The Sun.
London, England, 1819-02-13 00:00:00

cumEnY 13-ILL.

On the question-tcatiiiiCtitlery Bill be read a
third time,.
Mr. DPNMAtt objected-to a clause in the Bill,
which face a reward to' persons employed in a
manner forbidden by the Act; for discovering those
%rho had employed them. This clause offered a
reward to treachery, and probably to falsehood
aid as the Bill itself watt of doubtful' policy, being
for the professed purpose of preventing the public
from beink.deceived in the•pitrehase of articles of
Cutlery, he thought it would be hardly. worth the
ill example of such' a clause. , •
Mr. S. Wotri'Lry said, the same objection bad
occurred to the' framer' of the Bill, but it was
thought impossible to make it.effectual without
the clause alluded .to. .
The Bill was read a third time and passed,. ..
' Mr. C. LONG moved fora New Writ for New Romney,' in
the room of, Mr,. Drax Grosvenor deceaied.
' The Eseheiiiier Bilk Bill went through a CuMmittee: The
Report to he revel Veil oh Monday.
The Holyhead Road Bill was read a second titrie, tilid re-
fen t‘i to a Coitimittee.
New Writ wat 'ordered' fat' Tipperary, in the room of
Vishiunt.Cahir, now Earl of Glentrat.
• ELECTIONVitTITIONS—DROGHEDAi
Sir .1. GRAHAM presented Petition.from &T-
-wat d Ahierson, the-agent of the petitioner, against
the Drogheda Election., praying that the peti-
tioner,- wlin had not put in -proper recognizauces
within the .14 days allowed by law,, might have
further t nine alloWe'd to .do •
The STEAICiiIt stated' to the House the difficulty
in whiCh the Hotise %vie placed by the words of
the Act billarliatnent, and the doitbt which arose,
whether it Was not prescholtdirinn granting the
prayet of th'e petition. The -difficulty Wes tWti-
foid. In the first place; .the'Act' of Parliament -
deel red, that if a petitioner "did tint enter into Isis
tecognizatiees-withiu 14 days; his petition fell
the gt otinthilsongh the House waa attairirised
to enlarge thelime.• Bat, its the present itaitanee,'
the' tinge' 1144 expired before the petitioner' hail
xvidied for further time. Could -the word entsftged
tie taken to mean the granting u new term for
pitting io recognizance' 'alter-the petition in the
tee of the law was dead and' gone ? The second
tiilficnity was, that the House by law was only
enspoweted to enlarge" tlie- term once. Now it
Is'appetted that this was one of e'petitions which
by nad meutioned to the—House nu Mond,' y, aud
its the case of which the terms for.receivingintel-
lieenee- of the potting in Of the recognizances in
Itelatol had been enlarged. Was it then its the
power of the (louse, after the enlargement of the
hick they had pawed in the former in-
..l;•;lice peal!' to ',vend the terns, when it was said
by the Act, that the term should be extended only
°nee ?—(Hear, hear !)
Afts-r a few word. from Sir J. Graham.
and Mr. S. Bonnie,
w ye la ,ibsereed, that the petitioner descry-
, H• !-ivourable consideraiiun of the House. he"
. she first Geucral Election since

thr 1.331 Aet Mt S rmed, it WWI dOlibt 1111 whether
ire ►Va3 riceinailited w. 1.1, the nature of it. B+lt
eettled frotil the statement of the Ca3e, that it

Wal nut ill the power of die House, bound down
as it WhS by an Act Parliament, to grant the
relict. which hart been prayed. It might be
question whether this was not it case toe a special
act of legislation, Auld whet tier, as in former cases
in which petitioners had been prevented from
eitternitz into their tecognizances, being absent
on public service, a special Hill might not be
sent up to enable the Howie to giant ;thief.
Sir J. (;ttAnAttt, after some hesitation, said, he
tholikt it advisable, as the House could not act
iu the matter, to ~s/tioltave the petition for the
present —The petition was then withdlawn.
Tire tiiil for preventin4 the employment of f..:lonliing Boys
wa, react a first time ; to tic read a around tituc Urn Monday,
arid onletcd to lie nriott.d.
1.01,1 IIAMILTON prt•suntetl a pttitiou (torn Wigtown,
a,,;tiost the iyatem of porch

NO'! t'INGHAM.
Mr. BunyanAst stated the case to the liott,e
which he intended to move that the consideration
of the petitiim against the electiou 01 Nottingham
should be pustponed. Iwo petitions had been
presented against the return for that town—One
on the 25tii of January, and the other on the 3d
of February. The petitions were in the saute
words, but signed by different- Voters. The first
petition which had been presented W 49 ordered to
be taken ion) consideration on the 2d of March ;
and the second, which was presented before the
first, was ordered to be taken into consideration
On the 2:1111e day. Aftiir this, the first petition
was abandoned. If the second petition had been
presented after the first had been abandoned, it
conk not have been taken into consideration till
between the '23d and 30th of February, but by
keeping the first petition alive till the second was
prcso.ted, the petitioners had obtained a priority
over petitions which had been presented earlier.
This was shortly the ground on which he bad to
apply to the candour and justice of the House,
to pot the sitting. Member in the Hanle situation
as if the first petition had not been presented. The
hardship the Member petitioned against was,
that the last day on which the petitioners might
put in their recognizances was the 17th of Fe-
bruary, and as the peiition was to be taken into
consitteration on the 2d of March, the Member
had only six clear days to prepare his lists. lie
therefore moved that the order for taking the pe-
tition into consideration on the 2d of March be
discharged.
Mr. BATITURsT said, be was at a lass to know
on what grounds the proposal could be made. It
had been admitted both the petitions were in the
sante words it could not be'said, therefore, that
the sitting Member was taken by surprise. The'
circumstances connected with the petitions were
these :—The agent of the petitioners had not
been aware of the notice required on putting in
snreties; when he had come to town, thereftice,
he had found that the time had elapsed for giving
notice. He had therefore sent in another petition,
signed by different Electors, in the same words'as
the former. He therefore could not see that this
was a disadvantage to the sitting Member, because,
if a mistake had not occurred, he won't.' have had
to meet the first petition at the time that he would
now have to meet the second. It was to be ob-
served also, that the days between the 23d and
30th of March were full, so that if the petition
were not taken into consideration on the day now
appointed, it must be put to the end of the list.
It deserved consideration, too, whether it was
advisable to keep such a tOwu as Nottingham in
a state of lento:tit longer than was necessary.
Mr. linoconAst, in explanation, said, that his
Noble Fliend, the Member for Nottingham (Lord
Rancliffe), had been put to this material iocon-
venience, that whereas if the first petition had
been proceeded with, he would have had from the
7th to the 24th of February to prepare his lists,
lie had now only from the 17th to the 24th. He
had notwithstanding this been put to expellee and
inconvenience front the presentation of the fitsr
Petition. If his motion was rejected, it might,
and undoubtedly would happen, that a first Pe-
titiott would be presented without any intention
of prosecuting it. After which a second Petition
would be put forth, the recognizances on which
,might be entered into only a short time before
'the ballot. If the House could'utit fix any day
between. the 23d and 30th of March, because
there was no vacancy, it was to he recollected,
that it was by the negli:ence of the Petitioners
that they bad incurred this inconvenience. The
fair course for then) to have pursued, would have
!been to have acted as the Petitioners in the Camel-
fold Election had done—to have abandoned the
first
Petition before the second was presented. If
the House should object to a long delay, there
was the 9th of March which stood open, as the
Petition lion) Oxford would not be prosecuted as
an Election Petition.
Mr. livrtioßST said, that if the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman only wished for a delay of a
Week, he should not, though it would be incisti-
ivenient to the petitioningsparty, oppose it.
• Mr. Beouoti AM said his application was, that
the Petition should be taken into consideration
on some day between the 2311 and 30th of
Marcia. -•
Mr. IVYNN said, he conceived a Member was
boon& iiii"prepare his (lettuce from the first mo•
ment of the presentation of a petition against
him.. Yet, at the same time, the petitioners,
who had neglected to take the_proper. steps in the
first petition, could not complain if they were put
in the same situation as if that'petition had nut
been presented.
Lord CASTLERRAGH thought it fair to grant any
accommodation to the sitting Member that was
not inconsistent with the just claims of the ,Peti-
liottets, who were but too likely to be inconve-
nienced by the extent of the delay which the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman proposed.—
With a view to decide fairly towards both rirties,
he thought it better to discharge the order, and
fix the ballot for the 9th of March.
Mt. BaouGnArd acquiesced in the arrangement
proposed by the Noble Lord, and the ballot %%as
accordingly fixed for the 9th of March.
MILBANK PENFITNTIARY.
Mr. Luster NGTON moved for an account of the
expenses incto red (or the support, &e. of the Pt:.
ititential y at Milbaok.—Motion glinted.
The I-louse then adjourned about halt-past 5.

We have again to announce the non-arrival of
Paris Papers. Two days' Journals are due.

Jamaica Papers arrived this morning to the
27th December. A curious contest bad arisen
between the Home of Assembly and the Chief
Justice'of the Island (the Hon. TuomAs WITTER
JACKSON), in consequence of the latter having
refused to be sworn to give evidence before a
Committee of the House. The Chief Justice,
having been ordered to attend at the Bar of the
House, justified his refusal on the ground that
the Committee were proceeding to inquire
into his- judicial conduct. A motion was
made for his discharge, which was negatived, 18
to 16. He was then ordered to the Bar again,
and asked by the Speaker whether he intended to
deny the privilege of the House, to examine him-
self and ail other persons on oath. The Chief
Justice said, most unquestionably not ; he had no
intention to invade their privileges, his single ob-
ject was to maintain his own. He was then on
motion discharged,—The Legislature was pro-
rogued by his Grace the Governor, on the 19th
ult. till the 19th of January.