The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-08 00:00:00

.e? .Lit, R--- .- -

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAI, 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
:Tha CHAS. PALLIER presented a petition in favour
the East London Railway. the Bill from
Mr. WARD presented a petition against'
Mr. 11. Mackintosh, of Bloomsbury.--Referred to the
Committee.
CRANBORNE CHASE DISFRANCHISEMENT.
Mr. BANKES moved the Third Reading of the Cran-
eorne Chase Disfranchisement Bill.
Mr. PORTMAN took this opportunity of expressing
the gratitude which he, in common with a large body of
landowners in Dorsetshire, ft to a Noble Lord (Rivers),
ter
enabling this Bill to pass into a Law. He had pos-
sessed the honour of being proprietor of a very singularly
noble franchise, but he would possess the gratification of
leaving conferred a lasting benefit on all his neighbours and
dependants in the Chase. Mr. Portman felt proud of
Laving two such constituents as Mr. Browne and Lord
;livers, who had in this Session se proved their liberality
and regard for the welfare of their native country.
ROMAN CATHOLICS.
Sir 11. PARK EL presented a petition from Portarling-
ton, in favour of Catholic Emancipation. Similar peti-
tions were presented by Mr. H. HOWARD, from the
Itnroueh of Arundel and several other places.
Mr. C. PALLMER presented a petition from War-
einoton against any further concession to the Roman Ca-
tholics.
Mr. ASHURST presented a similar petition from the
Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford.
FOREIGN WOOL.
Mr. CAMPBELL presented a petition from 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 the Catholic Claims
by Mr. FITZGIBBON from the county of Limerick, by Mr. S.
Weiler from the county of Leitrim, and by Mr. D. Da-
sieereoper from a parish in Cheshire.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from the
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 the Merchants and Inkat&
tants orthe sane place praying for a Repeal of the Small
,Notes Bill.
Mr. CHAPLIN presented two petitions from the
eesenere of land in Lincolnshire, praying for the itnposition
of a to upon foreign wool.
Mr. PAULET THOMPSON presented a petition
f rotas a person named John Thornset. residing at Dover,
complaining that in the year 1810 a :,ox of his, containing
gold to the amount of '7,5001., 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. the first inti-
mation which he had was, that the gold had been con-
faicated, and he abandoned his action. The petitioner
then applied to the Court of Exchequer, which informed
Lim that that Court could not afford hint nnv redress, and
that Lis course was to memorialise the Lords of the Trea-
sury which he (lid, and their Lordships were pleased, in the
year 1820, to direct that a sum of 2,5001., one third of
the property seized, should he paid him. The petitioner
stated that this property was seised in Lombard-street,
where it was seat to be forwarded to him by coach to
Dover, and although the petitioner could not complain of
any want of courtesy towards hint on the part of the Lords
of the Treasury, yet he (Mr. T.) thought the case stated
by the petitioner such es would induce that House to afford
him some redress for the loss which he haul sustained,
Mr. DAWSON did not wish to throw any impediment
in the way of any inquiry whielt the House might wish to
6reett, but he felt himself hound to state the facts of the
case for the guidance of the House. Information was given
to the Custom-house officers in 1810 that Mr. 'Th-ornset was
shout to export gold to the amount of 7,0001. from Dover
to the continent, anti accordingly the officer seized the
gold en its way from London to Dover, which according
to tie law at that time was liable to confiscation. Due
noalce of the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer was
given to Mr. Thornset but he took no notice of it, and the gold
having been confiscated, one third of it was given to the
Custom-honse officer—one third to the informer, anti one'
third to the Crown. Mr. Thornset took no notice of the
transaction for some years, and he then presented a Memo-.
sial to the Lord of the Treasury, who did all in their
power to relieve him by giving up the share forfeited to
the Crown ; tint their Lordships ceold not order the resto-
ration of the two-thirds which were fo:.feited according
to law to the Custom-house officer and ti informer.
Tie would not say whether nt not this was an act. Gf hard-
Aip towards the petitioner, hurt he must say that ho thought
this gentleman had to attribute to his own negligence any
loss which he might have sustained.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he knew nothing of the facts of
tte ease, but taking them as stated by' the itight Hon.
Centlentan, he (Mr. Brougham) must say that the seizure
was illegal, as it was made on the way from London to
Dover, without, ar.y evidence that the gold was on the
way to Dover for the purpose of being exported. There
was nothing to warrant the Custom-house officer in making
the seizure, except the information of an interested person.
Ile (Mr. B.) thought such information was not sufficient
to warrant the confiscation of the property, when the'
owner, for anything which appeared to the contrary, might
have been at the time conveying it front London to his house
in Qie country.
Mr. 1). W. HARVEY thought the petitioner would
Lave had a better chance of getting redress if he had, in-
stead et presenting a petition, intimated to the Treasury
that he was a freeman of Canterbury and Dover, end haul
Treat influence in both places.—(A laugh.)—The words
of 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 seizure, but it did not follow that gold in Lome
Lard-street, to be conveyed by a coach to Dover, where
the owner resided, came within the Act of Parlia-
ment. He I:ad 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 procedingz, however gross
might have been the negligence of the petitioner, were void.
frran any thing which the House knew, this gentleman,
who was the owner of property near Dover, and who had
0, Lonse there, might have been taking clown this money
for the purpose of making a payment et Dover, and
it would he too hard that a gentleman taking motiev front
London to his house in the country should be liable to
the risk of seizure upon the bare intuit-elation of an in-
former, that it was the intention of the geussieman to ex-
port that money ultimately to the Continent. He sliould
stlggest to the lion. Member to present the petition now,
and afterwards move for the appointment of a Committee
to investigate the transaction, and repGrt to the House.
The CHANCELLOR u-f the EXCHEQUER admit-
ted, with the Hon. Mernlwr for Winchilesa, that a
seizure in Lombard-street of gold, without any evaidence
that such gold was then on its way to the Continent, seas
but he might at the :snot time say that if the petie
Come- had at the time thought fit to dispute the seizure, the
Custom-house (ewey. might have been able to establish a
tede of circomstanees Justifying the seizure, But evidence
of which,, after such a lapse of years, he might not be able
to establisi,l, if the House should think fit now to inatitatte
inquiry.He deeply
an , regretted the loss which this gen-
tleman had sustained, but after the petition* had thought
fit not to make any defence iu the Courte of Law, he
thought the general consequencee of revising decisions to
Courts of Justice after so long a lapse of years would,
-ender all the circumstances, be of the nioet dingeroue
stature, and he (Mr. Goulburn) should riot be one who
7,vould rpeornmend such a proeeeding.
Mr. BARING was one of those who considered this as
a tiv.es.tion of the violation of law or uot, without taking
into consideration whether the law was good or bad in
principle, aid it appeared to him that if the petner
had violated the law he ought to take the consequences,
and the solemn decision of a Court of Justice eves
sufficient evidence to justify the Howe in presuming
that a violation of the law had taken place.—(Hear.)—
He was of r.pititon that the petitioner should rather have
tionNl
ques the propriety et' the conduct of the Go-
vernment in returning to him their third of the eon-
Lerated property than have come before .Le House, as he
had now done. Upon the whole he thought that no
petition had ever come before that House
-of consideration than that of thethpartesetztepelitiotiiio.n.
Mr. P. THO3IPSON said, Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Baring) bad grounded his argument upon
several assumptions, all of which he seemed to think well-
were the very reverse. Hi,
• founded, when in fact they
first assumption was, that the petitioner was about to
e-tport 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 fact was, that he was wholly ignorant of
any proceedings in the Court of Exchequer against him.
All the opposition advanced to the petition therefore, fell
at once to the ground. The very nature of the Courtf
3'endered it improbable that he should know any thing o
the proceedings, for they only advertised that they were
Trout to proceed, and unless this motion met the eye of