The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-04-21 00:00:00

HOUSE_ OF COMMONS.7L•YESTERDAY,

On the motion for adjournment till Monday,
Mr. TAVERNtit MILNs called attention to the operation of
the police act in reference to the imprisonment of young chil-
dren playing at games in the streets, complaining of the harsh-
ness with which the law was carried out.
Mr. W. EWART asked what was the state of the law respect-
ing prize-fighting, protesting against the scandalous brutality
of the late pugilistic encounter, and complaining especially of
the railway author.ties fur wording facilities to the public for
being present at such scenes.

Mr. V. SCVLLY amused the house by declaiming with his
usual erratic vehemence against the practice of prize-fighting,
which be said was peculiarly an English barbarity, and
against the particular instance which had just occurred.
Sir G. C. LEWIS, in reply to MT. Milne, said that he had com-
municated with the Chief Commissioner of Police who said he
had Lot issued any stricter orders than formerly On the subject ;
but it was atsolutely necessary that passengers should lie pro-
tected from personal injury.—In reply to Mr. Ewart, he said
that professional rules had been established in reference to
prize-fighting, which increased their regularity and lessened
their cruelty. It might be true that prise-fighting was not
practised in Ireland, but they had heard something of shille-
laghs and encounters at Irish fait's. With regard' to the law
fights of this nature were clearly 111!ga1 and every
,
person taking part in the proceedliags be indicted
for a misdemeanour. It bad not been the practice
of the
Government to interfere; it was for the local
authorities to
peace.
take such steps tuf they thought necessary to the public
In reply to various questions,
Mr. S. HERBERT said that the nonadMission of strangers to
for the purposes of secresy,
and to prevent the interrui tio
the Armstrong, factory POW mOstntyto
business, caused by the

. .
influx of curious_. persons. He explained an unfortunate
Occurrence relative to the recent army examinations, by
stating that the examination papers had been stolen from the
offices of the queen's printers.

Mr. LYALL asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether, in consequence of the great advantages granted to
Spain by the recent alterations of our tariff, he does not think
it right to take this opportunity of representing to the Spanish
Government the injustice with which British shipping is treated
by the continued refusal of that State to reciprocate with this
country in its navigation laws.

Mr. E. JAmEs asked the Secretary of State for Foreig.... Affairs
whether, in the event of the Reform Bill being read a second
time during the present session, it is the intention of her
Majesty's Government at once to proceed with the bill, or to
agree to any motion to refer such bill to a select committee.
Lord J. 11.1.;ssELL replied to the former question that repro•
sentations had been made to Spain en the want of 'reciprocity
in her regulations, compared with those of England, and
negotiations were on foot to persuade that Power to adopt a
more liberal course. As to the Reform Bill, its postponement
had been due to various causes, and was not due to the apathy
of the Government. The adjourned debate would come on
on Monday next, and after the second reading he should
propose its being referred to a committee of the whole House.
The motion to refer the bill to a select committee was evidently
to destroy the bill, and would ba treated as a motion for post •
ponement fur six months. Nothing could be more unusual
and inconvenient than such a course in the case of a bill of
such importance, affecting the Constitution of the country.
There was ample time for full discussion by both houses.
Mr. L. Km; moved that an humble address be presented to
her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to
cause the royal proclamation for the encouragement of
piety and virtue, and for the preventing and punishing of vice,
profaneness, and immorality, issued at the commencement of
ker Majesty's reign, to be revised, or to authorise the die con-
tinuance of reading the same at assizes and quarter sessions.
These proclamations were ill-drawn and ill-worded, and con-
tinuous interruptions to the business of the sessions and assizes,
and they ought either to be revised or discontinued.

Mr. EsTcotßT admitted that they should be revised and
abridged, but objected to their discontinuance.

Sir G. C. LEWIS say no difficu ty in the revision of the pro-
clamation, which might well be reduced to a few sentences.
He did not however think the matter of sufficient importance
fur the interference of the House.

After some further debate, Mr. King altered the motion so
as to conffne it to the revision of the proclamation. The motion
was agreed to by 112 to 73 ;..majority 37.
Mr. MELLoa obtained leave to introduce a bill to remove
doubts as to the eligibility of certain persons to ba trustees of
certain charities.

The Duchy of Cornwall Limitation of Actions Bill passed
through committee.

On the motion for going into committee on the Paper Duty
Repeal Bill, Mr. Boy'Lt. moved a resolution, " That in the
opinion of this House it is, and must be, expedient that a
drawback should be allowed to printers and publishers
of the duty paid upon their stock of paper purchased
and printed after the passing of the bill, and remaining in
sheets unbound at the time the duty is to cease, namely,
on 'the 15th day of August next, subject to such rules
and regulations as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may
make in their behalf." His object was to prevent the stagna-
tion of trade, and the loss of employment by thousands of
printers which would otherwise ensue, as publishers would
delay the printing of their books. The less to the exchequer,
would, he contended, be extremely small, in comparison to
the distress which would be occasioned if the drawback was
refused. When the drawback was allowed to stationers and
wine merchants, why should it be refused to publishers?
Mr. BLACK seconded the motion, showing the unfortunate
position in which they would be placed far the next three
months.

The CRAxert.Lou of the EXCHEQUER said that changes,
especially in excise, involved losses, but there never was a
claim weaker than that of the publisher, who published his
books at a fixed price. The fixed rule was never to allow
drawbacks except when an article could be positively identified
which destroyed the analogy of the case of the publishers with
those of the wine merchants and the stationers. If tbe draw-
back was allowed tg the publisher, it would be impossible to pre-
yent fraud. They could not take into consideration, under such
circumstances the remote contingency of the distress of the
operatives.

The amendment being negatived without a division, the
House went into committee on the bill.

Mr. BLACKBURN, alleging the necessity of meeting public
liabilities, moved that the abolition of the duty be postponed
till the Ist of April next.
The CIL\NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion.

BANKRUPTS.
Andrew Wilson, Aldershott, surgeon.
James and Edmund Kelsey, Nuneaton, tailors and
drapers.
Daniel bishop Crick, Leicester, builder.
Wm. Kirk, John Wale, and John Kirk, Mountsorrel,

Leicestershire, coal and timber merchants.
Freeman Newell, Huddersfield, boot and shoe mercer.
George Allen, Bardney, Lincolnshire, grocer.
Jackson Southward, Liverpool, printer.
Alexander Waite, Berwick-upon-Tweed.

BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED.

William John Watson, Holloway, Middlesex, builder.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of
our correspondents.]

MESSRS. HEYN & Cd'S. ANSWER TO THE
CHARGE OF FRAUD.