brought up the report of the Gas Light bill On the motion for agreeing to the report,

complained of the exclusive privileges claimed by this bill, and contended that the measure was calculated to ruin that hardy race of men, the persons employed in the Southern and Greenland whale fisheries, in each of which a million of money, and above 100 ships were engaged. If the bill were to pass, it would throw out of employ 10,000 seamen, and above 10,000 rope-makers, sail-makers, mast-makers, &c. connected with that trade. He complained of the way in which hon. gentlemen interested in the subject had attended the committee, and had by their numbers borne down all opposition to the bill.

defended the committee from the imputation cast on them. He had no interest whatever in the gas light company, and he should like to hear the hon. alderman say the same of himself with respect to the Greenland trade. He thought the opposition made to the measure by the persons connected with the oil trade extremely unjustifiable.

did not see why the individuals to whom the bill referred should be erected into a corporation. It had been said by a gallant officer, that the strength of the British navy was derived from the south whale fishery, which this bill went to destroy.

put out of his consideration all that part of the question which hinged on the interests of the whale fishery, but contended that the extension of the company to perpetuity was wholly unjustifiable. If they would take any number of years, 60 for instance, he would not object to the measure.

eulogized the advantages enjoyed by the public in consequence of the superior illumination of the streets by gas light. But still he thought that the House ought to be better acquainted with the provisions of the bill, and that for that purpose it should be reprinted and recommitted. He moved as an amendment, to take the report into further consideration on Monday.

argued against the monopoly which the bill went to create, but admitted that sufficient oil was not now brought from Greenland to light the metropolis.

The House divided: For the original Motion, 76; for the Amendment, 29. The report was then received.

stated, that he had been applied to by Peter Damasé Perrot, an inhabitant of the Mauritius, from whom a petition had been presented to the House on Thursday last. He had been informed by him that it was not true, that he was ever concerned in any insurrection, in that island. On the 8th of September last, a troop of soldiers came to his house, and carried him away, along with his wife and children, some of whom were of very tender years, to a distance of four miles from his plantation. Next morning he was separated from his family, and conveyed to a further distance of 40 miles, and then, after answering some interrogatories, sent on board his majesty's ship the Minden, and conveyed to this country, without being allowed to see any of his family, or having an opportunity of taking any money with him. During the voyage he was kept a close prisoner. In this situation, being a British subject, his only consolation during the voyage, amidst all his hardships, was, that he was about to be transported to a country where respect was shown to the laws, and where every man was held innocent till found guilty. The first thing he did on landing was, to transmit a memorial to lord Bathurst. To this memorial he received an answer, acquainting him that the circumstance which rendered his removal from the Mauritius expedient had ceased to operate, and that directions would be given to convey him to that island to be put on his trial, as the best means of clearing up the facts of the case, and that till his departure an allowance would be made to him. On writing again to lord Bathurst, expressing a hope that an investigation into the conduct of the governor of the Mauritius would be ordered, and that he himself might be treated in a manner more suited to his rank in life than he had hitherto been, he was informed that an inquiry was now making to know how far his statement was correct; that directions had been given to the transport board with respect to his passage; and that till his going on board he should be allowed 5s. a day. He wrote afterwards to lord Bathurst, informing him that 9s. a day was the lowest he could live upon in this country, and that he had no clothes; and on the 2nd of April 1816, he received an answer, stating that government had no farther communication to make to him. There were two things to be considered in this case. Nothing could justify the removal of this man by force out of the island. He did not mean to say, if such a measure was necessary to the safety of the island, that it might not be justifiable,; but this was not alleged in the present case. The hon. gentleman opposite knew not of the least danger with which the putting this man on his trial in the island would have been attended. What was it but the punishment of a man without trial, and the severest punishment—to remove him from his home and family to a distant country, where, from his being deprived of all means of support, he could only be a vagabond and a beggar? It was the violent act of a governor taking upon himself, in defiance of all law, to punish an individual against whom he had conceived a dislike. If dangerous to the safety of the island, he might have been sent to the Cape of Good Hope (Bourbon from particular circumstances might not perhaps be considered as a proper place), or to some situation less distant from his native home than this country. Nothing had been said of him, but that he had been once concerned in an insurrection, and that he was a man of bad character; and it was to be remembered this bad character was given to him by his oppressor. Nothing had come from the governor of the island to justify the keeping this man, or confining him one day in this country, where, thank God, the laws were still observed. Sir Samuel concluded with moving, " That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of all dispatches which have been received by his majesty's government from the governor of the Mauritius, which in any manner relate to the case of Pierre Damasé Perrot."

stated, that by the vessel which conveyed the individual, the subject of the present motion, to this country, they received a dispatch from the governor of the Mauritius, referring to certain proceedings respecting the registration of slaves, which had led to an insurrection. In this dispatch the mention of M. Perrot was purely incidental. No sooner was the memorial of M. Perrot received by government, than they sent instructions to governor Farquhar to transmit to this country copies of all the proceedings relating to him. As to the particulars of the case, government were still as uninformed as ever. But they would not have acted properly towards the judge and governor, if they had at once complied with the prayer of the petition in a doubtful case, and recalled them, that the petitioner might have an opportunity of bringing an action against them in the court of King's-bench. The proper course was first to require from the governor copies of all the proceedings in the case, and then to decide whether the conduct of the governor had been such as was represented or not. Government were aware that the situation of the Mauritius was extremely delicate. In consequence of the Nepaul war, the garrison had been reduced to 1,200 men, of whom 500 were in the hospitals. He had also to state, that when reference was made to captain Mackay, the commanding officer of the ship which brought M. Perrot to this country, that distinguished officer assured him that the whole of the charges which had reference to his passage were either complete falsehoods or gross misrepresentations—that he had brought money on board with him, of which he was deprived, to prevent him from tampering with the crew—that out of this money supplies had been purchased for him at the Cape, and that the remainder was paid to him on landing, in presence of witnesses. It was a presumption in favour of governor Farquhar, that this individual was concerned in an insurrection in the island of Bourbon, and sent over a prisoner to the Mauritius, and that he had been set at liberty by governor Farquhar.

could state, on the authority of two officers of his majesty's service, and one individual connected with the islands of Mauritius and Bourbon, that M. Perrot, on the first news of the return of Buonaparté from Elba, hurried to the isle of Bourbon, where he was concerned in an insurrection, and convicted and sent to the isle of France. A gentleman now in this country, saw him arrested in the act of insurrection.

said, that he had yet heard no argument against the production of the papers. The situation of the persons living in these colonies, was a sufficient reason why the House should exercise a vigilant superintenddance over the conduct of the governors. There could be no doubt, that the individual in question had a very serious ground of complaint. He had been sent out of the country, where he might have been tried, to a country where he could not be tried. It was not to be supposed, that the individual could be sent hither without some information, and whatever it was, it should be laid before the House.

regretted the refusal of the papers, the production of which was due to the character of governor Farquhar. From his knowledge of that gentleman, he did not doubt, that he would be, able to justify this proceeding. If the information at present in this country, could (as it was said) lead to nothing, at least there would be no danger in the production of it. The motion might be renewed in a future session, when further information had arrived.

said, the information now in this country respecting the individual in question, was not enough to enable the House to come to any decision on the subject. He did not think that the production of the papers would be attended with any advantage either to governor Farquhar or to justice, but would leave the question in just as unsatisfactory a state as it was at present.

could not see the grounds of the objection to the motion. It was said, that there was not information enough to settle the question; but at least there was some information, some dispatch, in which the case was alluded to, and what harm could arise, from the production of this extract of the dispatch, he could not conceive. He had great suspicions that the governor had acted in this case rashly; for if he had the power of sending M. Perrot out of the island, yet what reason was there for sending him to a country 139 days sail from the colony? He suspected it would turn out that the governor had not considered what was the nearest place to which M. Perrot might be sent, but what was the next ship which was to sail.

observed, that there must at least have been some instructions to the captain of the Minden, which might be produced.

said, that the strongest charge against the governor had been urged by the opposers of the motion; for what could be a more serious imputation, than to suppose a governor so indifferent to the liberty and happiness of the persons under his government, as to send a person a prisoner to this country without thinking it worth while to say any thing about his case, or giving any directions as to the manner in which it would be proper to treat him? He believed it was a prevailing error, that it was in the power of the governors in the colonies, which had not received constitutions, to send out of them any persons whom they chose to exercise their power on. It was the duty of the House, therefore, to be vigilant in protecting the inhabitants of these colonies. It was easy to allege the bad character of a person on whom an act of tyranny was exercised, and it was sometimes difficult to refute the accusation; but if it was true, it could never form a justification of oppression. The advantage which M. Perrot was supposed to have derived from being sent to this country was rather whimsical. He was able, to be sure, to complain to the House of Commons, but the result would be, that he would be told by a majority, that his liberty, or those of his fellow colonists, was a matter of no account to members of that House.

The House divided: For the Motion, 19; Against it, 51.

rose to move for a committee on the subject of the manufacture of small arms by the ordnance department. He observed, that before 1804 the small arms of this department were manufactured in Birmingham and London. Since that time the board of ordnance had established manufactories of their own. This step he should be able to prove had occasioned great additional expense to the public, and had been injurious to a large class of manufacturers; and he hoped the House would think these sufficient grounds for an inquiry on this subject. The first establishment of this kind, set on foot by the ordnance board, was in Adam-street, near the Tower; but it was found to be so expensive and inadequate to its objects, that it was abandoned. Another was then established at Lewisham, in Kent, in the year 1803. In 1811, the commissioners of military inquiry reported that this establishment had produced an expense of 90,000l. Since that time a large additional expense had been incurred. These commissioners had given it as their opinion, that it would not answer for the ordnance to manufacture arms of their own, and recommended that the establishment should be abandoned, notwithstanding the expense which had been incurred. The board who were unacquainted with the business, had been led into this expense by persons nearly as ignorant, but more interested. Since 1811 the establishment had not been abandoned, and another had been established on a more expensive scale, since the first occupation of Paris by the allies. He wished to know whether the sum of 70,000l, which had been voted included all the proposed expense? For the building itself he saw no necessity, when he knew it was confined to the mating of gun barrels, of which there were 420,000 in the tower, which had never been used. He, besides, considered the grant of 100,000l. for the manufacture of small arms, to be equally unnecessary, as there were in the tower and other depots through the country above 800,000 arms which had never been used. The manufacture of short cavalry carabines was not called for, as that species of arms had been condemned by persons who were well acquainted with the subject, on account of the shortness of the barrels and the insufficiency of the locks. A proof of their being totally inadequate for the purposes intended, was sometime ago seen in the tenth regiment of cavalry being supplied with other arms manufactured by Mr. Baker, of Whitechapel. That regiment found it impossible to discharge their duty with these carabines, and they were consequently supplied with the others by means of the Prince Regent. He objected also to the competency of this board to act, from the manner of proving the barrels at the tower, which was conducted by a person totally ignorant of the subject. From too little powder in this proof being used (only 16 drams, whereas the act of Charles 1st, required 22), he believed many accidents had happened. He was informed by an officer who went over the field of Waterloo with a patrole on the morning after the memorable battle, that it was astonishing to see the number of barrels which had burst, and were lying on the field. Besides, there was not one straight barrel in the service; for as they were burnished only on one side, the friction drew them a quarter of an inch out of a straight line. He thought also, that the practice of putting brown on the barrels was a means of producing rust; at all events it hid the deficiencies. The cheapness of the manufacture was an argument which he knew would be adduced in its support; this, however, he was prepared to disprove by the most satisfactory evidence. The quality must be infe- rior to those at Birmingham, for it was obvious the anxiety of the board to prove the economy of their system would lead them to less vigilance in the manufacture. The raw materials, he could prove, cost more here than the barrels did when finished at Birmingham. He deprecated, on all these grounds, the impolicy and injustice of government in attempting to overthrow the labours of those individuals who had Contributed so largely to the support of the war, and as a measure which would ultimately compel the disaffected mechanic to seek protection in some more hospitable country. He concluded with moving for a committee to inquire into the management and expense of the small-arms manufactory belonging to government.

opposed the motion, and Stated the various steps government had taken to conciliate the manufacturers, who, he assured the House, were now perfectly satisfied with what had been done. He argued that the supply of arms manufactured by government had borne no proportion whatever to those made at Birmingham, and that henceforth the small arms manufactory would solely be applied for the purpose of repairing old arms.

agreed to the establishment of the government manufactory, as a proper check over the manufacturers of Birmingham, but thought they were undoubtedly to be prefered as the best workmen.

thought his hon. friend's motion might do much good, as it would discover most accurately the advantages to be expected from this new establishment; of which, however, he had no great opinion, considering it merely as affording an opportunity for granting new salaries.

in reply, consented to withdraw his motion on the assurance given by the hon. gentleman, of this new manufactory being solely appropriated to the repair of old arms. He begged to inform the House, that all the reductions which had taken place, had been effected solely since his motion was announced, and he considered, therefore, much good to have resulted. He could assure them, that though now no new arms were to be made, that before he announced his motion, 25,000 had been agreed to be made.

The motion was then Withdrawn.