th of the same month, and many patients were in
hospital.

SECON D EDITION.

SUN-OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

THE LONDON GAZETTE

THIS EVENING.

BANKRUPTS.

GEORGE LIVERS' , coach-maker, Great Dover-street,
Southwark.

PHINEAS BARRATT, jeweller, New Bond-street.
HENRY DEA cheesemonger, Fore-street, Cripplegate.
JOHN RI MMER, ironmonger, Liverpool.
THOMAS RANSFORD, hat-manufacturer, Bristol and
Stapleton, Gloucestershire.
WILLIAM HORNEIt ROSS, druggist, Stockport, Chester.
JOHN JONES and GRIFFITH JONES, cattle-dealers,
Tywyn and Llandegwning, Carnarvonshire.
Et..) WARD BELL, grocer, Cambridge.
JAMES THOMAS CA RKER, broker, Cambridge.
JOHN CLARE PLATT, printer, Sheffield and Doncaster,
Yorkshire.
ISA AC HARTLEY, fancy cloth-manufacturer, Emley Park,
Yorkshire.

MPERIA LPA RLIAMENI

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the
Personal Estates Bill, Cotton Duty Repeal Bill, Tile Duty
Repeal Bill, Exchequer Court (Scotland) Bill, Taunton
Improvement Bill, Gravesend, and Milton Improvement
Bills, Greenwich Railway Bill, and several road Bills.
The Commissioners were, the Loan CHANCELLOR, the
Marquis of LaNsnowNE, and the Earl of RIPON.
The Earl of ABERDEEN moved fur returns of wine
imported into this country, and the duty paid upon it,
for the last five years, ending sth April, 1833.
Lord AUCKLAND had no objection to the motion,
and he was sure that when the returns were laid upon the
table, they would put an end to the false reports which
had gone abouyis tothe evils produc,d by the present duty.
The Earl of WICKLOW, in moving fur returns re-
lative to tithes in Ireatad, said, by the Bill for the Com-
positioa of Tithes in Ireland, a power was given to the
Lord-Lieutenant to appoint Commissioners to value the
tithes iu parishes where, after a certain time, the inhabi-
tan.s had not done so. It was well known that that Bill
was merely intended to clear the way for other measures.
The Ministry had promised three Bills on the subject, and
only one had yet been pressed through the Legislature.
—(Hear, hear.) He was surprised, that, when they
had arrived at that late period of the session, no
intimation of the other measures had yet been given.
The Noble Lord moved a return of the number of pa-
rishes in Ireland where composition of tithes had been
effected by commissioners appointed by the Lord-
Lieutenant.
The Marquis ofILANSDOWNE said there could be no
objection to the return, but it ought to be borne in mind
that the political state of Ireland, since the Bill passed,
had not been favourable to the operation of the measure.
After a few words from Lord CARBERY, the returns
were ordered.
Lord WHARSCLIFFE presented a petition against
the Local Courts Jurisdiction Bill.
The Marquis of STAFFORD presented petitions front
Newcastle under Line and other places, against slavery.
Lord SUFFIELD presented SW petitions to the same
effect, including those from Portsmouth, Winchester,
Ltn:ghborutigh, Market Harbutough, Chester-le-street,
Dies, North and South Shields, and Worthing.
Lord ELLENBOROUUH wished to know whether
these petitions were.in favour of, ur opposed, to the plan
of his Majesty's Ministers brought forward in the House
of Commons.
Lord SUFFIELD said that parts of the plan were
totally opposed to the prayer of all the petitions he had
presented, and to tie wishes of the people of England. He
was of opinion, however, that the plan might be altered
so as to meet their wishes. It was quite inconsistent with
the prayer of the petitions that the slave should be made
to pay for his own manumission.
miff tie Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions from
York, Montrose, and other places, for the gradual aboli-
tion of slavery, and that due consideration should be given
to the rights of property. He agreed with the peti-
tioners, and thought that his opinion was more consistent
with the acts and resolutions of Parliament than
that of the Noble Baron opposite (Suffield).
Many people, not only the slave owners, but those who
had lent their money upon West India slavery, if this
question was prematurely decided, and the immediate
emancipation of t..e slaves carried into effect.
Lord SUFFIELD said that he was ready to recognize
the rights' of property, but not the right of property in
human beings.
men worked fur the wages which would be given them,
and it was absurd to suppose that if the siaves were
emancipated they would nut work. He could nut tell
how the Noble Duke conceived that the question was
wrought on prematurely, when " some " change was ad-
mitted to be necessary by all, by the West Indian pro-
prietors themselves. He was certain that immediate
emancipation would tend to the welfare and prosperity of
the colonies.
The Duke of WELLINGTON rose to explain, and
was left speaking,

of avoiding all delay, that he had determined to bring the
matter forward on Friday the 24th inst., when he hoped
there would be a full and satisfactory discussion.
After a few words from Sir JOHN HOPE and two other
Members, the petitions were laid on 'he table.
COLONEL EVANS AND SIR J. HOBHOUSE.
Colonel EVANS rose and said, I am anxious to put a
question to the Bight Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Ellice), Secretary at War, and I can assure him that
I do so with all respect for the office he holds.
and not fiotn any want of good feeling. The
qtte,ti tn is, in fact, one of great public importance,
and not merely of personal interest. During a recent
contest a statement appeared in the public prints assign.
in,; the power to the person holding the office of Secretary
at War, to remove any officer of his Majesty's service
at hi pleasure, from his Majesty's half-pay Ist. That was
the general bearing of the statement. But since then an-
other statement has been put forth, to a certain extent
correcting that intetpretation. Undoubtedly, Sir, the
persons • who report the public proceedings in this
great city are well known to do so with great ac-
curacy and precision. But, at the same time, during
the time of elections of great magnitude and im•
portance, when the Press takes a decided part, they are
not giierally very scrupulous—at least some portion of the
Press is not very scrupulous in the mode they adopt, in
order to carry their object into operation. Therefore, Sir;
I mo bound to assuthe that it was in c msequence of some
war of feeling or. partiztnship that this statement
was first made to appear. But in the correction after-
nards given, the assumed power of the Secretary at Wai
to remove an officer on the army half-pay list, with-
out reference to any cause, was not distinctly
died timed. I venture to think that this House will agree
with we, that this is a most important matter, and that the
question in regard to it should be correctly ascertained,
both with regard to the situations of those holding coin-
nus-iona under his AI ije,ty, and to the freedom of election
and the privileges of this House. I have therefore risen,
not with any factious motive whatever ; indeed, 1 con-
sider it important that Government should have an op-
portunity ut explaining their view of this qu-stion,
be-
cause every officer lidding commissions ander the Crown—

The SPEAKER here said the Hon. and Gallant
Member might put the question.
Colonel, EVANS then said, I wish to know whether
the Secretary at War has the power to remove at his
pleasure aoy officer on his Majesty's half-pay list?
Mr. ELLICE said he had no intention in answering the
question put to him by the Hon. and Gallant Colonel. If
unfortunately it appeareri necessary toGovernment to remove
any.:such officer, it would be the duty of the Secretary at
War to take his Majesty's pleasure on the subject, and he
(the Secretary at War) would be responsible for the
advice he had given. He had searched the records of the
War-office, and if it was any sati•faction to the Hon. and
Gallant Colonel to know, he would state that there was
no case of an officer in existence removed from the half-
pay list of the arii,y, who had not been removed for some
offence relative to his moral character.

Col. EVANS—Then I undets'and, judging by the
practice, that the power I have referred to, is not vested
to the Secretary at War.
. . .

Mr. ELLIS was anxious not to be misunderstood. It
a case unfoi innately arose that, in the opinion of the
House, called fur the removal of an officer, Mini.ters
would advise his Majesty to that effect, and it was
within the province of the Secretary at War, to tender
his advice to his Majesty on the subject, but for that ad-
vice he would be responsible.
Colonel EVANS repeated his wish to know distinctly,
whether the power rested in the Secretary at War or not?
Lord ALTHORP said, the Crown bad undoubtedly the
prerogative of strike off any half-pay officer, and if a
case should occur when in the opinion of Government
that should take place, it was the duty of the Secretary at
War to address his Majesty fur the exercise of that un-
doubted prerogative. But be was at the same time
responsible for his advice.

NOIM ICH ELECTION.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT presented a petition from

tbn electors of Norwich, praying for an inquiry into tht
cases of hi ibery which bad occurred there at the lase

election.

Lord STORMONT said that this was a contemptible
petition, which had been seconded by all the respectable
inhabitants of Norwich. The patties had already had
their case tried before the proper tribunal, and fioin the
manner in which they were proceeding against Warwick
and Stafford, he thought Norwich ought not to escape
inquiry.