The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

JUDICIAL STATISTICS.

Lord BROUGHAM laid on the table a bill for faci-
litating the collection of judicial statistics.

THE SHEEPSHANKS COLLECTION.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for the correspondence
relating to the deed of gift by which Mr. Sheep-
shanks had presented his pictures to the nation,
and spoke in high praise of the munificent spirit
which had been shown in that and simiiar donations.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY replied, and explained
the terms upon which Mr. Sheepshanks had offered
his gift :

Mr. Sheepshanks wishes his collection to be placed in a
receptacle built for the purpose, well lighted, airy, and
commodious, on the grounds at Kensington, which were
purchased by the commissioners of 1851, where also the
schools of art were to be placed that had been meeting
hitherto in Marlborough•house. He wishes also the
Minister, if he should think fit, to allow a portion of the
collection to be sent into the provinces, and there exhibited
for the advancement of art and design. He had expres.ed
an earnest wish, although he had made it no condition of the
gift, that his collection should be open on Sunday evenings
for the inspection of that portion of the people who had no
time to examine the pictures during the week, in order
that they too might derive the advantage which was in•
tended by this gift. These were the conditions attached
to this most important presentation, if the Government
should think proper to accept it.
The correspondence Wit. 4 then laid on the table.
THE YEOMANRY.
The Earl of Powts moved :

That an humble address be presented to her Majesty
for a return showing the years since 1815 in which the
yeomanry have not been assembled either for permanent
duty or training and exercise ; and, also, copy of ally cir-
cular from the Secretary of State to the lords lieutenant of
counties as to the assembling of the yeomanry during the
present year.
rite noble earl observed that he wished to call the
attention of Lord Panmure to the fact that it was
impossible for the yeomanry to be of use if they
were not sufficiently Lam assembled for exercise and
training. The nominal time of exercise was at pre-
sent eight days ; of this, one day was occupied in
coming, another in going, and in the rest there was
the Sunday; thus, in fact, there remained but five
days of actual use. He thought that no one could
dissent from him when he said that five days in two
years was not a period of exercise and training suffi-
cient to enable either officers or men properly to dis-
charge their duties. He could not conceive why
this corp 3 should not be called out during the present
year, and he trusted that some explanation would be
forthcoming on the subject.
Lord PANMURE had no objection to order the re-
turns asked for. He thought, however, that calling
out the force this year might be dispensed with. The
time had gone by when the militia would be required
to aid the civil power. The question of withdrawing
the contingent allowance should be considered by the
Government.

The motion, after remarks from the Earl of Eglin-
ton, Viscount Dungannon, Lord Ward, and Lord
L3ttelton in favour of calling out the militia this
year, was then agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY gave notice of his inten-
tion on Monday, March 2, to bring under their lord-
ships' consideration the traffic in opium between the
East Indies and China.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAT.
EXPULSION OF MR. JAMES SADLEIR.

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD moved a resolution that Mr.
James Sadleir, member for Tipperary, having been
charged with frauds and fraudulent practices, and
bills of indictment for misdemeanours having been
Found against him, and warrants issued for his appre-
hension, and having failed to obey an order of this
house that he should attend in his place, and having
fled from justice, he be expelled the house. There
could be no doubt, he observed, of the privilege or
power of the house to take this course without being
bound by strict technical rule.; and be recited
various precedents, from 1580 to the present day, in
which this power had been exercised, laying particu-
lar stress upon the case of Mr. lit orgi Robinson, in
1732, who, having been charged sith fraudulent
practices, had tied beyond the seas, sad was expelled,

FEBRUARY 21, 1857.

although no proof of his guilt was before the house.
He then detailed the history of Mr. Sadleir's case,
insisting upon the notoriety of the proceedings, and
that there could be no doubt that he was aware of
the charges against him. He read reports of the
strenuous and unremitting exertions of the constabu•
Lary and police to discover and apprehend him, and
also a letter from Mr. James Scully, dated " Hotel
de Louvre, Rue Rivoli, Thursday, February 12,,
which was to the following effect
I think it my duty to inform you that the notorious
culprit, James Sadleir, is in Paris. 1 saw him entering a
restaurateur's where I was about to dine; and having
caught his eye he instantly withdrew. I tun informed by
the proprietor of ►he restaurant that he dines there every
day, and therefore if the Government wish to arrest him,
they should send some persons who know him, as he is a
good deal altered, hie face being much thinner, and he
wears a large moustache.

Mr... Fitzgerald then resumed:—
It might be asked whether the Government would pro-
ceed to arrest Mr. Sadleir in Paris, and by anticipation he
would answer such a question by saying that they could
not do so, because the case did not come within the treaty
of 1843, signed between England and France, and which
was made law in this country by the fith and 7th Vic.,
c. 73. In that treaty the crimes included were murder,
attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent hank-
ruptcy ; these were the only offences for which the treaty
provided ; so that the Government had no power to arrest
Mr. Sadleir in France, or, if he was arrested there, to
demand his extradition.

Under these circumstances lie called upon the house
to perfo m the office of self purgation by proceeding
to the expulsion of an unworthy member.
Sir F. THESIGER observed that there could be no
difference of opinion regarding the resolution, in
which the house must be eager to concur ; but the
ground of proceeding should be well understood,
and he wished to know how the case of Mr. Sadleir
now differed from its position on the 24th of July,
when Vie Government resisted the motion of Mr.
Roebuck for his expulsion.
Mr. WHITESIDE censured the dilatory proceedings
of the Government in this case, and contended that
it was as clear and strong and full on the 24th of
July as it was now.
Sir G. GREY justified the Government from the
charge of inconsistency. The objection to the motion
last session was, he said, that there was no evidence
that Mr. Sadleir had any opportunity of vindicating
himself.
Mr. NAPIER believed that no man was more con-
vinced at the present time than he was on the 24th
of July, that Mr. Sadleir ought to be expelled, but
perhaps his expulsion would now be more" politically
convenient" than it was at that time.

The motiou was then put and agreed to.
THE INCOME TAX.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
The CHANCELLOR of tile EXCHEQUER adverted to
the promised discussion on the general financial
policy of the Government, and proposed that a
debate should be postponed until the next motion
for a committee of ways and means.
Mr. DISRAELI complained of the inconvenience
arising from this delay of a discussion for which the
house was so anxious, but consented to it, neverthe•
less, and announced the terms of an amendment on
which he intended to challenge a vote, as follows :
That in the opinion of this house it would be expe•
dient, before sanctioning the financial arrangements for
the ensuing year, to adjust the estimated income and
expenditure in the manner which shall appear beet calcu•
luted to secure the country against the risk of a deficiency
in the years 1,•04.9 anti 15:19.60, and to provide such a
balance of revenue and charge respectively in the year
1860 as may place it in the power of Parliament at that
period, without embarrassment to the revenue, altogether
to remit the income tax.

Mr. GLADSTONE inquired whether the Government
intended to proceed with the naval estimates that
evening. He protested against voting money before
an opportunity had been afforded to discuss the
Ministerial Budget in its entirety.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed his concurrence in
this objection.
Lord PALMERSTON, yielding to the evident opinion
or the house, consented to postpone the naval esti-
mates.

The house having gone into committee of supply,
The CFAXCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that a
sum of two millions should be granted t ) pay off the
series of Exchequer Bonds issued in 1854, and
falling due on the Bth of May next, and read a state-
ment of the details of the estimated revenue and ex-
penditure for the years 1858-59 and 1859.00, with
the view of showing that the apprehensions of Mr.
Disraeli of a deficiency were groundless.
The resolution was agreed to.
Friday was fixed for the debate upon the income
tax and the tea and sugar duties.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—T!'FSDAY.
BOMBARDMENT OF CANTON.
The Earl of GRANVILLE, in reply to Lord Car-
narvon, btated that there was no truth in the
report that Admiral Seymour at the date of the last

THE PRESS.

advices had commenced throwing red-Lot shot into
Canton.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES.

The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated his intention
to bring in, in a short time, seven bills for consoli-
dating the criminal statutes.
Lord BROUGHAM declared that the on'y way to
obtain a digest of the common law which should
obtain parliaaientary sanction was to confide the
task to experienced legal hands, and, when that
task was finished, that Parliament should accept
the result of their labours without any attempt at
alteration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
FISHERIES (IRELAND.)
Mr. M‘MAHON, in moving for leave to introduce
bills to assimi:ate the law as to the seacoast fisheries
of Ireland to that of England, regretted that a sub-
ject of so much importance, which was as much an
English as an Irish question, had not been taken up
by the Government. He recited provisions of the
existing law of 1842, which showed its unequal pres-
sure upon the Irish fisheries in comparison with
those of England and Scotland, pointing out what he
considered to be the absurdity as well as the gross
injustice of those provisions :
In no other part of the world was the use of fisheries so
much interfered with by legal restrictions as in Ireland. A
Frenchman or a Belgian might by treaty fish within three
miles of any part. of the coast of Ireland, and an American
might set the Irish fishery laws altogether at defiance,
while an Irishman was obliged to sue for the permission
of a peddling bet of commissioners to exercise his industry
upon his own coasts. He ( Mr. Al` Mahon) hoped that the
house would consent to the introduction of his bill, vhich
would remedy these grievances.
Mr. G. H. MOORE seconded the motion.

Mr. HOR3MAN said if the measure proposed to be
introduced was identical with the bill of 1855, which
was rejected by the house, he could not advise its
adoption.
Mr. M'MARos replied that the bill applied only to
the seacoast, and did not interfere with the inland or
other fisheries.

Leave was then given.
THE FRANKLIN EXPEDITION.

Sir C. WOOD, in reply to Sir De Lacy Evans,
said that the Government had not yet come to a
decision on the subject of this expedition, but as
soon as they did they would inform the house. An
estimate would be necessary if the expedition were
decided upon.