The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

The SPEAKER took the Chair precisely at Four
o'clock.

Several Private Bills were forwarded a stage.
Mr. DICKENSON presented a petition from the
Woollen Manufacturers of Somersetshire,,praying
for a Repeal of the Laws affecting the Free Trade
with India; and also a petition from the parish of
St. Michael's, Bath, praying for a Repeal of the
Window Tax.

Lord WILLIAM POWLETT presented a pe-
tition from the Ship-owners of Durham, in favour
of a free trade to the East Indies.

Mr. F. WILSON presented a petition from the
inhabitants of High and Low Harrowgate, praying
for a Repeal of the Window Tax.

Mr. itOWLAND HILL presented a petition
from the county of Salop against the reduction of
the Militia.

Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT presented a
petition from St. Albans, against the reduction of
duty on Foreign Thrown Silk.
Mr. DOWNIE presented a petition from the
Magistrates of Aberdeen, against the Bill now in
progress for the enlargement of gaols in Scotland.
Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition from Bir-
mingliam against the Able Bodied Labourers' Bill.
Mr. SLANEY moved for the amount collected
in every parish in England and Wales, for the sup-
port of the poor since the year 1819.—Ordered.
Mr. ROBINSON presented several petitions
from Silk Manufacturers in Berkshire and Somer-
set, against the reduction of the Duty on Foreign
Thrown Silks.

Mr. W. WHITMORE postponed a motion re-
specting the East India Company for a fortnight.

CLAIMS OF MR. SIMCOX.

Mr. LITTLETON rose to present a petition from
Mr. Simcox, respecting the rate of interest allowed
on Commercial Claims by the Commissioners for
Liquidating the Claims of British subjects on the
French Government. The petitioner complained of
the amount of interest awarded by the Commis-
sioners on his Claims, and of their having induced
him to abstain from prosecuting his appeal before
the Privy Council, on the assurance, that whenever
the case of Boyd's claims should be decided, if 5 per
cent. interest should be allowed upon them, that the
same rate of interest would be awarded on all claims
of a similar class, under which the petitioner's claim
was included. He (Mr. Littleton) had given notice
of his intention to present this petition, as it involved
a question of considerable importance, both as re-
garded the conduct of the Commissioners, and a
great number of claimants of the same class, and
who were placed in the same situation with Mr.
Simcox. A convention was agreed to in 1818 be-
tween this country and France, in consequence of
which a mixed commission was appointed, for the
purpose of liquidating the claims of British sub-
jects upon the French Government. The first
four articles of that conventions referred to the
liquidation of claims arising out of the loss of
funded property ; the sth and Gth Articles referred
to claims arising out of landed aisd moveable property ;
and upon all the claims to which these articles referred, an
'interest of 2 per cent. was to be allowed. The 7th article
especially provided, that all claims arising out of the loss
of property, not included under the six preceding articles,
should, when allowed, have an interest of 5 per cent.
awarded upon them; and it particularly mentioned com-
mercial property as coming under that head. The com-
mission sat at Paris for two or three years, a great number
of claims were liquidated in that period, but amongst them
only one which arose out of the loss of commercial pro-
perty, and upon that claim an interest of 5 per cent. was
awarded. The British Government then consented to
accept a certain sum from the French Government, and
with it to liquidate all the remaining claims. The Com-
missioners they transferred their labours to London. The
petitioner and the class of claimants to which he belonged,
did not mean to impugn the honourable conduct of the
Commissioners, but they conceived that tke decision of
the Commissioners with respect to the rate of interest to
be allowed on their claims would be productive of injustice
towards them. The seventh Article of the Convention ex-
pressly provided, that upon all balances of money and
mortgages claimed from the French Government, a rate
of 5 per cent. should be awarded. Upon the class of
claims under which the petitioner's came, the Commis••
sioners thought fit only to award three per cent. inte-
rest. Now, looking to the articles of the Convention, and
its provisions, he was of opinion that the petitioner's
claim respected property which came under the 7th
Article, and upon which, consequently, five per cent.
should be awarded. The most important part
of the case to which he had already alluded, and which he
was prepared to prove, was that which related to the pro-
mise given to Mr. Simcox, that if, in the case of Mr. Boyd
a certain allowance was made, the same should be extended
to his claim. On the strength of that promise, Mr. Sim-
cox had withdrawn his appeal. It appeared that the case
of Mr. Boyd, which came before the Privy Council, and
which was adjudicated by that body, was decidedly similar
to that of Mr. Simcox, which was the subject of the pre-
sent petition. Mr. Simcox, after the adjudication of Mr.
130yd's case, applied to the Commissioners, who had
balance of 500,060/. in their hands, for interest, at the
rate of, five per cent. He did so, relying on the promise
previously given to him by the Commissioners, ;and the
House might easily conceive what his surprise was, when,

after repeated statements and appreat;ons being made to the
Commissioners, he was informed by them that they had no
recollection whatever of having ever made any such pro-
miss ; and they at last paid over the balance of money held
by them to the Treasury, without liquidating this demand.
Ile should nosy briefly advert to the pr.ticipal objections likely
to be a2ain•t tbe petitioner's (-lain). In the first place,
it , mild be all• god that the Cnnatis Milers did not recollect
giving to Mr. Siincox the promise he relied on ; but that
such a promise had been made was clearly borne out by
the statement contained in the petition, where it was posi-
tively set forth, that in M irch, 1821, Mr. Coning-
wood, one of the Commissioners, told the petitioner that
if, in the case of Mr. Boyd, or of any other claimant,
more than 31- per cent, interest was allowed, he should re-
ceive the same. The petitioner declared that on another
occasion, a distinct recognition of the promise was made :
and he observed, that his memory was the more accurate
on that point, becouse immediately after leaving the office,
he committed the chief points of the conversation to
paper. Confiding in that promise, be, on the 4th of June,
1821, which was just before the period of three months
allowed for entering an appeal had expired, the petitioner
addressed a letter to the Commissioners, calling to their
recollection the conversations which had previously taken
place, and the assurance then given that if any claimant
received more than 3]t per cent. he should receive the
same. Now it was perfectly evident from the answer to
the letter, dated the sth June, 1821, that the recollection
of the conversations with Mr. Simcox was fresh in the
memory of the Commissioners. He therefore knew not
how they could turn round and say, that they had no re-
membrance of such a promise. The Hon: Member then
proceeded to point out several cases similar to that of Mr.
Simcox, beginning with one which occurred in 1788,
where claims on the French Government bad been paid
with an interest of 5 per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, no
man was disposed to pay more deference to the opinion of
the Hon. Gentleman than he was; but he could not agree
with him that the course now taken was a proper mode of
proceeding with respect to questions of this nature. With
respect to the promise alleged to have been made by the
Commissioners, he had taken the earliest opportunity of
consulting one of the gentlemen who was said to have
made that promise. Mr. Collingwood was out of town,
and he could not, of course, apply personally to him ; but
in the letter written in June, and to which allusion had
been, there was a paragraph, in Mr. Cellingwood's own
handwriting, denying having given any such promise,
which declaration was just as good as if he had received
the communication personally from that gentleman ; and
it was remarkable, that in the petition that paragraph was
omitted. la his opinion, the Commissioners, had acted,
in this case, with great imprudence. They should not
have acted under the influence of kind or favourable feel-
ing; but when applied to for their advice, they ought to
have answered—" Gentlemen, it is for you to decide
whether you will appeal or not." Looking to the whole
of the case, he could not consent to any interference with
the decision which had been come to, because it would,
in his opinion, establish a precedent of a very dangerous
nature.

Mr. K. DOUGLAS was of opinion, as the Right Hon.
Gentleman had not contradicted the fact, that the case of
Mr. Boyd and that of Mr. Siincox were nearly alike; and
as it was admitted that the balance had been paid over to
the Treasury by the Commissioners, that the question
ought to be reviewed by the Treasury, in order that justice
should be done to the petitioner.
Mr. BERNAL hoped that a Committee would be al-
lowed.

Mr. P. THOMPSON said that the petitioner having
no other Court to apply to, naturally looked to the House
of Commons for relief.

Mr. R. GRANT hoped his Right Hon. Friend (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer), would re-consider this
case, since the interests of so many persons were involved
in it. His Right Hon. Frienti grounded his opposition
upon these points:—That the House ought not to take a
case under their consideration, after it had been finally ad-
judicated ;—that the petitioner had the full opportunity of
appeal, and that he neglected that opportunity;--and
lastly, that the House ought not to be guided by private
conversations of the Commissioners, but by their adjudica-
tion as it appeared in their award. Now it should be re-
collected that a sense of justice bad already induced the
House to interfere in cases like the present. In 1819,
Lord Castlereagh said, that if any surplus remained, the
cases of those who had not prosecuted their claims within
the legal period should be attended to; but all those cases
must be considered as out of Court, if this case was to
be so considered oa the ground of his Right Hon.
Friend. As to the argument that they were not to be
bound by private conversation of the Commissioners, but
by the award of the Commissioners, he begged to re-
mind his Right lion. Friend that in legal proceedings an
open understanding in Court was perfectly binding, and
that conversations were frequently necessary for the ar-
rangement of business. The petitioner and others swear
to a certain understanding,--and two only of the Commis-
sioners declare that they have no recollection of such un-
derstanding. It might be that the Commissioners, who
had so many cases before them, did not recollect it ; but
it was very unlikely that the parties, who were so deeply
interested in the matter, should forget it. This however
was not the question, but the fact they were to consider
was this,—that the petitioners had been led into a firm
belief of this understanding. Was it just, then, to deny
them • a rehearing? In conclusion, he would only add,
that as the inexperience of the Commissioners bad been
admitted, and as, whatever might be the real facts of the
case, it was perfectly clear that there was something un-
usual mixed up with it, he thought it incumbent upon
Government to give the case all the attention they could
bestow upon it.
Mr. BARING admitted that the case was an extremely
hard one, and should be glad to see the mode of extending
relief to the petitioner. At the same time, he thought
that the case could come before 'no more improper tribu-
nal than a Committee of that House.

Mr. C. PELHAM (as we understood) said the case
was; extremely hard, and hoped the Committee would be
allowed.

Mr. LITTLETON had no wish to press a motion for
a Committee, though he certainly could nut reconcile it to
his sense of justice to the petitioner's claim to let the case
rest here. Would his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, himself nominate a Committee to son-
sider the propriety of passing a short Act to allow the
petitioner to go before the Privy Council?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be
extremely reluctant to nominate any such Committee.
The claims were so numerous, and of so many classes, that
they had occupied the greater part of his time; and he
could not nominate such a Committee without leaving it
to them to decide, in fact, the question whether this claim
was better than any of the rest.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS said, that the Committee would
not have to try that question.
Mr. R. GRANT said that his Right Hon. Friend
seemed to misunderstand the question. The only practical
question would be, whether the petitioner, having let the
opportunity of appealing escape him, should be allowed to
retrieve it. He must strongly submit, that a renewed
Commission for three or four months would be a very pro-
per and desirable means of determining this question.
Mr. LITTLETON, in moving that the petition be
printed, said, that although he made no motion on it then,
he did not allow the case to rest there.

The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME presented two petitions from friendly so-
cieties against the Friendly Societies' Bill.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD presented a petition from the
corporation of Leith, praying the House to allow the Hat,.
bour of Leith to be one of the ports at which foreign silk
might be admitted. He stated that the petitioners over.
rated the value of the imports at the Leith Harbour,
which had amounted during the last year to five ounces
of velvet, and 341. worth of other silks.—Laid on the
table.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Rye, in Sussex, complaining that the repre-
sentation of that borough was in the hands of one family,
and praying that measures might be adopted to correct the
evil.—Laid on the table.

The same Noble Lord also presented a petition from the
members of a benefit society meeting in the neighbour-
hood of Carnaby-market, against certain clauses in the
Friendly Societies' Bill.

On the motion of Mr. Poantax, the Friendly Socie-
ties' Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn-
mitted on Wednesday next.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH posponed hii motion on the
subject of Mr. O'Reilly's petition till to-morrow. It was
tlAen his intention to move that a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the cases of Mr. O'Reilly and others
who suffered by the insolvency of the Registrar of the
Court at Madras.
SILK-TRADE BILL.
_ _

Mr. V. FITZGERALD moved that the report on the
Silk-trade Bill be brought up.
Mr. FYLER could not allow the Bill to pass the pre-
sent stage without protesting against its injustice.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD could inform the Hon. Gent.
that a proposition was now under the consideration of the
Board of Trade, as to the propriety of destroying seized
goods. If the proposition should be judged a proper one,
he should have no hesitation in calling upon the House to

244 a clause for that purpose to the Bill. He would.
hots ever, give no pledge on the subject.
After some observations from Mr. V. FITZGERALD and
Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN, the Report was received, and
the third reading was fixed for Thursday next.
INTERFERENCE OF THE BENGAL GOVERN-
MENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF JUS-
TICE.
Mr. PEEL moved the second reading of the Justice of
Peace Bill.

Mr. BROUGHAM would take the present opportunity
of putting a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site. He had seen with a great deal of corn:era and some
S'll'lW:Se an account of certain proceedings with respect to
the judicial operation of the Court of Justice in Bombay.
lie alluded to the interference of the Governor with the
proceeding, of that Court, and it certainly appeared to hint
wholly impossilde that Parliament should let pass the
earliest opportunity of obtaining an explanation of that
most extraordinary proceeding. The interference of the
political and military government of the country with the
solemn decision of a court of judicature was of itself a
sufficient reason for calling for explanation. He should
purposely abstain from entering into the merits of this
question. He-would indeed assume that the court of jus-
tice might have come tera wrong decisii n—he would as-
sume the possibility of the decision of the court being
founded in right. The court supposed that its jurisdiction
over native subjects extended beyond the territory in which
it was situated, and acted upon that supposition. There-
upon the court received a communication from the Go-
vernment in terms sufficiently respectful, but undoubtedly
in substance directly interfering with the jurisdiction of
the court of justice. The communication notified to
Cie court that steps had been taken by the Govern-
ment to prevent their decision being put into effect,
and warning the court how they proceeded further in
such a course. The communication stated that the
Government had transmitted their view of the case
to the authorities in England, and suggested to the
Court that they might do the same. As he had said be-
fore, the Court might be wrong in their opinion,—but
supposing that to be the case, the course adapted was not
the proper way of correcting the emirs of the Court.—
He by no means meant to east blame on any body with-
out inquiry; all he maintained was, that it was itnpoe.ilde
for Parliament to let slip the earliest opportunity after the
publicity given to this strange proceeding Ole svottlit say
unprecedented proceeding), did he not remember that a
case very analogous to it occurred during a very bad
time,—he meant during the most turbulent period of the
Murquis of Hastings's Government, when three memhees
of the Council were in possession of the government of ;he
country, in consequence of being in the majority, and the
Governor-General was in the minority—he repeated that
it was impossible for Parliament to let pass the earliest op.
p. rtunity without calling for an explanation of the affair.
Mr. PEEL stated, that the transactions alluded to by
the Hon. and Learned Member had been put in a coot s,o
of inquiry, but what the result of that inquiry was he
was not yet aware. The affair being one of considerable
delicacy, he was unwilling to pronounce any positive opi -
nion on it without referring to the papers connected with
the subject. _ _

After a few words from Mr. 13aotreliam and Sir .1.
MACKINTOSH, the Justice of the Peace Bill Was then rea4
a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday,
the 11th of May.