The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-08 00:00:00

speakers in that house whom he had heard on the sub-
ject, he did not think any one, except the hon. member
for Manches:ter, really liked that bill. It was not de-
sired, and it was not wished for. The right hen: gen-
tleman had stated that a large amount of revenue, to
the extent of 200,0001., would accrue in consequence of
the abolition of the duty, but lie thought the retransmission
of newspapers, as proposed, would be a source of loss
rather than gain to the Government. Under all the
circumstances, he felt it his duty to move that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said although he had, in the
first instance, voted in favour of the bill, because he
thought it advisable at the time he should not vote for
the amendment. We had a deep interest in the diffusion
of political intelligence, and useful information by means
of newspapers he admitted, but they had an equal interest
in taking care that these newspapers should be of the
best possible class, and that they should be carried on by
men of character and intelligence ; and believing, as be
did, that the power of re-transmission was a premium on
the highest class of newspapers, he should be sorry to see
it abolished, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would pause before he interfered with its ope-
ration. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said it was never too late to do
an act of justice, and in his opinion he had been guilty
of injustice in supporting that measure on a previous oc-
easion. The different clauses in the bill had appeared
and disappeared, and again reappeared so frequently,
that he scarcely knew in what position the measure now
stood. Then again, in the case of the copyright, he wished
to ask his right hon. friend why did he propose it at'allt
Did he not propose it in a conscientious belief that the
measure would be productive of a deep
isting interests unless a remedy of some such kind were
provided ? (Hear, hear.) That remedy was accordingly
wrighhicthhiotnw.
afsriehnisddtshtyatinjury upon ex
suggested, but upon this discussion it was withdrawn, it
beingvir found absolutely inoperative to effect its object.
What was all this but an admission on the part of his
to remedy.
was still about to be was
And to doye at n
this injustice,
j u
injurys t i ce,
inflicted for the sake of effecting
some good, which, Bo f
quite problematical. What right
as he could see, was
right had the house, whose
duty it was to protect the rights of property, to
do positive injury to existing interests? Well, then,
having failed in this copyright clause the next obnoxious
proposition was the limitation of the weight of papers
passing through the post. On
what
friend ground that principle—why
should
did his right hon.
ould he draw the
of
line at four ounces insteadsix 2 Why, it
was a positive contradiction to
tion. First of all they had abolished
the adver-
tisement duty, but now that that had been duc
of an increase of advertisements the house pro
interposedti
and said, "You have too much printed matter, we will
not allow you to send it by post without extra charge."
(Hear, hear.) This was as ridiculous as it was unjust.
Why not allow a man who bought an unstamped news-
paper, after reading it, to transmit it to his friends if he
saw anything in it interesting to them ? The bill wan
full of anomalies and absurdities. The honourable mem-
ber concluded by urging that there was no principle of
legislation so unjust as to obtain a problematical good
at the expense of a private or public injury.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the hon. member had adopted, to say the least of it,
a most unusual course in respect of the bill
now before the house. In committee on the bill he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed a clause with re.
ference to copyright and its remedy, which the hon.
member for Enniskillen opposed, on the same grounds
he had stated in such forcible language that evening to
the house. (Hear, hear.) The clause was not a part of
the original measure, and proposed by him as necessary,
but on the special ground he stated in moving the clause
in committee, that the Government did it in deference
to the interests of existing newspapers, who considered
the measure would be detrimental to their interests by
calling into existence a large class of newspapers
ho would pilfer their intelligence. He did not state
then, that he believed, nor did he believe now, that such
a state of things would exit to any considerable extent
under the provisions of the bill now before the
house. The clause was considered and withdrawn
in committee, and it ought not now to form an ob-
jection to the third reading of the bill. As to the
fears of the ,:e gentlemen who believed that the passing
,f this bill would call into existence such a class of pub-
lwatior.s, a iemcdy could shortly be found to meet it.
. .

lie then proceeded to defend the proposition of charging
by weight; &c., as proposed by the Government.
Lord PALNIERSTON submitted to the house whe-
ther they would not allow the third reading to stand
over, in consequence of the illness of the Speaker, and to
allow him to vacate the chair. All present must be
aware of the pain the hon. gentleman was suffering,
and would be anxious to relieve him from his attendance
that night.

Mr. .DISRAELI submitted that the best course to
adopt would be to adjourn the debate on the third read-

iug, and the proposition Laving been acceded to, the
third reading was postpon ed till Friday.
The SPEAKER then left the chair ; and the house
then went into committee of supply, Mr. FITZROY in the
chair.

Mr. WILSON said that in moving the necessary votes
for defraying the sums payable for establishments con-
nected with justice in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and
for convict departments, two courses were open, either to
take four votes for the aggregate sums, or to take a sepa-
rate vote upon each particular item. It was for the com-
mittee to decide which way they thought the better ; in-
asmuch, however, as it seemed to him that time would be
saved by moving for the aggregate sums, he should pro-
pose that course.
Mr. HENLEY objected. He thought such a plan would
only lead to long desultory conversation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
each item should be proposed separately.
The following votes were then agreed to :-
35,941/. for solicitor of the Treasury department.
' 250,0001. for prosecutions at assizes.
1,1001., for Chancery, Crown-office expenses.
2,0501., for Queen's Bench, Crown-office expenses.
15,9001., for sheriffs expenses, &o.
Upon the vote of 6,0001., for the department of the Re-
gistrar of the Court of Admiralty,
Mr. OT WAY asked if sufficient securities had been
taken from the gentleman who at present held the office of
registrar ?
Mr. WILSON—Yes.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that out of this 6,0001., 1,0001.
was for incidental expen-es.
Mr. WILSON said that the proceedings in this court on
account of the war required a comparatively large sum for
contingencies.
In answer to Mr. WALPOLE,
Mr. WILSON said that proceedings werebeing taken to
recover as much as possible from the estate of the late
'3,egistrar of the Admiralty.
The vote was then agreed to.
The following votes were then agreed to :
8,4151., for Isolvent Debtors' Court.
13,8501., treasurers of county courts.
23,2341., salaries and expenses of police courts.
101,2181., for metropolitan police.
4,2261., the Queen's Prison.
3,3121., for salaries of Lord-Advocate and Solicitor .
General.
7,7551., expenses in prosecutions under order of the Lord•
Advocate.
Upon the vote 17,5261., for Court of Session,
Mr. COWAN objected to this vote being passed without
explanation, as it showed an increase of 5,0001. on the vote
of last year.
The LORD-ADVOCATE could not at that moment ex.
plaia the increase. He knew that an increase in the ex-
parses of the Court of Session had taken place, and he pre-
sumed, therefore, that the difference in the vote of the two
years arose from something having been omitted last year.
Mr. COWAN objected to the vote being pressed in the
absence of more detiuite information.
The vote was withdrawn.
The following votes were agreed to.
7,19,1. for salaries, &c., Courts of Justiciary.
1,5931. for salaries, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Re-
inembranccr (Scotland).
57,0001., salaries of sheriffs and procurators fiscal not
otherwise paid, and expenses of prosecutions in sheriffs'
courts.
Si,. CcI,AUFU.RD asked whether it was intended to ex-
tend the system of paying procurators fiscal by salaries?
Those who were still paid by fees complained of the time
wasted in collecting their remuneration.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said that in districts where
there there was much business the fees had been commuted 0
coulda not
salaiics ; in the others the fees remained.
hexoltielnd.
oduetany hope of the principle of paying by salary being
Vote agreed to.
not paid by fees.—
11,530/7 salaries of procurators fiscal
Agreed to.
°Teed to without discussion :
The following votes were agreed
4,3181., sheriffs' clerks 0_
1,1191., commissary
prosecutions (Ireland).
51,7201., criminal f Chaucer)" (Ireland).
officers, Court o
1,2911.,
1338/., officers, d)
Common Pleas (lre an ,
1,3111, officers' Exchequer (Ireland)
2[12,51601a solicitors,G en eral &reg°i:sev(trSekclEcodu
is( Scotland).
ZEltridgiinnodb.n (Edinburgh).
).
r the law courts
2001., salary, c
1,3201.,
(Ireland).
ter to the judges (Ireland).
5,235/-, re4ls. for Begistration of Judgments.
1,906/.
th-hocAdvooates,HighCourtof Delegates
Queen's nt.'sxi Benchv offi(
of:: 1 afnod ).
(Ireland),
3001., fees to Advocates,
Court (Ireland).
ofticerTer:
3,146L' ,Insolvent
of Errors (Ireland).
267/., clerk,
1,6001., police justices
s ess(iDo
enllob(nslvicnioc)tt.l
(Scotland).
ocoi., metropolitan police (Dublin).
638,5111. constabulary (Ireland).
118, 9:17 2701.1,. Four
in s pCe
co
tuorrt.sg
e(Dublin).
prisons in the United
Kingdom. 1377,2467/9.1,
Governmento Court o f
Mr. HENLEY inquired whether
con-
victsathrea.usported was now greaterieoonrl
reformatorye thesesonthvnucnmtfnumber of
settlement
prisons7.oerfml
formerly
:utSir G. GREY said that maintained abroad was Western Australia, those who
were sent to Bermuda and Gibraltar being employed on
public works, the same as at home. He believed the num-
ber transported was between 600 and 700.
Vote agreed to.
166,1741. expenses, reformatory prisons, Sce.
In answer to inquiries from Sir S. NORTIICOTIC and Sir
J. PAKINCTON,
inmates, calculated
of
fe
des ble to compel
at Sc. per week per head. It b
Sir G. GREY said that the allowances to reformatory
isons was based on the number
he would
feared
that the difScul-
an allowance from parents,
boys as were recom•
eiple of selection was to admit
ties of recovering it wouldbbeu
mended by the judge or
parents
who tried the case, in
being so addicted to crime,
consequence of their
iinssuuchrmountable. The prin.
and therefore unfitted to have the care of their children,
ofs e
or altogetherawnyithalotuetraftriioenndins.thHe
ate thought
it lastught
inexpedientfhe
ion with the viewp acing the expense of these re-
formatory • stitntions wholly upon the Consolidated
Fund ; first, in
on account of the large expenditure it would
involve;g and secondly, because it would interpose au ob-
stacle
t 3of t o the establishment of such institutions by private
and local means.
Mr. MACAUTNEY complained that a compact which
he said had been entered into by Sir It. Fed, tepaialt