The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-24 00:00:00

SLAVERY.

Sir W. ROWLEY presented two petitions from
Suffolk for the abolition of Slavery.
Mr. PENDARVES presented a similar petition
from Penzance.
Mr. SPOTTISWODE presented a similar pe-
tion from Salto}}.

Sir RICHARD VIVIAN moved for returns of
the regulations in foreign ports on the import and
export of goods, and of the amount of duties pay-
able on them. _ _

('ol. CHICHESTER presented a petition from
Wexford, respecting; the police establishment of
Ireland.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented a petition from
Mr. Donkin, the Clerk of the County Court at Dur-
ham, against the Small Debts' Bill.
CLAIMS ON THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from Henry
Caselee, complaining of the misappropriation of
the money granted by the French Government, for
the compensation of the claims of British subjects
on the French Government.—Ordered to be
printed.
Sir J. ASTLEYpresented a petition from a Co-
roner in Wiltshire, praying that additional allowance
might be granted to Coroners.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN presented a peti-
tion from the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn,
against the Additional Churches Bill.

Mr. LITTLETON said that the Commissioners
for building churches had conducted themselves
with so mush discretion that he wai disposed to be-
lieve every thing in their ftivonr, but thought they
ought to allow more time to enable parishes to be-
some better acquainted with the provisions of the
Bill.

Mr. WESTERN presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Chelmsford, against Negro Slavery ;
also similar petitions from Romford and ether places
in Essex.

Lord BELGRAVE presented a similar petition
from Chester.

Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition
from a person named Buckland, who claimed to be a
_free vintner, against certain clauses in the Licenses
Bill.

Sir ROBERT WILSON presented a petitiot
from the inhabitants of St. George's parish, Cam
berwell, against the Church Building Act.

Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that when a million was
originally granted for this purpose, it was understood
that the public were to be called on for nothing
additional. There was no time to consider of the
matter, and therefore time ought to be given.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that he was instructed
alsci to press for further time before the passing of
this Bill. He thought the Bill should not be suffer-
ed to proceed further this Session.
Mr. MARSHALL also objected to passing the
Bill so. hastily through the House. The petition
was ordered to be printed.

Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from the
Dissenters of a Church in Leeds, against the burn-
ing of Hindoo widows.
Si G. IVIURRAY brought up papers relative to
the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed for
the amelioration of the slave population of the West
Indies.

Mr. BERNAL presented a. petition from Mr.
G. Newland, complaining that the Commissioners
for liquidating the claims on the French Government
had allowed him interest upon his claim of 80,000/.,
at the rate of 3 per cent. only, whilst the other
claimants had received at the rate of 5 per cent.,
and praying for relief. Mr. Newland claimed five
per cent. as the proper rate of interest on his de-
mand ; but the Commissioners would only agree to
pay him three per cent. A gentleman named Sim-
cox, as the representative of Messrs. Whetland and
Son, appealed under similar circumstances to the
Privy Council, but the appeal so brought was
eventually withdrawn. In June, 1821, a positive
asiurgnee was Oven to Mr. Simcox, that his case
would he decided, in conformity with that of Messrs.
Boyd and Co., which was then pending before the
Privy Council. In consequence of this intimation,
Mr. Newland suffered the time for final appeal,
uftieh, by the Act of Parliament, was limited to three
months, from the time of the Commissioners' decision
to expire, and awaited the decision in the case of
Boyd and Co., which was not pronounced until five
years after, and it was then awarded that on Boyd
;rid Co.'s claim, interest at the rate of five per cent.
diGuld be paid. The same was done in the case of
Mr. Sime4; and Mr. Newland now applied for an
equal rate of int:Teri', The petitioner contended, as
he (Mr. Bernal) thought justly, that the principle
which regulated the decision of the Privy Council in
the case of Boyd and and which secured to those
parties five vet. cent. interest, applied also to his case.
If it were now 4Fgued, that Mr. Newland's having
suffered the three moths; the period specified by the
Act of Parliament, to expn.e, was a fatal objection to
his claim, he (Mr. Bernal) would say in answer, that
claims to the amount of 401,0001. had been settled
long after the arhitration of 1815; and, therefore,
reasoning by analogy, there could be no just or valid
e;:.Us to refuse to settle the demand of Mr. Newland.
The petition wa-rthen brought up.
The CHANCEP.OR of the EXCHEQUER
felt it quite impossible to give to the lion. Gentle-
man opposite any assurance, on the put either of
iff%?. Government, oe of the Lords of the Treasury,
that they would take this business into their betide.
The eircurnienr•es were by no means peculiar to the
transaction which dill Hon. Gentleman had intro-
duced.' Ever since the ri.-A.o:tfent that it had been
.made known that there was a surpin2 of funds, many
claims, under the head of No. 7, were made in con-
formity with the convention of 1813 and 1814,
individu4.l4 endeavoured to bring themselves within
the meaning of (he law in order that they might
partake of that surplus on whieh they thought they
114 a sort of claim. He was not therefore,
to citi with one particular case, but to be guided
by the gene rule by which all such cases were
governed. Mr. Ne#Jand's claim came, in the first
instance, before the Comatistioners, mid it was not
,now;_id„ fie then went before time Privy Council,
who decided in favour of his claim, andireferr“l it
back.
The Commissioners then gave the amount of
his doirn, with three per pent. interest. Mr. New-
land was not satisfied with this second award of the
Conuniszioners, and made a second appeal to the
Privy Privy Council, on this second
appeal, affirmed the ()leis* of the Commissioner 3,
wall some variance, founded on the value of a„.
sigoatt in 179:3. It was well known that the rte
of interest pkii4. on these claims was different, and
depended on the naPnre of the claims. One class
of claimants was to receive J, another 4, and a third
class, whose claims were on account of what was
called " moveable property," 3 per petit.. Npw it
was adjudged that the claitas of Mr. ?.;ewlran d , were
on account of moveable property, and, in conse-
quence, only 3 per cent. was allowed. The peti-
tioner said, that he relied upon the case of Mr.
Simcox, which depended upon the case of Mr.
Boyd; and he considered, as the Privy Council had
decided in the case of Mr. Boyd that 5 per cent..
should be paid, and as Mr. Simcox, under that dem-
sion' had received the like interest, that he also was
entitled to a similar rate.' That, he believed, was
the argument.
Mr. 13ERNAL—The parties were to receive a

rate of interest according to the precise nature of
their respective claims.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

continued.—ln looking to this reasoning, however,
it was to be observed that Boyd and Co. had two
suits before the Privy Council. In one of them five
per cent. was awarded, and in the other, "Boyd and
Co..v. Demontage " the Privy Council decided that
three per cent. only should be paid, and he believed
it was on this latter case that the refusal to give Mr.
Newland five per cent. proceeded, it being a case of
moveable property. He must say, that it was very
inconvenient to discuss questiOns of this sort inci-
dentally. It was impossible to say when thus intro-
dUeed in the absenee'of necessary information, to
what extent they might be carried.
Mr. BERNAL assured the Right Hon. Gentle •
man, that he believed the statements contained in the
petition to be perfectly just.
Mr. LITTLETON said, the case of Mr. Simcox
was a very peculiar one. From this statement it
clearly appeared that the French Government was
positively engaged to pay five per cent. on claims
similar to those of Mr. Sirncox and Mr. Newland.
Sir G. PHILIPS said, 'that in one case a claim
on the French Government was sent from Manches-
ter to a banker at Paris, who neglected to send it
in within the prescribed time. He wished to know
whether a claimant, under such circumstances, was
shut out from all redress ? _

Mr. BRIGHT said, there appeared to him to be
some claims which were extremely equitable, though
they might not be strictly legal. At first, the French
prisoners in this country were supported by the
French Government. The expence, however, being
found to be very great, the French Government re-
fused to continue to 'support these prisoners ; and,
after some arrangements which took Awe between
this country and France, the English Government
took the support of the French prisoners upon them.
selves. But in the interval between the refusal of
the French Government to support their prisoners
and the English Government undertaking it, the
contractors continued to support those prisoners on
the faith that they should be reimbursed. These
gentlemen claimed under the 'treaty, and had their
claims paid them to the amount of more than 50
per cent. On application for the remainder they
were told that the money was exhausted, andin con-
sequence of this the contractors became bankrupts.
Now this case had been stated to him on very good
authority, and if it were true, or any thing like
true, he did think that Government ought to at-
tend to it.

Mr. S. RICE thought the subject well worthy
the attention of Government, especially after the
declaration of the late Lord Londonderry that such
claims should be Considered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, the discussion of that night had proved that
this was a contest between individuals to get out of
the conditions laid down by the treaty. With re-
spect to the case stated by the Hon. Member for
Wootton Basset, and by the Hon. Member for Li-
merick,—however hard it might be that the neglect
of an agent, the delay of lodging. an appeal, or the
unavoidable delay arising from proanring necessary
documents, should be fatal to the claim of any
person,—yet the conditions were strictly limited by
the treaty, and thole conditions must be abided by.
Mr. BER.NAL could not suffer the argument of
the Right Hon. Gentleman to pass without reply.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had acknowledged the
hardship of claims being shut out from the neglect
of agents, and from suffering the time for appeal to
pass by. But what had the Right Hon. Gentleman
said in answer to his (Mr. Bernal's) statement ?
He had stated that, by a printed paper, referring to
the 9th article of the Treaty, it bad been held out
that the claims of certain persons, though they might
not be strictly legal, would be equally considered by
the Treasury. Be this true or false, it ought to be

inquired into. •
• Sir G. PHILIPS said; the French papers were
already full of complaints of the unfair conduct of the
British Government ; or, as they termed it, of the
fraud which the British. Government had committed
upon that of France, in applying this money to a
purpose essentially different from that for which it
had been given. Was such an appropriation of mo-
ney given by one Government to another to be justi-
fied upon a technical objection ? The declaration of
Lord Londonderry in 1819 ought to be attended to
by the present Government. When he (Sir G.
Philips) and the Hon. Member for Knaresborough
brbught forward this subject, the language of Lord
Londonderry was very different from that of the
Right. Hon. Gentleman. Lord Londonderry said
that " he Went along with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Tierney) in thinking, that if there should
be any surplus, those claimants to whom he had
alluded should be added to the others, and that a
reversionary interest-should be secured to them."
Mr. BRIGHT said that the parties to whom he
had alluded claimed under the treaty of Paris.
Mr. SEYMOUR said, that as the money had been
received for the purpose of satisfying the claims of Bri-
tish subjects who had been robbed (for he could call
it nothing else) by the French Government of those
days, he did think that the claims had been refused
on very extraordinary grounds. His father was
robbed of his property in 1790, and whether the
Government was constituted then, or' in 1793, it
was no matter. Where there was a jut claim, it
ought to be, attended to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said there were so many persons who fancied they
had claims, that if the money were ten times as
great as it was, it would be insufficient to satisfy
them all.
Mr. S. RICE perceived that this money had
merely been advanced to the Woods and Forests by
way of loan : how, then, was it to be.applied when
repaid ? Surely the most rational way would be, to
apply it to the liquidation of those claims founded
in truth and reason, and which were excluded
merely by a technical objection.
Mr. HERRINS said that the Hon. Gentleman
who had referred to the language of Lord London-
(leery, appeared to think that the declaration made
by that Noble Lord had been departed from:
contrary was the case. Extension had been
made to all those who, under the strict letter of the
Act, could not come in.
Mr. SEYMOUR would give up his claim if the
money were applied to the reluction of the national
debt, but not if it were to be devoted to any other
purpose.—(Hear, hear.)—He should always consi-
der that Government owed him 3,0001.
Lord J. RUSSELL confessed that it did app".
to him that farther time ought to be allowed as long
as any surplus remained. No claim ought .to be
stopped until the money was exhausted.
Sir G. PHILIPS was sure that the language of
' Lord Londonderry, as he. interpreted it, conveyed
this meaning,—that further time should be allowed
until all claims were satisfied. But lie wished to
ask the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) of
what nature the notice was, that farther time would
be allowed
Mr. BERRIES conld not tell the precise nature
of the notice ; but he believed that ample publicity
had been given to it.
Sir Q. PHILIPS doubted the ample publicity of
the notice, because the parties of whom he spoke
knew nothing about it.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. COURTENAY brought up a Bill for
amending the Act relating to Pilots' Lights and Pilot-
age.—Read the first time. To be read the second
time on Thursday, and to be printed.
Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from
Boston, praying for protection for British Wool.—
To be printed.
Mr. PEEL moved the Order of the Day for the
third reading of the Church Briefs Bill.
The Bill was rend a third time and passed.
The House resumed, and the Bill was passed.

SMALL DEBTS' BILL.
Mr. PEEL n►oved the Order of the Day for the
second reading of the Small Debts' liticovery Bill.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that no Bill had
ever given him more trouble, and he had entertained

hopes of being able to carry it through Parliament
during the present Session, but he was prevented
by difficulties which, however, were totally uncon-
'fleeted with the principles of the Bill. Those who
had read the Bill must be convinced that its pro-
visions were not of a nature to obstruct its progress
through the House, for the Bill had been framed
by Gentlemen of experience. The difficulty of pass-
ing it arose from .the claims to compensation, pre-
ferred by the officers, whose receipts would be di.:
minished were the Bill to pass into a law. He had
no objection to this principle, hut a Commission had
been appointed to consider the ,practice of the
superior Courts of Law, which might .suggest ma-
terial alterations affecting the interests of individuals.
Nothing was so prejudicial to the public as making a par-
list-compensation to officers for the reduction of fees, for
this often increased the fees of other officers'; and when
they claimed a compensation upon being reduced,
that compensation was calculated upon their in•
creased receipts. Me objected to giving any partial
compensation to persona holding patent offices, until
the whole subject was in a condition to be settled.
It would be more advautagebus to the public to pur-
chase out such officers altogether. This was the
only difficulty- that obstructed the passage of the Bill.
Sir J. NEWPORT concurred in the principle
laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Lord ALTHORP said, that the Bill proposed by
the Right Hon. Gentleman was a great improve-
ment upon that formerly introduced.
After a few words from Mr. HuME and Mr. Se-
cretary PEEL,
Mr. T. B. LENNARD approved the principle
of the measure, but objected to its details.
Several other resolutions were then put and agreed
to, without observation.
Upon the resolution that a sum not exceeding
43,113/. 1 ls. 3d. be granted as pensions to officers,
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM add Mr.

Hung, the resolution was put and carried.
The next resolution was that a sum not exceed-
ing 143,1831. he granted as retired pensions to
officers.

Mr. HUME objected to granting to officers hold-
ing appointments in the service abroad, receiving
pensions of 1,2001. and 1,5001. a-year under this
grant.
The CHANCELLOR of . the EXCHEQUER
said a few words which were altogether inaudible in
the gallery. •
Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN was opposed to
the grant.
Mr. BARING opposed the grant.—The Resolu-
tion was then put and carried.
Several other resolutions were put and agreed to.
Sir H. HARDINGE gave notice that he. would
bring forward the remaining Ordnance Estimates,
in Committee of Sapply, on Monday next.
SALMON PRESERVATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Upon the Order of the Day for the third reading
of the Salmon Preservation (Scotland) Bill being
read—

Mr. FERGUSSON observed, that a Bill of this
description ought not to pass without reference to
the private interests of individuals. A Bill of this
description was introduced last year and rejected in
the other House of Parliament. The Hon. Member
here made some allusions to the fisheries in the
River Thurso, which were not strictly audible in
the gallery. The Hon. Member concluded by mov-
ing an Amendment to except the River Thurso
from the operation of the Bill, as unless that River
were excepted, a great injustice would be done to
Sir John Sinclair.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Colonel LINDSAY and the LORD ADVOCATE op-
posed the Amendment.
An Hon. MEMBER, whose name we could not
learn, said a few words in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND opposed the Amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared for
the Amendment—
Ayes

Noes -

Majority against the Amendment —76
The Bill'wes then rend a third time and'passed
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. •

The CH.rikELLORof the EXCHE QUER, on
the House having resolved itself into a Committee
of Supply, rose to move the Miscellaneous Irish
Estimates, and would just remark, previous to the
Resolutions being moved, that it was intended to
place the money to be voted for the Society for
Discountenancing Vice, the Charter Schools, and
some other Estimates, under the controul of the
Lord Lieutenant, but that, intention had been aban-
doned in consequence of a legal objection which it
had been ascertained there was to such an ari-ange-
ment. In the Appropriation. Act a clause would be
introduced, giving to the Irish Government a dis-
cretionary power over these items.
Sir J. NEWPORT, in allusion to what bad oc-
curred in the discussion on Friday last, wished to
clear himself from all imputation of having been
concerned in any thing that bore the appearance of
a job. It had been said that he was the author of the
Cork Institution. That was true ; but Government
had altered the conditions on which it was establish-
ed. When the matter fell into other hands he was
not responsible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
disclaimed having ever had au intention of throwing
the slightest imputation on the Hon.. Bart.
Mr. F. LEWIS. hoped that the recommendation
of the Board to which he belonged to continue the
Botanical Garden and the Agricultural Premiums
would be attended to.
After a few words from Mr. W. LAMB and Mr.
V. STUART,
Mr. Secretary PEEL recommended; that under
the ciretunstancos of the case, any further discussion
should be avoided..
Me. FERGUSSON, before the,Houso Went into
the Committee, begged to suggvst the expediency
of increasing the salaries of the Judges of the
Court of Session in Scotland: The salary, of a
Judge of that Court was only 2,0001., while that
of an English Judge was 5,5001., being nearly thrice
the sum.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that in consequence of
what had been done for the English Judges, the
Judges of Scotland had certainly nclaim to consi-.
deration. As to the appointment to the Judicial
Bench in Scotland, ,it had been the object of his Ma-
j esty's Government to look only for that professional
eminence which entitled their possessor to elevation.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman, that nothing
gave him (Mr. Peel) more pletNure, hull the eleva-
tion of Mr. Cranstoun to. the Bench.
Mr. L. FOSTER hoped that when bis.. Majesty's
Government were considering the cases of Judges,
they would not forget the Irish Judges—(a laugh.)
It was not right that the Chief Judges in Ireland
should have less than the Puisne Judges in this
country.
The House then res'ol ved itself into the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the first Resolution; namely, that the sum
of 11.,384/. be granted to the Protestant Charter
Schools of Ireland for 1898.
After a few words from Sir J. NEWPORT and Mr.
SPRING RICE, the resolution was agreed to, as was
also a resolution for granting the sum of 9,0001. to
' the Association for the Discountenancing of Vice.
On a resolution .being proposed for granting the
sum of 8,928/, to the Roman Catholic Seminary of
Maynooth,
Mr. MAXWELL would not divide the Commit-,
tee on the resolution, but protested against their
supporting an Institution, in which principles were
taught hostile to the Protestant Religion.
Mr. S. RICE trusted that the Hon. Gentleman
would not interpret the silence of those who differed
from him, to inability to contravene his statements,
and to bottom that contravention on the very evi.;
deuce which the Hon. Gentleman bad himself ad-
duced.
The Resolution was then agreed to, as were also
a Resolution for granting 25,0001. to the Society
for Promoting the Education of the Poor ; and as
Resolution for granting 32,5061. to the Foundling

Hospital. V
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,

in moving that the sum of 1,500/. be granted to
the Belfast Academical Institution, observed, that
no further qualiAcitipkirsquitecpssary for the admis-
sion of a St44eit, ifiaftiPeetiu.6ily from the Synod
°Mister 'of his moral' qifdificittrons.
Mr. L. FOSTER thokiihtit quite expedient that
none test of the qualiticatronitig the Student should
be required. He had perfect confidence, however,
in the Synod of Ulster' and was very willing to
leave the matter in their hands.

Mr. S. RICE entirely disapproved the system of
test and qualification of which the lion. Member for
Louth so highly approved:
Mr. Secretary PEEL wished to suggest an ar-
rangement which might have the effect of reconcil-
jug Opposite opinions. For this purpose, he would
require a certificate, the form of which he had drawn
up, with a view to- the object he had mentioned.
Mr. S. RICE was satisfied with what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Gentleman. •
Sir A. CHICHESTER spoke, but in a tone in-
audible in the gallery.
Mr. F. LEWIS theugh the establishment enti-
tled to assistance from Government.

The Question was then put and carried. The
Chairman obtained leave to report the Resolution
to the douse, and to sit again.

The House resumed.

The Report of the Committee was ordered to be
received to-morrow, and leave given to the Com-
mittee to sit again on Wednesday next.