The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-04 00:00:00

• Parliament. It was a singular circurhstance be.
lengiaig to this case,*. that although he had the ho-
. nour of being most .intitnate.witle the Noble Lord
then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Wellington),
..a ,
riA though he was living in his fattier's.house in
Dublin. ate the
,time.when this job, as. it had been
• ,ealled, was going. on, he never heard one word
about 'it, vor kuewof the transaction, till he reedit in
the Report.- But he had other grounds of compla?nt
against these Commissioners; they had not stated
that this case had_been referred. to the Law Officera
.of the Crown,and that they had .Wade a Reportde-
,
cidedly in- favotir of Mr.-Croker'S claiM. It might
have been expected, that, in point of fairness, when
they. were -about to make"this Report, they would
have examined' Mr..Croker himself upon the sub-
- jai but not one question did they et er put to hint
upon the :subject, though they had daily ppportuni-
. tiesOf doing it. He concluded with stating, /that
1.• . ha trnstcd -he had made out a clear case, and that he
had -done justice, to Mr. Croker. Whit respell to
the Charak.ler of that 'Gen tieman, the Gentlemen op
posite to him had spoken of it in terms which left
-hinenotNtig to wish upon the.subjeN, If any thing
more had been, necessary, believed . he, might
• -safely appeal to the Right Hon. Gentleman who
.• ..filled' the Chair. Iftebelieved Mr. CrOker attracted
that Gentleman's notice .'when he was in Ireland,
and he belleved.also that beiewed that notice to the
high.chara6ter Which he -possessed.
. [We regret that we have only been able to. give
, 3:faint sketch of IVIr. Crekei's speech, Which
,made.
,a peat. impression • he sat down amidst cheers from
:• both sides of the Fionse.] - ,
Sir JoHit NEWPORT disclaimed any ilea of wish-
- ittg to throw -blame on • Mr: Croker, whom he ad-
mitted was a highly meritorious. officer. Belot
now apprized of the circumstances just stated by
the Hon. Gentleman, which were perfeetly Satis-
. to Cory, be should withdraw the_ two first Reseda-.
• thins. - At the same time.he must still &insider the'
:Board of. Exciseas very negligent.
• . Mr. W. PQ.I.E; referring: o the Report, observed,
that if the Right Hon. Baronet had taken tl*troo-..1
a .ble to read it, he would have found in the Appendix
-_that Mr. Croker stated in. his -Memorial' that,
claim was proper and legal, and, the.Commissionera,
.1n their Report, bear ;him put, tty stating that he,
was entitled to, a-Moiety of the sum. in question by
- law. ' • - .
- Mr. M. Ferzoseiep considered the giving of i
tnoiety.Of the -fines to the inforMer not as an equi.
.table principle. • He bore testimony to the merits
of Mr. Croker as a public officer. •.; •
The Cnasieeeeciaof the EXCHE 0...t7ER thought that
Croker had great ground of complaintagainst
the Commissioner's for having made so incorrect a
po /rert, which had been suffered' to rankle in the
.public mind to the prejudice of that Gentleman
since Febivary 1809. He thought. the Right Han.
- 'Baronet, before he brought the charge, would have
done as well to have looked into the Revert, and .not
have taken the wcrd of the ,Commissioners. The
two first resolutions t ere then withdrawn, Oct the
question being put on the third resolution,
Mr. W. Poee, said,, he trusted the House would
indulge film for a, few minutes while he answered
the attacks which the Honourable Baronet had
made upon the Irish Gevernment„ for die transac-
tion -respeeling the- post Office. .What shad passed
" upon the preceding-resolution shoUld be a warning
to him in future to be.cautious how he brought for-
ward charges- affecting persons- of high charaeter,
end:hove he applied sech'epit hets, without taking
care to bein fell possession of the facts of the case.
He flattered himself that ip this case he should cOn-
vince 'the House that the. Hon. Bart. was as -corn-
, pletely mistaken., with restie6l to ihe facts„as he
Was in the last. The Hon. Bari. had, began' by
'stating, that when' this subje& - was before under
discussion, he *(Mr. Pole) had got rid of it by 'the
. 'previous question, and•had skulked from. the fair
tlecision of the question. ,This language of the ,Hon.
lait.'wouiti teach him'. in future not to skew so
.•
• Much courtesy- as be had done upon the occasion
• allatlecl to. -The House would, reColle6i, that when
the Hon: Bart. brought (onward;. his re•oltition re-
ipeti-ing the Irish Post Office, on a format-411i, he
eeixed it with so much fact, that he (Mr.. Pole)
.
..from mere Courtesy, did not think it right toepra.
pose a direct negative, but had moveel theprevious
question. He would -take care, 'however,. how lie
showed such courtesy again. He did not! nreao:tb
accuse the Honourable Baronet of doing any
thing tuipailiamentary, 'hut. Certainly it :Was
not usual .ter' bring a subject a gecond time under dis-
cuSsion " hen it had been once de6cled. He had
.v. re little to state upon this'subjeet nave more than
. he had urged on a former occasion e but as many
k;entiemen who were present now had not beard his
former statement, he would, with the permission of
'the Rouse, shortly repeat it. s The. Right Hon. Ba-
• • tOnet bad fallen into au error respecting-the case of
Mr. Forward, into which he had been led by the Re-
port ; he had stated, that: that Gentleman had been ,
iauaerannuated, after only eight years sersice. ' That
.wrs not the fact ; the case was shot tly. this. In 1800
• IVIr. Forward was, by patent, appointed Treasurer of
the Post Office, an office which was conaidered•ts a
- perfect sinecure, He remained in it, neverdoing duty,
until 1808, when-the Office was reformed. During
a..part of- that period the Right Hoe. Baronet and
_ his friends
,were in office, and they never had called
upon Mr. For ward to do any duty, so perfeci ly (lid they
-,.. -consider his office as,a sinecure. The Commissioners
in their Report, had stated,. as a principle, that pub•
lie officers should not be remunerated except. for
*long services, but that that Gentleman had been re-
Inlanerated after-a service of onty -ight years. Now
there was the more unfairness le this statement, be-
canse it was partly true. aed 'partly false.: They
. ought to have stated', that this office' of Mr- For-.
Ward's was a perfea sinecure, that upon the reform
of the office he had been removed, in order that the
pfrthe of Treasurer of the Post-Office might be made
efficient; and that be had been-remunerated, as was
always the case when patent officers were removed.
There was in this Report, as there waS in the Re?ort
espeCting the case of Mr. Croker, tuaterials" given
in the appendix, out of which a fair statemlt might
be made ; but the commiasioners thought ewe/ to
frame their Seportite the way he had mentioned...—.
*They had used the word superannuation, as
.applied
Form ard, and used it Most improperly., That
Word was not used in the order for granting him

•- %101. KS
THIS JAY AT TWALVIL O'CLOCK.
Consols . Rcd. Ann. -69 H

4 though many facitious spirits whoa never will be
satisfied with any measures of Government, because
they are enemies to the Constitution, may censure
the rejection of what is called the. Middlesex Peti-
tion, last night in the House of 'Commons, .there
can be no doubt that the people at large will entirely
approve of, the refusal of a Petition couched insuch
iusulting. terms. Indeed, it is impossible• to suppose
that the persons who signed that Petition-could have
entertained any hope that it would be received. the
intention apparently was, to try what the Rouse
would bear, and to induce the public' to be,
lieve that Ministers are adverse to the' right
of. Petition. But the language' they adopted
was by no means calculated .td accomplish their
own ends, for t 1 opposition Menibers, as well as
those who support the measures of Government,
revolted against such language, and seemed ,to con-
sider it as. the mischievous effusion of a denuieratic
spirit: Ministers have fully shewn that they are
I not hostile to the right to petition, by theii unwil-
lingness to, reject the Westminster Petition, though
db.
that Was tfy no means consistent with the decorum
• which ought to be observed towards the Representa-
tive Body. Upon the whole, the friends of the
Constitution have•reason to rejoice that such a Pe-
tition was presented, because it fully developers the
airns?of the faaion, and because it has induced men
of all parties, who are not averse to Monarchy,'
and who only" wish for" what -has been denOrninined
a temperate 'reform, to join 41 rejeaing the lnsdlent
language, and in resisting alb mischievous intention
of men, who, in spite of experience; are endeavour-
ing to' destroy the• Constitution of, the Country,
though they themselves would assuredly 'be buried
in its ruins.

The Morning Chronicle denies that there is any
' Similitude between the caseto which we alluded
. .
yesterday; respeaing the. Printer .of the Oracle, in
1805, and the case- of Mr. GALE-JONES, and justifies
'the Conduct of its. friends by saying, that the Whigs
never denied the power of the House: to- prated it-
self against-obstrua i0n...8u the case of-the Printer of
.the-Oracle %cgs not .a case of 'obstruction, it was,a
cAsp of fibet *and Mr. Fox, Mr. GREY, and Mr..
WHITBREAD COOtendedthat .the• House had aright
to commit for libel-. But it is said that the Printer was
-not committed to the custody of the Kitig,Cbut into
that of the Serjeant'at Arms; but surely the ques-
tion in discussion isnot respecting the place of confine
trient,..but whether the House of Commons have the
power to order a man into' confinement fora libel. The
MOrningehronicleaclmits thatiVlt.Fox did pot approve
of sending a case of privilege to he triedin a Court of
Law ; " But," - oys- the: Chronicle, "'we thought at
" the time, and think stiil, that ttiat was, a wise and
" sound doctrine for the.Whigsl to hold in the w
" settled time of our Constitution, 'N•sillelerhe Judges
". were dependent On the King, and when it would
. •
" have been•tantaMount to the making his 'Majesty.
4.1 the Conservator of the Privileges' of • the Corn-
" mons ;' but the case is now materially ' altered
" when the-Judges are nobly. independent of We

Crown, on the exercise' of their jurisdiction,
•
tboqgh &rising their authority from his appoint-
" anent; —We should be -glad to ask whether the
Judges were not . quite as independent in 1805,
when Mr. Fok maintained that doctrine,- as they
are at this moment ?

•
The sale Of -Lord
.SOMEIWILLE'S -Merino flock
commenced on Wednesday at. Fairmill Farm, near
Cobham, Surrey. 150 sheep were sold which pro-
duced between 3 and 70001.
Yesterday morning the loth, or Prince's Regi-,
ment of Hussars, marched to their old qua:ters.at
Rumford; from Islington, Pentoriville;' Higttgare,
&c. where they have been .cioakteteci for Plese few
weeks.

Lieutebant RLTON 'BROWNE TUCKER, of the
24th Light Dragoons, (brother of Licut:-Colonel
GEORGE JAMES BRUERE TUCKER, and Captain N.
13: TUCKER, who were lost on board: the Primrose
sloop of wars--on thou return to Spain,) is taken
*soner on board the eliarletorl East lniiaman, lately
"captured in the Bay of Bengal, after ase ere action
of one hour and fifteen minutes, against a very su-,
perior force. •

SMITHFIELD MARKET, MAY 4.
This day's. Market-had but a se,art.p supply of dif-.
ferent kinds of. Cattle ; IVlutton, Pork, •and Lamb;
support last prices; Beef and. Veal aredearer ; and
• the trade for the most part was but indiffeient,. Toe
sales in the Flay Market were not lively -; Say;
Straw, and Clover, obtained lest under-
mentioned prices and numbers are an accurate,state-
meat :

To sink the Offal per stone of 81b. •
Beef 45. Bd. to6s. ad.. Mutton 4S. 6d. to 6s. 4d. Veal Ss;
6d. to 7,5. 4rl. Pork ss. ,od. to 7s. oil. L.snib (is...A. logs. odr
lieasts6so.Shcep- and Lambs 3.40 k Cal ves 2Z0.-:
Pigs aBO.