The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-23 00:00:00

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.

Lord STANLEY gave notice of certain amendments which lie
intended to move in the committee on the municipal corpora-
tions bill. The object of these amendments, as far as we could
understand, was to render the periods fur electing town coun-
cillors less frequent; to facilitate the publicity of the votes ; and
to give to town-clerks the tenure of their offices during good
behaviour. The noble lord stated that be also intended to move
a verbal amendment to the sixth clause, but he anticipated no
opposition to it, as its object would simply be to carry into ef-
fect the intentions of the framers of the bill with respect to the
residence of voters.
Mr. C. Bc LLER gave notice of his intention to move an amend-
ment in the committee on the same bill, to provide that the elec-
tions for town councillors be annual.

Mr. GROTE said he should move an amendment empowering
a majority of any town council to direct that the votes at elec-
tions should be taken by ballot. ( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that in the committee on the bill be
should move that the voters be required to pay other rates be-
sides poor-rates • that their names should nut be placed on the
list of voters, unless they had paid those rates by a certain day;
and thirdly, that a qualification be established for town coun-
cillors. _ _ .

Sir H. INGLIs gave notice that he should move-Ist, Orat the
hill should not come into operation in existing incorporated
towns, unless it should be accepted by an absolute majority of
the burgesses (a laugh); 2d, that the town council be styled the
" Town-council of our Lord the King;" 3d, that the members
of the town-councils should not be removeable, except at the
desire of an absolute maturity of voters; and 4th, that municipal
oaths should be taken by the mayors, town-clerks, &e.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY would move that no recorder in an in-
corporated towq should be allowed to practise at the assizes for
the county in which that town was situated.

IRISH EDUCATION COMMISSION.
Lord JOHN ltussELL brought up the first report from the
Irish commissioners of public instruction.

DRAWBACK ON SOAP.
On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON a resolution was agreed
to (in committee) that the drawback on soap should be Con-
tinued for three years.

MISSION OF LORD ELIOT TO SPAIN.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for the instructions given to Lord
Eliot and Col. Gurwood on proceeding to their Tate embassy.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL requested Mr. buncombe to withdraw
his motion on account of the absence of Lord Palmerston, who
was then at Windsor to wait on the King.
Lord MAHON, the late under foreign secretary, expressed the
Duke of Wellington's anxiety that these instructions should be
produced. The motion was withdrawn.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. F. RuXToN moved that a committee be appointed to in-
quire whether the conditions on which the sum of £20,000,000
agreed to be ranted as compensation for the emancipation of
the West India negro slaves had been fulfilled.
Sir GEORGE GREY spoke at great length against the motion.
He pledged himself thit the government would see the condi-
tions on which the grunt had been voted faithfully performed.
The motion was withdrawn.

SUPPLY.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of supply.,
pro forma; and the house having resumed, the chairman ob-
tained leave to sit again on Monday next.
On the order of the day for going into a committee of

WAYS AND MEANS,
Mr. C. FERuussow presented a petition from the East India
Company, for a reduction of the duties on sugar and other arti-
cles, the produce and manufacture of the British possessions 10
India. The right hon. gentleman expressed his opinion, that,
on the ground of the great additional expense of the govern-
ment of India, that country had a fair claim to be put on an
equal footing with other British colonies.
Mr. CRASS roßt.) presented a similar petition from merchants
of London.
Mr. EWART presented a petition to the same effect from mer-
chants of Liverpool.
Mr. Brox monAst supported the prayer of the petition.
The house then went into committee.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. Rica would afford the hon. member for Liverpool an op-
portunity of making his proposition relative to the duties on
East and West India sugar, by placing a resolution in the hands
of the chairman. On accepting the office which he had now
the honour to hold, he thought it one of his first duties to con-
sider the very important question of the sugar duties. Having
collected all the information he could on the subject, he felt
desirous of ascertaining in what situation the question had been
left hy the right hon.: gentleman who preceded him in office.
He understood that an expectation bad gone abroad that there
was an intention on the part of the late government to move the
sugar duties of this year according to the present scale. lie
was naturally anxious to ascertain this fact, for he felt, that in
these times of rapid and extensive fluctuation, it was desirable
not lightly to abandon any implied or express engagements of a
preceding government. He collected that Do positive engage-
ateut-Iket been made-on-tiris subject-by his predecestior,' entitle
learned from the right hon. barauet (Sir IL feel) that he would
have felt himself perfectly free to deal with the question if he
hatt continued in office. But, while he thought it fair to state
this fur the information of the hob. member for Liverpool, and
was willing to give his hon. friend the advantage of the state-
ment wittailltelerenee to his promised motion, he felt it his
duty also to state, that an impression had been conveyed to
the West India interest that the present duties would not be
disturbed during the present year. He learned from the re-
presentatives of that interest, that so far back as the month of
March last they had reason to believe, from information de-
rived from official sources, that the duties in question would
nut be interfered with in the present year. (Hear, hear.)
Ho knew the condition at the present moment of the West
India islands that it required the most prudent legislation,
and be trusted, hum the spirit which had appeared in the late
debate, that no step would be incautiously taken to prejudice
the interests of the West Indies. With a knowledge of these
facts, he felt that he had no alternative but to propose for the
present year, under the peculiar circumstances, the continuance
of the existing duties. He felt the full weight of the obsers a-
liens made by his right hon. friend; he felt the injustice of the
unequal duties to India and to England, and any attempt to
defend, on principle, discriminating duties was a task he would
not undertake. On the contrary, he was anxious to have this
opportunity of declaring that, even in the course of the peseta
session, be should not be restrained by the peculiar considera-
tions to which he had adverted, but hoped to give an earliest of
what he conceived ought to be done, With respect to coffee,
the house was free to deal with that article ; and in the course
of the present session he intended to propose to parliament the
equalization of the duties on coffee. ( Hear,) He not only,
therefore, made a declaration of the principle, but more, he
would do, in the present session, something in furtherance of
that declaration. In moving tar the renewal of the sugar duties,
tie was not giving any kind of sanction to the permanent con-
tinuance of discriminating duties ; but due regard must be had
to the interests of the West Indies. It was open to the house,
after granting the duties for the present year, to make during
the present session some arrangement on the subject, which,
he thought, ought not to be passed over. lie thought both the
West India and the East India interests ought to have an op-
portunity of knowing what was intended to be done. Ile had
now explained the grounds of his proceeding, and it was un-
necessary to go further. If he did not discuss the question on
principle, he refrained on account of existing circumstances,
and the correspondence which bad taken place Letween the

West India and the }Cwt. India interests. Both knew that the
sugar duties were not to be altered in the present year. tie
should, therefore, move the renewal of the sugar duties.
The motion, after a short discussion, was agreed to.
The house resumed, the chairman reported progress, the
report was agreed to, and the other orders of the day were dis-
posed of

Mr. flumE brought in a bill to regulate the expenses at elec-
tions in England and Wales, which was read a first and ordered
to be read a second time on Friday next.
In answer to a question by Mr. s.l4Ett., Mr. Hums said that
he had prepared a similar measure for Ireland.
Mr. STEWA wt. brought in a bill to regulate the importatien of
corn into the Isle of Man, which was read a first time and or-
dered to be read a second time on Monday next.
Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice, that in committee on the muni-
cipal corporation bill, he should move that licenses for ale-
houses in boroughs should be granted by the recorder; the
mayor, and other justices.
Lord EBRINGTON obtained leave to bring; in, and brought in,
a bill to repeal the act of last session on the subject of weights
and measures, and to substitute another measure in its stead;

'he bill was ;eadafiiiiine,a;oriorderedto be read a second
ime on Monday next.

['he house then, at one o'clock, adjourned.

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.--WEDNESDAY
CASE OF LIBEL.

CREEVEY V. CARR ANDoTHE- Cs.--11iis was an action of libel
by the plaintiff, Henry Creevey, a cowkeeper and milkman,
against the defendants, Messrs. Carr, Vousley. Anderson, and
Brown, the printer, publisher, and two of the proprietors of the
Morning Advertiser, for a libel appearing in that paper on Mon-
day, the 14th April, 1831. The defendants pleaded "not guilty."
Mr. Serjeant Bompas, Mr. J. H. Smith, and Mr. Mansell were
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hill and Mr. Hoggings for the de-
fendants. The libel was a police report of a charge of arson at
Hatton-garden, and was of considerable length, but was in sub-
stance as follows :—" Moore, a sergeant of police, deposed that
he went to the defendant's premises with a letter on the preced-
ing Monday night; that after knocking several times he called
to the next door neighbour to light him through-the yard. She
led him forward, calling out 'Mr. Creevev,' who answered her,
and the policeman entered a shed and found it filled with smoke,
and called out Fire,' and retreated, but came back, and seeing
a piece of sacking and a piece of wood flaring near a cabin
stove, and the prisoner lying on his bed, he desired him to get
up, telling him the place was on fire. The accused bade him
stamp on it, and became agitated, and the policeman put out
the fire, and then_delivered the letter and saw he was dressed.
Moore meeting Oakley, another sergeant, informed him it was
his firm belief the prisoner had wilfully set fire to the sacking.
The floor was burnt'about a foot in diameter.

"Mr. Laing asked the prisoner how he accounted for the
fire?

Prisoner.—l set fire to some shavings in the giktte, and
when E went to bed they were bnrning. and I suppose some
embers fell on the sacking. I have been robbed to a great
extent from my cow-houses and warehouses, and slept there to
protect my property. "
Mr. Lutwyche said the prisoner's shed and 13 houses ad-
joining were insured for £7OOO.
"The directors of several fire-offices said they never knew a
stronger case of suspicion against a person accused of attempt-
ing to fire premises than the present.
"Mr. Laing said he should not detain the prisoner."
Mr. Serj cant Bompas stated the case, and urged that the re-
port was not a fair report in several respects. The plaintiff was
throughout called "the prisoner," although he voluntarily at-
tended, and was never in custody. It would appear by the
report that he had insured the premises for £7OOO, but he had
never insured them at all, and could not have received the
slightest recompense if they had been destroyed, and the direc-
tors of the fire-offices could not have said what they were stated
to have said, because not a single director attended.
The publication was proved, and a copy of the affidavit filed
at the Stamp-office, that Brown was the printer, Anderson the
publisher, and Carr and Vousley (both victuallers) were two
of the proprietors of the newspaper, the property. in which was
divided into 2500 shares, one of which shares was the property
of Carr, and the other of Vousley, was put in and read.
Wm. Bolitho stated that the report referred to the plaintiff.
Mr. Hill, for the defendant, said the paragraph in question
was taken from the Weekly Dispatch, that an action was brought
in the Common Pleas against the proprietors of that paper, and
a verdict recovered, and that it was hard that the defendants
should have an action brought against them merely for copying
that report, especially as they had left out a passage bearing
hard upon the plaintiff, and, he added, that he should prove it
was a correct report.
George Oakley, inspector of police.—Knew the plaintiff for
four years, he was a cowkeeper. 'rook the plaintiff into cus-
tody at the desire of Mr. Laing, the magistrate. Was present
at the examination. The report was a fair report of what took
place before the magistrates. Mr. Laing made some observa-
tion that it was a strongly suspicious case.
Cross-examined.—Witness went himself round to the fire-
office to inquire if the plaintiff was insured, and stated that he
bad done so to the magistrate. No fire directors were examined.
The plaintiff was first examined on a Wednesday, and under
his own recognizance he came up on the following Saturday.
Re-examined.—Witness told Mr. Laing that some directors
had told him they never knew a case of stronger suspicion.
Witness found that the plaintiff was not insured.,
Thomas Moore, police officer, also stated that it was a fair
report. Witness stated that the fluor was burnt, but not that it
was burnt a foot in diameter.

Daniel Horton.—W as a reporter, and furnished his report to
the Dispatch, and not to any other newspaper.
Edward Clarkson, sub-editor of the Morning Advertiser.—Cut
the
_fierier from the Dispatch, and struck out some parts of it.
Mr. Sergeant Bompas, in reply, contended that it was an un-
fair report, and that although the defendants had called Hor-
ton, they did not dare to ask him a single question on the ac-
curacy of his report. The Morning Advertiser, with its 2,500
shareholders, all publicans, was the mast dangerous paper to
circulate such a report in. The plaintiff could not put his foot I
in any public-house in London without meeting with a charge.
Mr. Baron Gurney said there must be A verdict for the plain-
tiff, and the jury were to consider the damages. The defend-
ants showed that the report was copied from another paper, and
that they had left ont an offensive passage, and that would pro-
bably operate iu mitigation. A very serious duty was imposed
upon those who had the mighty engine of the press in their
hands. If the publication had been a full, accurate, and fair
report, the defendants might be justified ; but the case of re-
ports at police-offices was somewhat different from other reports,
because it was only pi eliminary ; the observations were mostly
ex parts on one side, and that adverse to the party, and it there-
fore behoved the reporter not to report every piece of idle
gossip that might be spoken, but to content himself with that
only which was material. The defendants had not proved the
report to be correct ; they might have examined the reporter,
who by the production of h iss own notes might have shown that
he had made a fair teport, but they did not examine Horton on
the subject. The two policemen said it was a fair and correct
account ; but that it certainly was not. There was no director
at.the office, which anybody who read the report would suppose
there must have been. But another important fact was, that
the plaintiff had not insured, whilst the report stated that the
sheds and houses adjoining were insured. People did not wil-
fully set fire to their own premises, except with a 'view to de-
fraud insurance offices. Another mistake was, that it appeared
asif the whole examination took place on one day, butit turned
out that it was on two days.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is.
Mr. Hill applied, but his lordship refused to certify.