The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-07 00:00:00

ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Sir H. PARNEL presented a petition from Portarling-
ton, in favour of Catholic Emancipation. Similar peti-
tions were presented by Mr. H. HOWARD, from the
borough of Arundel and several other places.
Mr. R. PALLMER presented a petition from War-
rington against any further concession to the Roman Ca-
tholics.

Mr. A SHURST presented a similar petition from the
Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford.

FOREIGN WOOL. c'7
Mr. CAMPBELL presented a petition srom Argyle,
praying for a duty on Foreign Wool.
Mr. LLOYD presented a similar petition from the Agri-
cultural Association of the county of Limerick.
Petitions were presented in favour of Catholic Claims by
Mr. Fvizcitssou from the county of Limerick, by Mr. S.
WitrrE from the county of Leitrim, and by Mr. D. DA-
VENPORT from a parish in Cheshire.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presenteil a petition from th
owners of land in and near Stockbridge, praying for pro
tection against the importation of foreign wool.
Sir E. LLOYD presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Holywell, in favour of the Roman Catholic
Claims, and a petition from tde Merchants and Inkabi-
wits o; the sarae place praying for Repeal of the Small
Notts piii.
Mr. CHAPLIN presented two petitions from the
owners of land in Lincolnshire. praying for the irripsition
of a tax upon foreign wool.

Mr. PAITLET TgompsoN presented a petition
from a person named John Tonset, residing at Dover,
complaining that in the year 1810 a box of his containing
gold to the amount of 7,500/. was illegally seized by an
officer of Customs and confiscated, and praying for enquiry.
The petitioner was advised by his legal adviser to bring
an Action of Troyer, Which he accordingly did, but pro-
ceedings having been instituted against him without his
knowledge in the Court of Exchequer, and the first in-
termation which he had was, that the gold had been
confiscated, he abandoned his action. The petitioner
then applied to the Court of Exchequer, which informed
him that that Court could not afford him any redress, and
that his course was to memorialise the Lords of the Tree-
surp which he did, aod their Lordships werd pleased, in the
year 1820, to direct that a sum of 2,5001., one third of
the property seized, should be paid him. The petitioner
stated that this property was seised in T.ambar4-street,
where it was sent to be forwarded to him by coach to
Dover, and althpugh the petitioner could not complain of
any want of courtesy towards him on the part of the Lords
of the Treasury, yet he (Mr. T.) thought the case steted
by the petitioner such as would iudoce that Howie to afford
him some redress for the loss which he had sustained.
Mr. DAWSON did not with to throw any impediment
in the way of any inquiry which the House might wish to
direct, but he felt himself been(' to state the facts eif the
cage for the guidance of the Hew. Information was given
to the Custom-house officers in 1810 that Mr. Tonset was
about to export gold to the amount of 7,0001. from Dover
to the continent, and accordingly the officer seized the
gold on its way from Londnn to Dover, which according,
to the law at that time was liable to coefecation. Due
notice of the preiceeditige in the Court of Exchequer was
given to Mr. Tonset but he took no notice of it, and the gold
having been confiscated, one third of it was given to the
Custom-house officer—one third to the informer, and one
third to the Crown. Mr. Thornsett took no notice of the
transaction far some years, and he then presented a Memo-
rial to the Lord of the Treasery, who did all in their
power to relieve him by giving up the share forfeited to
the Crown ; but their Lordships could not order the resto-
ration of the two thirds which were forfeited according to
the law to the Custom-house officer and the informer.
He would not say whether or not this was an act of hard-
ship towards the petit oner, but he must say that he thought
this gentleman had to attribute to his own negligence any
loss which he might have sustained. ' ' '
Mr. BROUGHAM—We knew nothing of the facts of
the case, but taking them as stated by the Bight Bon.
Gentleman, he (Mr. Brougham) must say that theiseiiure
was illegal, as it was made on the way from London to
Dover, without any evidence that the gold was on the
way to Dever, for the purpose of being exported. There
was not .ing to warrant the Custom-hottee officer in snaking
the seizure, except the information of an interested person.
He (Mr. B.) thought such information was not sufficient
towarrant the bonfisaation of the property, when the
owner, for anything which appeared to the contrary, may
have been at the time conveying from London to his house
in the country.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought the petitioner would
have had better chance of getting redress if he had in-
stead of presenting a petition intimated to the Treasury,
that he was a freentan of Canterbury and Dover, and had
great influence in both places.—(A laugh.)—The words
or the Act of Parliament under which this gold was seized,
were that gold on its " way to a ship" to be exported
was liable to seizue, but it did not follow that gold in Lom-
bard-street, to be conveyed by a coach to Dover, where
the owner tided, came within the Act of Parlia-
ment. He had no doubt that the Law Officers
of the Crown, if consulted upon the point, as one
of dry law would say, that the seizure was illegal, and
therefore, that :all subsequent procedings, however gross
might have been the negligence of the petitioner were void.
From any thing which the House knew, this gentleman,
who was the owner of property, near Dover, and who had
a house there, many have been taking down this money
for the purpose of making a payment at Dover, and
it would be too hard that a gentleman taking money from
London to his house in the country should be liable to
the risk of seizure upon the bare information of an in.
former ; that it was the intention of the gentleman to ex-
port that money ultimately to the Continent. He should
suggest to the Hon. Member to present the petition now,
and afterwards move for the appointment of a Committee
to investigate the transaction, and report to the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admit-
ted, with the Hon. Member for Winchelsea, that a
sai2uoe in Lombard-street of gold, without any evidence
that such gold was then op its way to the Continent, was
illegal, but he might at the same time say that if the peti-
tioner had at the time thought fit to dispute the seizure, the
Custom-house Officer may have been able to establish a train
of circumstances justifying the seizure. But evidence
of which, after such a lapse of years, lie might not be able
to establish, if the House should think fit now to institute
an inquiry. He deeply regretted the loss which this gen-
tleman had sustained, but after the petitioner had thought
fit not to make any defence in the Courts of Law, he
thought the general consequences of revising decisions in
Courts of Justice after so long a lapse of years would,
under all the circumstances, lie of the most dangerous
nature, and he (Mr. Goulburn) should not be one who
would recommend such a proceeding.
Mr. B4RINg was one of those who considered this as
a question of the violation of law or mot, without taking
into consideration whether the law mem good or had he
principle, and it appeared to him that if the petitioner
had violated the law he ought to take the consequences,
and the solemn decision of a Court of Justice was
sufficient eeidenee to justify the House in prezuming
that a violation of the law had tekeo
He was of opinion that the petitioner should Tether have
questioned the propriety of the conduct of the Go-
veirninent in rrturning to him their third of the con-
fLsceted property than have come before the House, as lie
had now dome Fpen the whole he thought that no
the petition had ever come before that /Nese less dee
rvi of
rrim
considerationtp 5
s o Ns,;
thanio, t that
tof thethit io
in. Gentleman
t il
petition.tme
a
Mr. 1 . n
eppeeti 04F, flaring) had grounded his argument upon
several assumptions, ef which he seemed to thirds well-
founded, when in fact, ihey'were disci very reVere, Hit
first assumption was, that the petitioner was about *to
export this gold, but that he denied. He like-
wise was of opinion that the petitioner might have
defended his rights in the. Court of Exchequer ; whereas
the Fast was, that he was wholly ignorant of
any pi6cee4lixs in ;he Court of Es:chequer against him.
'All the opposition 'adY'afcel to "ilio`,'petitilin tileseckee feii
at Urccg to the ground. The Very nature of the 'Conit
rendered it improbeble that he should know aoy thing of
the proceedings, for they only advertised that they were
about to proceed, and unless this motion met the eye of
the party interested, they proceeded in his absence. He
should then, and in that case, content himself with
mos ieg th 4 the petition should lie on the table, reserving
to himself the' right of at optit;g any f; tote pleas.rue }3e
might think necessary after Government should have more
fully inquired into the facts.
(Left Sitting.) I

u.
*N • 1
PARLIA NIENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
NOTICES OF SiOTIONS FOR THIS DAY.

I. Polonel Davies--Select Committee to inquire into the
Manner of conducting Private Business in the House,
and the Fees paid thereon :—Also, on all Fees paid
on Trials of Controverted Elections of Members to

serve in Parliament.
Q. Dr. Phillimore--To extend the powers given by 1 and
2 Geo. 4, c. 76, to the Deputy Warden of the
Cinque Ports.
3. Mr. Poulett Thompson—Petition from William Thorn-

sett, of Dover.
4. Mr. George Bankee—Petition from Freemen of East
Retford, relative to the Er.st Retford Disfranchise-
ment Bill.
ORDERS OF TOE DAY Fan. THIS DAY.

1. Salmon Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Kill—Report.
2. County Bridges Bill—Second reading.
3. Freeholders in Districts Bill—Committee.
4. Ways and Means—Committee.
5. Supply--Committee.
6. Settlement by Firing Bill—Committee. A iwg,'(-1
7. Customary Tenure Bill—Committee. "104
S. Corn Trade (Isle of Man) Bill—Third reading.

Ncrricx GIVEN TECTERDAY.
Tuesday, May 20.
Sir John Newport,—Consideration of State of Admiralty
Court, Ireland.
Q. Sir John Newpoit--Bill to limit and restrain the grant-
ing Dispensations or Faculties for holding pluralities of
Livings in Ireland ; and for confining the power of
uniting parishes therein to the Lord Lieutenant and
Council.