The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-15 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Lord ERSKINE, adverting to the Bill which he
had introduced 'in this subjeci, wished that the order
for its re-commitment on 'Thursday be discharged.
His ohje& was to introduce some further clauses
into the Bill, and to alter some others, by which he
hoped to be able to render the measure nnobjeetion,.
able to their Lordships. The order for the re-com-
mitment of the Bill was. then discharged.—Ad,
journed.-

HOUSE OF COMNONS.

MONDAY, MAY 14.

The House was occupied till a ,late hour upon a
variety of Inclosure hills.

Lord PORCHESTER moved the third reading
of the Wiltshire Canal Bill. An amendment was
moved to delay the third reading for a week,
on the gr,;.und that the interests of the coasting na-
vigatori had-not been duly considered, but the No.!
ble Lord stated that the Committee had duly eon-
sidered them. A division took place—
Ayes for the third reading instanter, 103—Noes
15—Majority 93.
_ .

The Bill was read the third time and passed.
THE CATHOLIC PETITION.

Mr. GitATTAN., in consequence of the absence ,Of
a Right Hon„, Friend (Mr. Ponsonby) postponed the
tnotion.for referring Ahe:Petition of the -Catholics of
Ireland to a Committee (which stood for to-morrow)
until Fridaymext.

. . .._ . . . .
Mr. 'WHARTON presented a variety of Payers re-
lating to the Island of Trinidad, which were laid on
the table. . ... . . . ..

The Exchequer Bills Bill and the Embezzle-
meat Bill were severally read a third time and
passed. •-
.

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.-,
Ms . ASTON presented a Petition :from. 'the East
India Convny, praying for public aid..
The SPEAKER asked. if the Petition came recot-ii-
mended by ..is .114ajesty ?, '
The CHANCELLOR of the Excimatraa answered
in the affirm, Live.

The Pe! i ;ion was then brought Up and read .by
the Clerk at the. table. It stated, in substarree, that
since the year 1793 the Company 'midi:wet .erTaged
in various.expensive naval and military-expedttions,
for the general interests of the British Empire. F; at
in 1805-and.lBoB their accounts relative r:I, rrto had
been delivered in. to Parliament a.id referred to
Committees--that at different t: n(,4 they had.re-
ceived for claims certain sums front the,Exchequer
in liquidation of those claims. but that ti‘e whole of
these. claims had nor been. finally atijtoted hat
many of the islands conquered by the arms of the
Company wereuow under the controul of Govern-
ment, and the expences incurred in eaeturing these
islands formed part of tip.t:r .!ernands-- hat as there
were balances in- their favour die from the Public,
they hoped the House would tAce iruw their con-
sideration, and refer the Petition to a Committee,
&c.

Thistbtition was agreed to in point of form, and
a Petition similar in point of fa& was brought up.
On the question. being put for its being rt ferred to
the Conittee appointed to inquire into the affairs
of the East India Company, and that they be
directed to: report their proceedings, with their
opinions—.

Mr.CREEVEY expressed his surprise that the Hon. -
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Grant) who usuatiy ,p7e-
sented petitions from the East India Company, had
not presented the petition. The pettiun, however,
he observed, stated that the public were indebted to
the Company for certain and various lediai expe-
ditions. - Now, he would shortly state how the case
stood in that resped. The accounts of the Com-
pany were referred to' a Committee, in 1805, and
that COmmittee made a report, in which they
tasted, that the Government were indebted to the
Company .2,300,00.01. Of that sum 2,000,0001.
was-accordingly paid to the Company, and of curse
there remained due 300,0001. In 1808, another
Committee was appointed to inquire into their •
claims, and to consider generally their- affairs.—
The report of the Committee of 11305 was referred
to that Committee, of which he (Mr. Crecy) was
a Member, and the latter Committee, professing
in their report to , abide by the decision of the
Committee of 1805 found that in addition to the,
balance of 300,0001. a further sum of _1,200,0001.
was due, and consequently the debt was swelled to
1,500,0001. which sum was also paid to them.
On that occasion, so well temembered, that his Hun.
Friend, the Member for Bedford, had asked if the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dundas) if
the accounts of the Company were closed, and if
this sum would constitute the whole of their de-
mands to that question, the Right lion. Gentleman
replied in the affirmative. It appeared, however,
now, that instead of the, fad being so, they have a
further demand of 1,900,0001. Should not the
Company, in fairness to the public, have said, when
they got the two millions, that they had further
demands; pot having done so, it seemed to him
a sort of desperate attempt for them to' come for-
ward now. No doubt that they thought it were
convenient tq get money uncle: the appropriation
ad rather than by bill, which would be open from
stage to stage to opposition, and consequently they
would be liable to be exposed. Four years had pas-
sed, and no exposition of the state of their affairs
had been before the Public. The Right Honoun!,
able Gentleman had not brought any India Budget,
and all that the House knew of them was from
the Journals. In Ibo 7 they had borrowed on
bonds -200,0001.; in IsoB, they were paid
1,500,0001. and last year they had stated that
their receipts were equal to their expences ; but
now on a sudden, they came forward with an old
claim, after the Public had reason to expel they had
settled with them. It was, in his opinion, either
equitable or just to open their Accounts again :
besides,, he believed the Company were divid-
ing on their profits a dividend of ten and a half
per cent._ '

Mr. C. GAANT maintained, that the Company,
.notv...ithstauding what the Hon. Gentleman had

. t
Stated; had a jut claiirj on ilt•e Gov'iintrient, which
their could not
.give up. All that they desired
vas justice and a fdir etainination into their
With' reSpeCl ,to the Settlement of 1805,
the Company hid always protested ag'iinst it; and
as to the payment of 1,500,0001. the Report which
was made on that subje6l ti's founded iria-cdni-
plete misrepresentation, for there was an admix=
it:re of old anJ hew atricles in that account, and
there was a large balance due then. As to, the di-
vidends, the Company had not shared. More than
they were warranted in doing fain] the boanner-
cial profits.

Lord A. HAIVILTON supported the statements
of the Honourable amiletnan, (Mt. Creevy);
on the ground that the -i:otiiPany were boUnd
to lay before the House an exposition of their

The CHANCELLOR oof the Eitcncouia denied
that the sanelibn of hiSMajeSty's Gov,erninent had
been given to the Closing of the accotnit. He did
not state that the Rims alluded to by'the Hon. Gen-
tleman constituted the whole of the CoMpany's
claims. It had been strongly stated to .him that
the Company had %Ili. g done them in that re-
sped, and therefore in nctioning this application,
'he did no more than in justice he was boutici to
do as between a public creditdr and the GovClll-
-

Mr. WHITBREAD obiervel, that it certainly had
appeared to him, at the period to which his Hon.
Friend referred, that a balance had been struck. It
now turned out from the statement of the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Grant) that they did, not consider
themselves as having been equitably or tairly dealt
by ; but if i-he Right Hon. -Gentleman, the Presi-
dent of the Board of Controul, and the Right Hrin.
Gentleman (Mr. Petceval) who were both in office
at that time, thought they had any further
he did not see- hOw they could make "Iu
the petition for the than of two millions, there was
no mention made by them of these cloitos: Why,
then; had they stept over them'? •Why hid they
nut urged thetn: to the Right Hot:oUrable Gentle
man ? It was highly disadvantaoeous to the Public
when the account re-Opened, die lialrice. having
been once sated. ,A Right Honeurable:Gentle-
man had said, the door of the Houst t-ught' to. be
opened wi.le petH.ners, the petition of to-dily
skewed that the doors were wide open, perhPi,s
too wide.

DUNDAS arlrbitted. this 4he.staternent of
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whil:•read) perieely
correct, with resp,,,(-.1 to the; account being closed.
He had 5,21'' that it vc's sO, as for the report of
the Dirtimii;.e. The Company in 'their Petition
protest again s• i)eing compelled to pay the exrences
:tat: Wands under the dominion' of his
11/la.te-tv's Govern:nem, for say they, " We are at
alP•the expence of .aking the Island~, such as Cey-7
ion. &e. and th, %-r,f rho.. , ydu; t.3e
Goi.er-Toent, tdke • !:. " that the
Co.npahy (.1,1 -
inent'ot

teo flo

1. ~ }

rtfuse to

hear 111:•:u, and desire that they will apply to the
House ; they therefore having just claims subseqUent
to the'report ofthe•Committee.of 1808, _make their
appeal, and surely the Hon. Gentleman would not
refuse to the Company what was not refused to an
individual. (me. Palimr) after a lapse of twenty
years ‘;‘• hose accoupts had bee 6 closed with the Rost
Office,

Tke Petition was then ordered to be referred to
the Committee on India Affairs,
MAIOR CARTWRIGHT's PETITION.

, Mr. Wmt-r7.ltrz:, icid in his hand
a Petitior, r,,i,:;,,r.Cacti.:iright on the subject
of powr priviege, which he was requested to
present to the House. He had read it, -!!:(1 found
nothing in it, in his opinion, otfensiv..l to
if he had he should havi. desired the Major to
corrected it. The Gentleman, he observed, had passed
a long and laborious life in inve,t:gating and studying
the funda:.iental principles of the Constitution. He
was a person of great integrity and character and was
entitled to respect on that account, whatever opi-
nions, politically speaking, other Gentlemen might
entertain of hitn. On this topic he had informed
him that he had applied to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite to present a Petition to the King, but
the Right Hon. Gentleman had refused, by alleging
that the Major had no right to be distinguished from
any other person. With many of the sentiments and
opinions in this Petition he. perfeoly agreed, others
he doubted, and from some tie.4ittered. Hilts Ma-
jesty's Governintmt should'thlnk the Major not en-
titled to consideration on the present occasion, he
must observe that the Admiralty thought differently,
for they had, at tht.lage of 70 and upwards,.conferred
on the Major the'rank of Master and Commander in
the Navy, for serviLes performed 50 years before,
when he had been a Lieutenant.

The Petition Nvas thco broiht up and read. It
generally referred to the necessity of Reform, and
contained the sentiments of the Major on the sub-
je.A, which have been over and over again before
the public tor the last 30 yean, complained of the
capture of Sir F. Burdett by an armed military force
'as contrary to the Constitution, &c.
Mr. WHITBROAD moved that the Petition do lie
on the table.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt him-
self compelled to oppose the iceeption of the Peti-
tion in consequence of the language in which it was
couched. He instanced two passages, the one in
which the Petition declared, that. the Ads of the
House " were past all endurance ;" the other, that
" of the iLegality 'of their proceedings there could
be no possible doubt ;''. he could not consent to the
reception of a, Petition containing such disiespetiful
expressions. Adverting to the length of the PL-ti-
tion, he observed, that if it were to become a prac-
tice to present to the House petitions of such' an
extent, they might soon have folios offered to them.
It was not on this ground, however, that he opposed
the reception of the pres,nt Petition, but for the
reasons "which he had thready stated.
Mr. WHITBREAD was sore that the person by
whom the Petition had beer, pUt into hip hands had
no intention to insult the House. If he might
guess from the demeanour of oat person, from the
conversation that he had with nim, and from tha
whole tenor of his political lite, te was persuaded
that he hal not the slightest intention to insult the
House ; but that, on the coi,trary, tt was his laudable
ambition to have his opinions on the present mo-
mentous crisis of public attTtirs recorded on their

satisfied that if A
on na e as
,f • or tO
r wri
bad atiticlpaQ the bbjeetioii w,tieli had Been
• to ionic of the expressions iri litS peti;Oit; he
have altered then) ; he nithi
not then have accommodated himself to th'e hew
fingled doetrines of the Right liouoiirdble Gentle
man, who now added to his former reasons for riot
receicing the. petitions bf the people the leigth td
which and the number of grievances Olaf it had no-
fottutimely beebnit necessary to entimerat tin;
avoidably extended them. What were the expresa
sioris obj,..Cled to by the Right Honourable Gen.:.,
T tleman? Tile first was ".that the atis of the gonse
_were past all -endurance." .for hims.elf he could
see nothing offensive in this plunge. Suppose
House of Commons composed of less virtuous indi.
vidualS than those by whom he wag then surroundedi
Was it not possible that they might commit ads "
yond all endurance ;" and in that Case would it not
be much better before violence was resorted to by
the people, that they should approach the House
by petition ? Was it surprisifig that such an exprei dolt'
should follow therecolleelion of that. moss disgust..
in g and disastrous vote of the last SeSsion, which
had produced a digSatisfaCtion so general, that if not
promptly remedied, it might go on in a way that
would not be controoled so easily as by a redress of
grievances. -A person on the rack Might exclaim
that his sufferings- were " past all endurance" 'behast
the moment of his.death ; so with the Constitution ;
that might be stated by the people to be " past all
endurance," under a repetition of which the Consti
tution would expire. The term was one.of common
phraseology. It had
.been used ten thousand times
in 'that House during the last few years, in com-
plaining of the .expression which the oppressive
mode in which the assessed and other taxes were
collCaed' had occasioned— It ,was evident. that, it
could only be. figurative, for .not-only- had .1 he at'is
alluded to been 'endured; but others of a nature
equaily to be reprobated: The second: expression
objeeled to by the Right- Hon. Gentleman was the
opinion *of t yf the proceedings of the.
Htiuse of Cot-anions" on a late occasion. weeet not
enough th it the I'letise. entrenched the:rise:vex
vileges which!they weuld not allow a Celert le eues-
tio'h, ond. xespeaing which they would inot
.permit
the Crown to interlere; but that they. must aiso be
offended. atet hepeoplee,for expressitig_a doubt oti the
subject. .' He hirns.elfo had no question ot the leg«
lity ofthe Spefdeer's.Weirant, but he eoted. eeebe
persuaded that.it Wai so 1.--.11-06wertul eL:eit
not -• be questio;,ed by any' individual, ar
body but that winch issued it. The Eloesc of ‘..;ein-
mous had decided. that .:the Speaker eect tee !.)e.
should plead' on that question.- It was one v.oecie
must soon ne brought before a Court. of Law, whir ti
it was presuMedthat the decision would be in ene
way ; but if it should so happen that it were
.to be
decided hi another, then not only M .:Jor Cate•
wright, but e.er,' bo.iy else would be juft,ficd
-sertiog its tilegal:ty. Wli.en there we'c .so many
well-known and high legal opinions. against the
legality of the proceeding, ' it was too much for the
Right Honourable Gen: ienian to say :that. a petition
ought not to be received -because it .questioned its
legality: • •

TOO CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in expla-
nation observed, that he did not object to the reeept
tion of the petition, because it questioned the :;:p-
-lity of the proceedings of the House, but becauso it
stated, " of the illegality of their proceedings thrre
could not be any doubt."

Mr : WHITBREAD replied, that that was merely
" in the o:it-lion of the petitioner."
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER tnainiain•
ed that it was a positive and unqualified assertion.
Mr. BRAND contended, !hid as a subject of 'the
realm, the Petitioner was entitled to express an opi,
pion on.the legality or illegality of the proceedings
of the House,: pending the consideratich of thoSe
prOceedings itija Court of Law. He theretbre gap•
roiled the motion.

'Mr. Secretary' RYDER opposed the reception of
the Petition. If the House entertained petitions con- '
raining such .otfensive expressions, they would.de..
se! ve to be insulted.

:A division then took

For the motion . . • . . 21
Against it
Majority . . .
GLAMORGANSIIIRE COLLIERIES.
Mr. H. SMITH called the attention of the tiouse
to the Petition respeding the Glamorganshire Coln.
cries, and after a very able and detailed statement on
the subjeil, moved to refer the Petition to a Select
Committee, to examine the same, and to report to
the House their opinion thereon.
A long discussion ensued, in which Lord C. So.
merset, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Jacob, Mr. D. Giddy,
Mr. Bathtirst, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Adam partici.
poted.
On a division, the numbers were
For the Committee • • •74
Against it ... 6o
Mr. BLACHFORD obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to aluend the Aet .permitting the Retailing of Small
Beer without Licenses.