The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-11 00:00:00

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
hard 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.
Mr. RUTH VEN 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 sittinc, was fast coming to a close and the wea-
ther was extremely riot.—( Hear.) Let the Hon. Member
transfer the Scotch Light Houses to Dublin, and they would
be much better taken care of.—( Hear. )
Mr. LEFROY bore testimony to the efficient manner in
which the Irish Board had conducted the affairs of the Light
Houses in that country.
Mr. A• CHAPMAN begged to know if the Member for
...oadlesex meant to pass the Bill this Session?
Mr. HUME 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 at the pen

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 RB URT 0 N presented a petition from Bridport, in
favour of an unshackled Press. The Hon. Member then pre-
sented a petition from the medical men of Glasgow, against
the proposed Scotch University Bill. Also a petition from the
Medical Practitioners of the Province of Ulster, complaining
of the Apothecaries' Act, as it regarded the regulation of
County Hospitals and Infirmaries.
Mr. RUT HVE N 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 PECHELL presented petitions from Roehampton,
Oxford, aid several other places, against: the tithes exacted
on turnips used for 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 of Marylebone,
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 Marylebone,
claiming a ♦ote in right of a certain freehold. The Noble
Marquis observed that he had not the slightest connection with
Marylebone, but as the petition came from so large a parish, it
was important.
Sir S. WHALLE Y said that, however 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 Marylebone by law
bad the custody of the rate-books, to which the overseers had
no access, 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 were. 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. AP K INNON wished to know whether the name of the
Hon. Member for Marylebone was not in the list, and the
names of others were not left out ?

Mr. ROEBUCK protested against such a question being
put—that House was not in a Court of Appeal from the legal
a thority, the Revising Barristers. 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 the claim were good, the Revising Bar-
rister was endowed with power enough to decide upon it, and
therefore it ought not to come before this House.
Mr. G 0 UL BURN 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
into the list cf voters which ought never to have appeared
there. He hoped the House would not reject th• 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
to interfere with the right of voting unless ve'aere there was
a gross violation of the law. It mtlit be said of this
petition that adhuc sub judice iia 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 be inserted. The House ought not to
interfere to violate the privileges of the people.
An HoN. MEMBER 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 for Marylebone was one
to vote for the county of Middlesex. The Cadmean teeth
were never so prolific.—( Great laughter.) He supposed that
henceforth they would be called the spectre-voters, and the
Hon. Member opposite would be called the Spectre Member
for Marylebone.—( Great laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saw no
objection to the receiving of this petition, as the House allowed
a great latitude in receiving petitions, but what they should
afterwards do with it was a totally distinct thing.
Lord S AND ON 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 illegal and improper man-
ner ? And he thought no evidence of that had been laid before
the House.

Mr. WAKLE 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 Exeter Hall, out of which no less than 85 Conservative
votes had been registered.--( Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir T. FREMANTLE said the question could have been
set at rest in five minutes, if any of the 42 persons alluded tct,
had 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 CH ANDO S presented a petition from a
parish in Buckinghamshire against the Poor Laws Amendment
Bill.

Mr. WAKLEY supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. ROBINSON postponed his motion relative to the Rus-
sian Treaty to TtAirsday next.

UNSTAMPED NEWSPAPERS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted the
House would allow the Hon. Member for Bath to present a
petition of which he had given notice, and in which a direct
charge was made against the Government. The petition could
not be 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 over, when the government suddenly took active
steps and its officers entered certain premises which they be-
lieved belonged to these two 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 being enforced for the protection of stamped newspapers,
but what he complained of was, that 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 had 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 eared
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 Ise the
last person to compare his Majesty's Government to a French
Proeureur-Generale ; but it was an act emanating in si-
milar feelings, and somewhat in the same spirit.—( Hear.)
'The seizure in this case was one, not in the vindica-
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 he broken in one instance,
and le- it go on in any other instance? Thp Honour-
able Gentleman
did,
the t h a
unstamped,
nst the laws
of fpitternot
mandeeef.
orastheweplrlosa4 he
con of
kat tr the punishment of the stamper/ newspapers, AA