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

TnE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING. JUNE ii, 1842.

its 4 I.IM tatise, and it was expressly stated that to compromise
had taken place to avoid the inquiry into bribery, then the con
sideration was ill health, and he (Slr R. Peel) could under stand
it. But his Hon. Friend said, at the same time, that hereferr, d
to that consideration of ill-health, yet he did not attach im-
portance to it, and he did not say that was the casef then he
(Sir R. Peel) put that consideration altogether out of the
question. An Hon. Gentleman said that there was conclusive
pront, as he understood him, that either a bond hail been given
or a sum of money advanced for the purpose of ensuring the
return of another candidate for Nottingham, of (pinions oppo-
site to the opinions of the sitting M tuber. The House then
appointed a Committee to inquire. The question then arose that
the writhe issued, andunder these circumstances he ( Sir R. Peel )
thought the writ ought not to be issued, because if the sum of
4,0001. or 5,0061. had been advanced to return a Member of op-
posite opinions, and opposite to the majority of the constituents,
he thought the circumstances ought to be inquired into. Hs.
thought the rights of the constituents themselves were not
prejudiced by the inquiry, or by the suspension of the writ, as
the sitting Member immediately on being declared duly elected
relinquished his seat, and made application for the Chiltern
Hundreds. Coupled with this was the allegation that a sum of
money had been advanced for the purpose of procuring the re-
turn of a gentleman of different sentiments. He therefore
thought inquiry should be had. He should vote accordingly.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD considered that the House
had no just cause for the further suspension of the writ for the
election for Nottingham. He admitted that inquiry was neces-
sary, but no progress had yet been made in it, and he saw no
reason for keeping the rights of the electors of Nottingham in
abeyance, pending that inquiry. The issue of the writ, how-
ever, would not prevent inquiry ; if he imagined that the issue
of the writ would prevent inquiry, he would not vote for it ;
but he felt satisfied that no such effect would follow.

Mr. C. WYNN said, that it wasperfectly in order for any
Hon. Member to bring forward any motion, without giving
previous notice. If an Hon. Member chose to get up in his
place, and, without having given any previous notice, to move
for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Union, there
would be nothing irregular in his so doing. The present case
stood in precisely the same position as when it was last brought
before the House, and there could be no difficulty in inducing
the House to adhere to its former decision. _ _ _

Captain ROLL ESTON, as one of the electors of the borough,
felt it was due to himself, and those whom he knew to be inca-
pable of conduct such as that described by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, to express a hope that the Hon. Gentle.
man had not brought forward his motion without sufficient
grounds. It had been asserted that, at the two last elections,
no less than 4,000 electors of the town of Nottingham had re-
ceived bribes. He believed that that statement was correct.—

(Hear, hear.) In the position which he occupied, however,
he would not feel justified in voting either one way or the
other.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS wished to explain, with resrect to what
had fallen from his hight Hon. Friend ( Sir R. Peel) that he
did not attribute the conduct of his Hon. Friend, Sir G. Lar-
pent, to ill-health; but what he desired to state was, that his
health had been such for five weeks before, and also since the

droceeding of that House with respect to the Nottingham
election petition, that he could not have attended in his p ace
to meet the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman:
tie thought the argument of his Right Hon. Friend referred
much more to the case of the candidate than to that of the
petitioners, who stated that they were no parties to the con-
tract.—( Hear, hear.) . The Hon. and Learned Member tor
lath said that he was no party to the proceedings wfth respect
io Nottingham. He did not indeed kill the dog, but he hail
drst raised the cry against him.—(Laughter.) The Hon. and
Learned Member had addressed the whole of that side of the
House in language which he ( Sir R. Inglis) ventured to say
the conduct of some of them at least did not entitle him to ss-,
and he was sure his Right Hon. Friend, the leader of her
Majesty's Government, would be the first to disown the power
.vbich the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had been
pleased to attribute to him.—( Hear, hear.) He begged leave
in tell the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath that there
.v ere many in that House as little disosed to call his Right
lion. Friend (Sir R. Peel) their master as he himself was.—
(Hear, hear.) No man had a keener sense of the transcendant
:nerits of his Right Hon. Friend than he had, but he begged
Lo say that he did not call him or any other person in that
Rouse his master.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )
Sir R. PEEL said that he had stated he thought that was a
very peculiar case. An allegation was made that a gentleman
.:greeing with a majority of the constituency, had lodged a sum
of money in promoting the return of a party opposed to that
constituency in political opinions. That he thought was a
very important allegation ; and it was desirable that it should
be sifted. It was for the interest of the constituents them-
selves that they should be enabled threughly to understand the
llature of the transaction.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
livided, when there appeared—
For issuing the writ
Against it
. . .

136

Majority againg issuing the writ
WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.

would take the subject into his consideration. He proposed,
therefore, that the duty be Is. 6d. per pound.
Mr. BROCKLEIIeR AT seconded the motion. The re•
duction of the duty would have the effect of destroying the trade,
and he, therefore, trusted the Right lion. Baronet would take
the subject into his most serious consideration.
Mr. M. ATT WOOD thought the present duty was not
likely to affect the consumer, whereas if it were reduced the
effect would be to ruin the trade. Under the preser.t duty the
trade had flourished, and would continue to do so
it were retained. The former reductions of duty had been
attended with the most ruinous effects, especially to the ivork-
ing manufacturers.
Mr. GLADSTONE could assure the House that, there
was no disposition on the part of the Government to join the
Hon. Member in the disparagement of the policy of Mr. Hus •
kisson.—(Hear hear.) With regard to the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Macclesfield, he would not deny that
the present duty on thrown silk was a sufficient protection, but
he could not think, if it was altered, there was any reason to
suppose that the throwsters in this country would suffer from
importations, because there had been a gradual decrease in the
importation of that species of manufacture. It appeared to him
that, by establishing a duty on thrown silk, they would best
fortify themselves to compete with other countries; he must,
therefore oppose the motion of his Hon. Friend.
After a few words from Mr. ATT WOOD,
Mr. STRUTT protested against the doctrine of the Hon.
Member for Macclesfield. The manufacturers would look with
dismay to a return of the old system of imposing a duty on the
importaion of the raw material. He wished, however, that
while the Government were carrying out the pr neiples of free
trade in respect to manufactares, they would apply the same
principles to corn and other articles of provisions. The
British manufacturer might then compete with the world. In
the present Instance he approved of the Government proposal.
Air. T. EGERTON. said, that protection was a'so given to
the various articles of manufacture produced in this country.
The proposed rate of duty upon silk would still gives protec-
tion tothe British manufacturer.
Mr. t• BROTHERTON expressed himself quite satisfied
with the proposal of the Government.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST supported the amendment.
The Committee divided, and the numbers were,
For the amendment 22
Againt it
Majority against the amendment ... --218
On the item et "manufactured silk, or of silk mixed with
any other material."
Dr. BOW RING claimed from the Government a conces-
sion of a more liberal redaction of duty, in accordance with•the
principles they had announced, of putting a stop to illegal
trade, and from a fair concession to the manutacturers of France.
He thought the duty ought to be reduced in justice to France,
because the duty imposed there on our articles vcis only 15 per
cent., in some cases only 13 per cent., while this country im-
posed a duty of 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and in some
instances 60 per cent. was taken upon certain articles, in con-
sequence of the construction of the tariff. He should, the,e-
fore, propose that the duty on foreign manufactured siik goods
be reduced to an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not think that a reduction of the
duty would benefit the consumer in this country ; at the same
time, there could be no doubt that there would be great advan-
tage in a reciprocal point of view. He trusted the House
would not hastily press the Government on the subject. He
thought it would be much better not to accede to the proposal
of the Hon. Member. _ _ . .

Mr. LABOUCHERE was of opinion that they might safely
leave this matter in the hands of the Government. He thought

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

110 USE OF LORDS. June 10

..„. _ .
The House sat to-day to hear Scotch appeals. The Peer:,
present were, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and
Lord Campbell.

KERR V. COCHRANE.
Their Lordships gave judgment to-day in this case. in which
there was an appeal and cross-appeal, both of which their
Lordships dismissed with costs.

MACDONALD V. LORI) MACDONALD,

.....
The arguments in this part-heard ease were resumed to-day

ROLLS' COURT. June 10.
NASII V. MORLEY-JUDGMENT.

The MASTER of the Rotts gave judgment to-day in
this case in which the bill had been filed, for the purpose of
hearing the opinion of the Court as to the valdity of a gift. A
person of ti e name of John Williamson by his will
directed his executors to lay out a certain part of
his estate in the Funds. the interest of which was
to be divided by his executors among poor pious persons,
male and female, old or infirm, as they should think proper,
but omitting large and sick fa.,ilies of gmd character. The
next of kin asserted that this was not a valid charitable gift,
and filed his bill for the purpose of having it declared.
The MASTER of the ROLLS was clearly of opinion that the
gift was valid, and decreed ace rdingly.
The COURT then proceeded with exceptions and further
directions.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 10.
The VICE-CIIANCELLOR Or FNGLA ND was occupied the
whole morning with unopposed petitions and short causes.

COURT OF QUEE S BENCH, .Tune 10.
The Court was engaged the whole morning in hearing mo-
tions.

BAIL. COURT. June 10.
(Tiefore Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)

The Court sat at Nisi Prius this morning, and di.posed of a
Few undefended causes. His Lordship then heard some motions
involving points of practice.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 10.

The Court was occupied during the morning with cases in
the special paper; the arguments that arose were of a merely
technical character.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 10.
IN RE FREDERICK - BURGHART.

The insolvent in this case was (te,cribed in his schedule as a
tailor carrying on business at No. 15, Clifford-street, Bond-
street.

On the 6th of May last he came before the Court when the
further heap ing was ordered to stand over to this day in order
to complete a deficient service. Messrs. 11. S. Wright, of
Golden-square, and William Benson Stones, of Warwick-
street, in the same pl ce, warehouseman, were that day ap-
pointed assignees, and the insolvent now put in affi.lavits upon
which was pounded an application for the removal of the latter
assignee. The allegations contained in the affidavit were that
the insolvent was the inventor and patentee of a certain striae.
ture in gas-burners, by which a saving of twenty per cent. in
consumption might be effected. In this patent Mr. :stones
had a share of one-fourth, and a gentleman named Var-
rist offered a sum of tour thousand pounds for their
joint rights. The affidavit further alleged that the in.
solvent ha.t a right conj intly with Mr. Stones in a
patent (the inventi n, as we understood, of Mr. Vat Marino,
who passed through this Court a short time since), for gene-
rating a purer description of gas from tar and water alone, and
the :esult of which invention was to ied before several persons of
high rank and scientific acquirements, who expressed an unqua-
lified approval of its merits. The Board of the parish of St.
George's, Hanover-square, offered the deponent a sum of
2,0001. for his right durir', seven years, provided, upon an ex-
periment made before them, it was proved to be beneficially
practicable, and, upon his applying to Mr. Stones to aid in
causing this necessary experiment to be made, he threw all the
obstructions which lay ha his power in rendering the merits of
the invention apparent. The affidavit then went on to
state that the deponent believed Mr. Stones was actuated by a
wish to have whatever future profits might be derived from
those inventions made available to fiimself solely, after his
(deponent's) insolvency, and therefore prayed that he might
be removed from his office of assignee as an unfit and improper
person.
After a short discussion between the Learned Counsel on
both sides, the Court ordered the case to stand over for
three weeks, all the creditors, in the meantime, receivieg
notice of tl.e application, and copies of the affidavits upon which
it was founded.