The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-11 00:00:00

CUSTOMS ACTS.

On the motion that the House do go into Committee on the
Customs Acts,
Mr. H Ui said he wished to call the attention of the Right
Hon. Baronet to the votes which the House came to last night
in his absence, relative to the duty on cotton and wool, which
were both raw materials. It appeared to him (Mr. Hume)
that those votes were directly against the principles of the Right
Hon. Earonet, and he wished before the Bill passed, that the
House would consider well what must result from the injury
to manufacturers occasioned by such proceedings as this.
Sir R. PEEL, who spoke in a very low tone of voice, was
understood to say, that he was aware of the determination
which the House came to last night ; but, as he had been
obliged to resort to the Income-tax to raise the revenue, he
could not now afford to lose 800,000/,, which was the sum pro-
duced by the duty upon cotton and wool.
The House then resolved itself into Committee, Mr. GREENS
in the chair.
Clause 13 consisting of glass, earthenware, and porcelain was
agreed to without discussion.
Clause 14, consisting of silk and manufactures was then pro.
posed, and the items up to " Thrown silk not dyed," were
agreed to without opposition. On " Thrown silk not dyed,"
being proposed.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH rose to oppose the proposed reduction
of the duty, for which he could see no plausible pretext; on the
contrary. he was of opinion, that if the proposed reduction
were carri d out a great loss would Jcerue to that branch of
the silk manufacturers without the slightest benefit to the
poorer or labouring classes. Under these circumstances he
should oppose the proposed reduction in the duty.. and le it.
place would propose that the present duty should be retained—
( Hear hear)—and he did so, because the present protection
did not excred 5 ler cent. He hoped the Right lion. Baronet

it would be improper to interfere with the negotiation on this
head which had been entered into, and he should vote for the
pi oposition of the Hight Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HUME would advise his Hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring)
not to press his motion to a division. He thought it would be
best to leave the matter in the hands of the Government to
make all arrangements they could.
Dr. BOWRING sail, as he did not wish to occupy the time
of the House, he should not press his motion.
Mr. NV ILLI A MS, who rose amid cries of " Withdrawn," " Oh,
oh," was of opinion that if the duty upon those articles were
reduced as proposed by the Hon. Gentleman near him, the
silk manufacturers of England would be ruined, and the
market would be removed from England to France or Ger-
many. He thought it right to make these observa ions on
behalf of his constituents, and he must add that on this point
he had every confidence in her Majesty Government.
Lord HOWICK thought that the House ought to rely upon
the negotiation at present going on between this country and
France, but if that negotiation were not brought to a speedy
conclusion, he was of minion that we ought to legislate with a
view to our own interests.
'I he Government proposition was then agreed to.
On the item, millinery of silk, being put,
Mr. MANGLES proposed that the India manufacture
should be placed in on a level with the British.
Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the House would bear in mind,
in discussing these individual cases, the extreme difficulty
which there was in making such alteration as would not inju-
riously affect existing interests. The reduction proposed in this
case was a reduction from 20 to 5 per cent. If he wished to
state why he proposed to make this particular reduction, he
would perhaps find it difficult to give a satisfactory answer;
what they bad attempted to do was to make such reductions as
should confer general benefit without inflicting injury to parti-
cular interests. He therefore hoped the Hon. Gentleman would
not take the sense of the House upon it.
After a few words from Mr. BROCKLEHURST, the
item was agreed to.
On the duty upon dresses being proposed,
Mr. HUME said if the duty were reduced to 25 per cent.,
it would give them a desire to dress better.—( Laughter. )
The other items under the head of silk were then agreed to.
The Committee were abOut to proceed to the next schedule,
that of cords, when
Mr. BROTHERTON said that at the present late hour it
would not be desirable to go into a new schedule.
Mr. MITCHELL, who had a motion on the subject, said
that he could not do justice to the subject of which he had given
notice at that late hour.
After a few obsrrvations from Mr. MITCHELL,
Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the Chairman's reporting
progress, upon the understanding, that the House should com-
mence public business on Monday at half-past four o'clock.
The suggestion being agreed to, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.
The Double Costs Bill went through Committee, and was
ordered to be reported on Monday.
The second reading of the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
postponed to Tuesday.
The Sugar Duties Bill went through Committee.
The Slave Trade Suppression Bill, the Slave Trade Abolition
Bill, and the Slave Trade Treaties Bill, were severally read a
third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. REDING TON, it was ordered that
no new writ should be issued fur the borough of Sudbury till
the 9th of July.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a Bill
fur the better regulating the number of prisoners admitted to
the general prison at Perth.
In answer to a question from Mr. YORKE,
Sir J. GRAHAM said if the discussion of the tariff went
beyond Monday, and took precedence of other bu,idess on
Tuesday, he should move the second reading of the Poor-law
Continuance Bill on Friday.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—The country seems to be universally alive
to the fact, that election-bribery exists to an extent
which was scarcely contemplated; and the House of
Commons teems at length disposed to apply some
effectual check to the degrading and demoralizing prac-
tice, which is sapping the foundations of public virtue,
and jeopardizing the Constitution, by bringing into con-
tempt the representative branch of the Legislature. If
the source of law be deemed corrupt, its streams will
partake of the corruption ; and the people will find an
excuse, if not a justification, for evading, or openly vio-
lating, the acts of Parliann,nt, in the illegality of the
mode by which a large proportion of the Members of the
House of Commons obtained their seats in the Legisla-
ture. If the Bill introduced by Lord John Russell do not
accomplish all that could be desired in the way of pre-
vention, it will certainly render the perpetration of
bribery more difficult, by including specifically, within
the legal definition of the crime, these various ingenious
devices for evading the consequences of making direct
payments for votes, with which all who have been ad-
mitted within the walls of a "private" committee-rot tin
at an election, are familiar. This more dear and com-
prehensive definition of bribery will, doubtless, render
the commission of the crime more difficult, and its proof,
14y evidence before the tribunals, whether Parliamentary
Committees, or the regularly constituted courts of the
country, more easy of attainment. In the speech
with which Lord J. Russell introduced the Bill,
his Lordship made a distinct allusion to the old free,
and those other classes of voters, in corporate towns,
whose rights were reserved by the Reform Bill.
Amongst these the agents of bribery have generally
found ready recipients of the bribes they were employed
to proffer. The discoveries which have been recently
made of the extent-of corrupt agencies upon these classes
of voters; the general disgust—strongly acting upon the
House of Commons—which has been provoked in the
public mind; and the numerous measures which have
recently been proposed in Parliament for the future pi e-
vention of bribery—seem to indicate the arrival of a
crisis, which might be improved, for cleansing the con-
stituencies of these dregs of corruption, which the sup-
porters of the old system were allowed to preserve by the
Reform Bill, and which have been communicating their
pollutions to other classes of the electors with which they
were associated.

STANDARD.—The decision in the cases of the
Waterford and Athlone petitions illustrates too forcibly
the defective state of the present law of elections, to
allow that it be passed over in silence—we call it one-
decision, because, though there were two several peti-
tions from different paces, tried before distinct Com-
mittees, the points decided in both eases are the same.
The points decided appear to be these, namely—First,
that a returning officer may not reject it vote how
fraudulent so ever he may know it to be, if it be ten-
dered in legal form. Secondly, that a Committee may
not inquire into the validity of a vote once offered, though
not recorded, except the vote be specially inipeached in
a petition. From these two propositions it seems neces-
sarily to follow that a sitting Member has no security'
whatever for his seat, if any sufficient number of fradu-
lent votes have been tendered at the poll for his compe-
titor. The. returning officer must, according to the first
rule laid dcwn, receive them as good votes ; or, if he
decline to do so, a Committee of the House of Commons
must, according to the second rule, place them on the poll,
without entertaining any question of their validity. Thus
the most grossly fabricated votes for a petitioner, are really
subject to no question, either at the hustings or by a
Committee. It may be said that the votes which have
placed the Waterford and Athlone petitioners in Par-
liament are not fraudulent votes—the suggestion would
be untrue ; but were it true, it is nothing to the pur•
pose ; for the rule laid down by the Committees would
protect the most fraudulent. That rule, as e have seen,
is, that a Committee tf the House of Commons cannot
inquire into their validity. Now, the effect of this rule
must be, to place tile representation absolutely in the
hands of the revising barristers. It may be proper to
limit the returning officer to the discharge of merely mi-
nisterial as distinguished from judicial functions; but
surely a judicial authority ought to exist somewhere, and
it can exist nowhere so properly as in the Committees Or
the House of Commons. The decisions of which we com-
plain were doubtless legally correct, but it is impossible
not to see that they tire extremely rigid, and calculated
by their rigs or to cause a failure of ustice. The Com-
mittee, it is ruled, can try only the case submitted to
them by the petitionerS; bk. thia is a restrictio whiCh
would be found intolerable in any ether department of
the administration of thelay,'o

IN RE STA NDFORI).
The bankrupt, an architect and dealer in pictures of 49,
Pall-mall, was yesterday before the Gaul fur choice of assig-
nees, when he was examined at considerable length, as was the
petitioning creditor to the fiat, as to the bone fides of his debt,
when statements of so extraordinary a nature were made as
induced the Learned Commissioner to require further evidence
before admitting the petitioning creditor's (Mr. A/aynard's)
debt, and
To-day the bankrupt was again examined by Mr. Thomas,
as to the circumstancea att wring an alleged mortgage of his
property in Pall-mall, which the creditors had every reason to
believe wa, alt a made-up story
The substance of the evidence is as follows :—The mortgagee
has all the agreement,. and the sum of 8001., which I reeeised,
was paid to a person named Hannan. and the further sum • of
9601. was paid to the ground landlord. I disposed of my equity
of redemption to Mr. John Davis, of Regent-street. I sold it
to him for a general" sum of 1,0001., in the month of April or
May. 1838, having hail several sums from him in 1837 and
1838, to the amount ot 5001. or 6001.
Have you any books or papers to show that any such trans-
actions as you nips speak ot ever occurred ?—No, I have not.
I may have had a copy of the agreement, but it has been taken
from me.
What attorney made out the agreement you refer to, and
give us his name ?—I do not know what attorney made out the
agreement, as Mr. Davis got it done himself. I gave no in-
structions to have it done, but I certainly made the assignment
in Pall-mall. Mr. Fuller, Mr. Davis, my wife and myself,
were all present at the time, but I believe that my father-in-law
, (Mr. Patten) was not then present.
Where may this Mr. Davis live now ?—I do not know, al-
though I have frequently seen him since the execution of the
deed. Ido not know who hoteiht the stamp, but certainly I
I did not pay fir it. Ido not remember how this agreement
was given to me, but I have been charged by my attorney
(Mr. Pollock) for drawing the deed. I received 4901, and
Mr. Fuller saw me receive the money, and I positively swear
that it was not my father-in-law who paid that sum to me. I
have nit received the rent of the premises in Pall-mall, but my
father-in.law did under a power of attorney from Davis.
• When was this power of attorney prelated ?-1 should say
about a month after the assignment. I cane ot say where it
now is. It was brought to me to the Fleet prison. Ido not
know by whom, nor what has since become ot it.
By Air. Thomas—l now come to ask you a plain but very
important question : Did you forge the name of Fuller to the
deed ?
Mr. Commissioner EVANS —Let the bankrupt withdraw.
And this being done, his Honour said, this is a very ticklish
point; in bankruptcy, the usual practice is to compel a bank-
rupt to answer every question put to him as to the disposition
of his property ; but I do not think that 1 can ask him so far
to criminate himself as an affirmative answer to your question
would undoubtedly do. [The bankrupt was here recalled, and
the Learned Commissioner proceeded to say]: It you be an
honest man you can have no fear and no hesitation in answer-
ing the quest i.,n, and if you refuse to do so, it will just be next
door to your admission of fraud ; but you may answer or not
as you please.
fhe Bankrupt—Then, I did not, Sir, forge the name of Fuller.
Mr. Thomas—Nor that of Davis? —Nor that of Davis ; but
I paid for the registering of the deed, because Davis told me
"to pay all disbursements." I instructed a Mr. Starke to pre.
pare an assignment for a dividend which was due to me under
the estate of Calvert, and to which I was entitled. My father-
in-law has it, but he never sent me in any account.
Mr. Commissioner Eva Ns—What is the use of your swear-
in, in this reeklees taanner, and saying that you had nothing
to do with it, when in your letter-book are copies of crowds of
letters, since 1841 when the assignment was made, showing
that you were the only person who had anything to di) with
it ; and here, again, I find another letter, in which Patten
states that he will pay certain debts, out of the moneys which
he has belonging to you (the ba,,krupt). However, I think
there is no use in wasting time or nape: in taking eiown any-
thing more of so extraordinary an exatninat on, as it is quite
clear that the creditors must get the while of this property
back. It will be much better for you, bankrupt, to tell the
truth
The Bankrupt-11y housekeeper, Sir, can testify to the ex-
istence of tlr. Davis.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS—What I do you mean to tell me
that you have known a man for twenty years, and now know
nothing of his residence, his eccupation, or his friends? I
cannot believe such a story. However, after all the, extraor-
dinary statements which we have heard, we must dispose of the
petitioning creditor's debt bef re we proceed further, and see if
there be a bona fide fiat, or no fiat.
Several c: editors said that they would take care that there
was a good fiat, and the further hearing was adjourned.