The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-10 00:00:00

BOGNOR IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Lord G. LENNOX moved that the House do agree to
the amendments introduced by the House of Lords into this
Bill.

Mr. POTTER wished to know what those amendments
were ?
Lord G. LENNOX--The only amendment was one by
which those who transgressed the provisions of the Bill were
to be sent to prison and kept to hard labour.
Mr. POTTER—Such a provision was quite unusual
on improvement Bill. He thought it too much that 7.ersons
should be sent to prison, and kept to hard labou7 for trans-
gres;ing, the enactments of ,uch a Bill.
Mr. EWART complained of the mlisterious manner in
which these amendments were introduced. Ile suggested
that the amendment should be 7-ad.
The Clerk unrolled the iSill amidst some laughter. Upon
a moderate computatio:i we should say that the Bill was up-
wards of 150 feat length.
Mr. POTTY...tt submitted that many of the offences specified
in this Act rpere not such as ought to subject persons to be sent
to the tre'ad-mill among felons. He moved that the amend-
mew.: be printed, and taken into consideration on Wednesday.
Lord G. LENNO X—These persons would have no com-
munication with the other prisoners, as the silent system
was adopted in the gaol. It would be extremely hard if this
Bill, after it had been in this House since February, should
be now thrown out, and he would certainly take the sense of
the House upon it.
Mr. WARBURTON disclaimed any intention of throwing
out this Bill. There were new offences occasioned by these
amendments—at all events there were new punishments, and
when this was the case it was only fitting that they should
know ,what these punishments were before they passed this
Bill. It was not a sufficient authority for them to pass these
amendments that the House of Lords had thought proper to
introduce them.
Mr. 'O'CONNELL suggested to the Noble Lord (Len-
nox) that he had better consult those who had entrusted
him with the care of the Bill, in order to see
whether or not they should omit these objectionable clauses.
If these clauses had been introduced with their assent,
there must have been something wrong that they were
not introduced in the first instance ; . and if tk-oy
had been introduced by the other House of Parlir:nent,
without the parties' assent, why, then, they might be disagreed
to, and upon a conference with the House of Lords, it was not
likely that their Lordships would persist retaining them.
The SPEAKER made some observation which was not
heard in the gallery.
Mr. WILKS thought the objection of the Hon. Member
for Wigan perfectly right, and if he divided the House, he
most certainly would support him. He thought, however,
the matter might 'oe arranged without any division by con-
sulting with the promoters of the Bill.
Lord SANDON thought the House ought not to consent
to inflict new penalties before they were enabled to know the
offences, to which certain penalties were attached.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX observed that no new penal-
ties, were inflicted by the Bill.
After some observations from Mr. EWART, on the motion of
Mr. O'CONNELL, the debate was adjourned till to-morrow.
Sir EDWARD HAYES presented a petition from Do-
negal, complaining of the Excise Laws. Also a petition from
Cork, against the Irish Church Bill.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from a pa-
rish in the county of York, to the same effect.
The O'CONNOR DON presented a petition from the late
Paymaster of the Forces' of the Sixth Dragoon Guards,
complaining of his being dismissed the service, in conse-
quence of a false statement, with respect to his accounts. It
had been stated that he was in debt to the regiment, while the
fact was that the regiment was indebted to him. The peti.
tioner prayed that enquiry might be made into his case, in
order that justice might be done to him.
Mr. C. ROSS objected to the petition being received, as it
claimed money alleged to be due.
The SPEAKER said it appeared to be an application for a
settlement of money due to the petitioner.
The O'CONNOR DON said the petition merely prayed
for further inquiry.
The SPEAKER suggested that the Hon. Member had
better withdraw the petition.—Petition withdrawn.
LIGHT HOUSES.

Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the Chamber
of Commerce of Greenock, complaining of the Light House
Bill at present before Parliament. The petitioners objected
to the system pursued by the Trinity Board, and suggested
that a much more efficient Board could be selected in London,
and upon more liberal principles. They thought it extremely
hird that the shipping interest should be compelled to pay
the whole of this tax, and recommended that the Government
vessels should pay a portion. Or, on the other hand, that the
dues should be collected at the Custom-house free of expense.
The Hon. Member then presented a petition against the Con-
vention of Royal Burghs in Scotland.
Mx. RUTH VE N protested against the doctrine laid down
in the petition relative to Light houses. The Irish Light
houses were conducted upon a system which combined great
efficiency with economy. He suggested that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Middlesex should withdraw his Bill until next session,
as the present sitting was'fast coming to a close and the wea-
ther was extremely hot.—( Hear.) Let the Hon. Member
transfer the Scotch Light Houses to Dublin, and they would
be much better taken care of.---( Hear. )
Mr. LE FR OY bore testimony to the efficient manner in
which the Irish Board had conducted the affairs of the Light
Houses in that country.
Mr. A. CHA PMAN begged to know if the Member for
Middlesex meant to pass the Bill this Session?
Mr. HUSIE certainly intended to do so. It would effect a
saving of at least 30,0001. per annum. Whether Ireland or
Scotland submitted to be put under the wing of England it
was for the House to decide, but at all events he was
determined to press the Bill so far as regarded England.
Mr. O'CONNELL merely asked for a dash of the pen to
scratch out Ireland. So far as that country was concerned,
any alteration would not be an amendment, as the present
system had worked extremely well.
Mr. H. GRATTAN suggested that the Irish system should
be transferred to England.

TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.
Mr. WA RBURT 0 N presented a petition from Bridport, in
favour of an unshackled Press. The lion. Member then prp,_
rented a petition from the medical men of Glasgow, r.gainst
the proposed Scotch University Bill. Also a petitionfrom the
Medical Practitioners of the Province of Ulster, complaining
of the Apothecaries' Act, as it regarded tile regulation of
County Hospitals and Infirmaries.
Mr. IZ L T FIVE'S presented a petition from an individual
from Dromore, in the County of Tyrone, complaining of op-
pressive treatment at Petty Sessions, under the law relating to
summary convictions.

HAND-LOOM. WEAVERS.
The HON. MEMBER then, brought up the analysis of the
evidence taken before the 'Committee on hand-loom weavers.
Captain PE C El E L L presented petitions from Roehampton,
Oxford, and several other places, against the tithes exacted
on turnips used fc,r feeding sheep.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS,
The Marquis of CHANDOS rose to present a petition
of which he had given notice, from certain freeholders of the
county of Middlesex, :resident in the parish aryleb on g,
complaining of undue interference in the registration of elec-
tors. The petitioners complained, that after the list of
voters had been completed, signed, and printed, under the
authority of the proper officers, 425. were paid over to the
the'beadle, and 42 names were inserted in the list, amongst
whom was the name of one of the Members for hlarylebone,
claiming a vote in right of a certain freehold. The Noble
Marquis observed that he had not the sli?,litest connection with
Marylcbone, but as the petition came from so large a parish, it
was important.
Sir S. WHALLEY said that, howaver willing he was to
afford every facility for the right of petitioning in the House,
he felt disposed to oppose the reception of this petition.
Hear, hear.) The vestrymen of Marvlebone by law
had the custody of the rate-books, to which the overseers had
no accesii; and were therefore unable to perform the duties re-
quired of them by the Reform Bill without the assistance of
._ that vestry, and .this had been the course adopted for
the last three years, during which time not a single suspi-
cion of a name being omitted was raised. He denied the
allegations of the petition most positively, and asked the Noble
Lord, who had kept his pledges amidst the general wreck of
pledges on that side of the House ?—( Loud cries of" Order.")
He asked the Noble Lord how he could reconcile it to his high
sense of honour to bring forward a petition in that House,
which was calculated to prejudice certain claims which were
to be adjudicated upon before a legal tribunal.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. ROSS explained the purport of the petition.
Mr. HUME said the whole question was one which was fit
only for the Court of the Revising Barrister ; and he protested
against the time of the House being taken up with undecided
cases as these riere. If the House were to decide upon this
case it would be prejudging the case, which was to go before
the Revising Barrister—the law had in fact provided for the
case.

Mr. MIK INNON wished to know whether the name of the
lion. Member for Marylebone was. not in the list, and the
tomes of others were not left out ?
Mr. RO EB LTC K protested against such a question being
put—that House was not in a Court of Appeal from the legal
authority, the Revising Barrister. The case ought to go be-
fore them, and the petition ought not to be received. He
would move that the petition be not received.
Mr. O'CONNELL could not agree to such a proposition
—any petition should be received which came from any part
of the population. If claims were good, the Revising Barrister
was endowed with power enough to decide upon the claim, and
therefore it ought not to come before this House.

Mr. GO ULB URN said that this petition did not complain
that certain persons had been placed on the list of voters
who were not duly qualified, but the petitioners com-
plained that, after the list of voters had been made
up by the overseers and sent in to be printed,
certain persons had got their names surreptitiously introduced
iota the list of voters which ought never to have appeared

there. He hoped the House would not reject the petition,
but order it to lie on the table.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the prayer
of this petition could not be granted, as the House ought not
t, interfere with the right of voting unless where there was
a gross violation of the law. It might be said of this
petition that carte cub judice lis est. If the names
were improperly inscribed, they Would be rejected by the
Revising Barrister; and if any names had been improperly
omitted, they would he inserted. The House ought not to
interfere to violate the privileges of the people.
An LION. ME>uo said that the overseers knew nothing
at all of the names having been inserted in the list. He
would not go into the subject, but he thought it rather
odd that a burying ground should have furnished fifteen
claimants, amongst whom the Member fur Marylebone was 07.-,
to vote for the county of Middlesex. The Ca
were never so prolific.--(Great laughter. \ -H (Inean teeth
He supposed that
henceforth they would be called :de spectre-voters, and the
Hon. Member opposite "7:utd be called the Spectre Member
for Marylebone.—Great laughter.)
4
The CP_.:tNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saw no
ob,"":,ton to the receiving of this petition, as the House allowed
a areat latitude in receiving petitions, but what they should
afterwards do with it was a totally distinct thing.
• Lord SANDON hoped some explanation would take place.
It appeared that parties not overseers had contrived to thrust
in names for publication, which none but overseers had a right
to do.

Mr. H. L. BULWER said the only question was, had
these persons claimed to vote in an Mega' and improper man-
ner? And he thought no evidence of that had been laid before
the House.

Mr. WA KL E Y said it seemed to excite surprise that 15
persons should register out of a burying ground in Marylebone,
but in Westminster there was a pretty building in the Strand,
called E'etdr Hall, out of which no less than 63 Conservative
votes had been registered.—( Hear, and a laugh. )
Sir T. FREMA NT L E said the question could have been
set at rest in five minutes, if any of the 42 persons alluded to
bad come forward and stated that they had sent in their claim,
to be registered. None of them having done so, he must say
that it was evident the names had been introduced illegally
and surreptitiously.

The petition Was then laid on the table.
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented a petitif;„ from a
parish in Buckinghamshire against the Poor 1.7,,rs Amendment
Bill.

Mr. WA KLEY supported the -prayer of the petition.
Mr. ROBINSON postpor:.ed his motion relative to the Rus-
sian Treaty to Thursday -,,ext.
UNSTA:APED NEWSPAPERS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted the
House would allow the lion. Member for Bath to present a
petition of wl'f,eh he had given notice, and in which a direct
charge was made against the Government. The petition could
!lot oc presented in the usual course, as several other matters
had precedence; but as it involved a charge against the Go-
vernment, he hoped that charge would not be allowed to re-
main unanswered.

Mr. ROEBUCK then rose to present the petition which
was from an individual named William Lovett, complaining of
the seizure of his press and printing materials. He should
state the circumstances as briefly as possible. It appeared that
two persons named Hetherington and Cleave, had judgments
issued against them, arising out of convictions for selling un-
stamped newspapers. These judgments had remained some
months hanging ovcr,when the government took active steps and
its officers entered certain premises which they be-
lieved belonged to certain individuals—seized and carried off
the press, types, and printing materials, which in fact belonged
to the petitioner. He did not complain of the Government
carrrying the law into execution—he did not complain of the
law heing enforced for the protection of stamped newspapers,
but what he complained of was, theat the Government,
wishing to punish persons for one Act, had had recourse to
the law enacted for the punishment of another. In the
year 1795, a law was passed for the suppression of cor-
responding societies, which enacted that all printing presses
not registered by a Magistrate of the district were
liable to be seized upon. It happened that the parties
to whom this press belonged had not registered it,
and the Government wishing to reach Hetherington,
and Cleave, said, we will take possession of this press in vir-
tue of the law which had been passed in 1795. He (Mr.
Roebuck) had been given to understand, but he would not
vouch for the fact, that a large portion of the printing
presses of the metropolis were not registered. It appeared
then that the law had slept, and that the Government, wishing
to punish the persons who bad broken the Stamp Act
had seized upon this press which had been employed in print-
, ing unstamped publications, and had punished parties for
one act by a law passed for punishing another. The
Act might be legal, but it was not justifiable, for it was his
(Mr. R's.) opinion that no person should be punished until he
had been tried and convicted. Here was a law passed
in unfortunate times by an unfortunate Minister—one who cared
nothing for the liberties of England, and who had done more
to disgrace and dishonour the country than any other individual.
Here was an Act, passed by Mr. Pitt for the suppression of
discussion and the establishment of despotism, which after
having slept for 36 years, had been called forth and vivified
and brought into action by a liberal government. This law
he (Mr. R.) contended was not in accordance with
the jurisprudence of England. In his opinion it was
more in accordance with that of another country, where
a monstre proces now disgraces humanity. He should .be the
last person to compare his Majesty's Government to a French
Procureur-Generale ; but it was an act emanating in si-
milar feelings, and somewhat the same spirit--( Hear.)
The seizure in this case was one, not in the viudica-
tion of the law, but as a punishment. The Right Ho-
nourable Chancellor of the Exchequer had been
led into a difficulty, as now he was obliged to be incon-
sistent, because he was not able to put the law into full
force.—(Hear.) In the same Bill there was a clause which
subjected the lender of every newspaper to a penalty. Every
day this law was broken, and yet the Right Hon. Chancel-
lor would talk of vindicating the law. He was prepared to
hear such a statement made, but there was something still more
in this case. There was in the same Bill a clause which
required that every lender of a stamped newspaper should
be licensed, and it was therefore the law that all clubs
should be licensed. He had been in the constant habit
of breaking the law every day, and wherefore was it
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Attor-
ney-General, should have been so long quiescent? Were
they consistent in letting the law be broken in one instance,
and let it go on in any other instance. The Honour-
able Gentleman knew as well as he did, that the laws
of Pitt were not made for the prosecution of the unstamped,
but for the punishment of the stamped newspapers, which
spoke in any way against the wishes of the Government—that
was a fact well known. Ho believed that the present Ministry
was in a position to do more good to the people of England
than an, y other class of persons eristing. For this he supported
them. numble as that support might be, and anything which
should diminish their power> would give him great pain, as it
would diminish their usefulness. Ile therefore pressed upon
their consideration not to throw away the support of the
people, by which alone they could carry their good intentions
into effect, by which alone they could withstand the immense
force brought against them—by which alone they could
stem the tide that was setting indirectly against their
very existence as Ministers—when they wanted popularity more
than ever—he implored them at this moment not to cast off the
great body of the people and deny them justice. They might
be cramped and crippled from the belief that the Exchequer
would suffer; but he believed that if they did away with the
whole of the stamp duties the Exchequer would then be
quite as full as ever. Ile pressed this subject the more
upon their coonsideration when the people—he meant the
poorer part of the people—were deprived by the Corporation
Bill, which he hoped soon to see returned to that House,
in the shape in which it had left, from mixing in the manage-
ment of Corporation property.—( Hear.) The people at
present were willing to support his Majesty's Govern-
ment, whilst their enemies were powerful, constant, and ever
arrayed against them. He again pressed upon them the, evil of
grinding down those who supported them, and by whom alone
they were able to maintain their places—he meant the people.
He implored them not to sever the tics that bound them to the
people, but to take their petitions and their wants into con
sideration.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after a
few observations, which were inaudible, said, tkat with
respect to the question before the House, he wished to distin.
gtnsh it from the great question of the policy or impolicy of
the Stamp Duty.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Earl of SHAF rEsaray took his seat on the Woolsack a
ten minutes before live o'clock.

MUNICIPAL REFORM.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from a
place, the name of which we could not catch, against the Mu
nicipal Reform Bill.

The Duke of G RA FTON presented a petition from Bury
St. Edmunds in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill.

THE WESTSTMINSTER PETITION.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said he had a petition
to present from the inhabitants of Westminster in favour of the
Municipal Corporation Bill. The petitioners expressed an
anxious desire that the Bill should not be mutilated, or its effi-
ciency taken away. The moment the petitioners heard of any
thing like an appearance of delay in the progress of the
Bill, they met at the British Coffee House, and they had
scarcely announced the meeting before the Room was
crowded to excess, and hundreds of persons collected out-
side, so anxious were all to testify their approbation of the
measure. Their Lordships, he thought, in determining to hear
evidence had lost a great deal of time ; they had been doubt-
lessly much amused by the statements of Counsel, and also
by the manner in which the Town-clerks of the different
boroughs had given their evidence. He (the Marquis of West-
meath) thought that they were the very last persons that Counsel
should have advised their Lordships to call to give evidence.
They were the persons of all the most inclined to give
favourable evidence for the Corporations, because upon the
existence of the Corporations their own existence depended.
He could not for the life of him sec any necessity for hearing
evidence. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships
that they did one of the most important things they ever could do,
namely, suspend the Habeas Corpus Act without hearing a
single witness.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis in
conclusion stated that so important a measure should be
allowed to pass without any further delay.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, after looking at the peti-
tion, observed that it was only signed by the Chairman.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was aware of that fact,
but be begged to state that thousands attended the meeting.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—That might be so, but
still the Noble Marquis must know, that in that House the