The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-22 00:00:00

meantimeele should move on the third reading to confine
the exemptions given to foreign shipping to thot e cases in
which the su,eiect of the patent had been in the fir; it instance
patented abroad.
Mr. HENLEY said if the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen
could suggest any means by which protection might be
given to 'Liglish patents without inconvenience o r hindrance
to trade, he should he glad to consider them; but he did
not think the proposition of which the Hon. a d Learned
Gentleman had just given notice would acco n the
object he contemplated.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also th,l remaining
clauses of the Bill.
On the schedule in clause 44,
Mr. CARTER proposed amendments of whi ell he had
given notice. The fees to be paid under the Bill would
amount to 1491. 11s., and for stamps 551. would :have to be
paid—in all 1811. Ids., a large sum for thoso wht , sought to
take out patents, and who were generally poor t nen. His
amendment would have the effect of enabling a eel itent to be
taken out for 101., instead of the present large sum. He
proposed, therefore, in the first item of fees for " ft ve pounds"
to insert " live shillings."
Mr. HENLEY did not think that any well-ft .unded ob-
jection could be taken to the scale of fees mid,' r the Bill.
Persons who were desirous of taking out patents would not
object to paying 251. the first year for the • protection
afforded to their inventions; and if the 'low sca4e proposed
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were ad tpted, they
would have all the most worthless projects paten ted..
Mr. SIUNTZ could not concur in the prom nety of re-
ducing the fees to so low a scale as that prop( ned by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but, none took
place, the Hon. Member (Sir. Carter) not having found any
Hon. Member to act as his teller.
The amendment accordingly fell to the grou ad, and the
schedule was agreed to.
The House resumed, and the CHAIRMAI al' reported
progress.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) 13 ,ILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Crime and
Outrage (Ireland) Bill.
The preamhe was postponed.
Clause 1.
Mr. V. SCULLY moved an amendment to the effect that
the Bill should be in force only until the 31st of December
next, and no longer. He hoped the Governor, ant- would
agree to the amendment, as the Chancellor of to e Exche-
quer had stated that the next Parliament was assemble
about October, which would afford abundance of t ime to re-
enee, the law, if it were deemed necessary. Ms sides this,
the Bill was brought forward at the fag end of the session, a
course which the. Chancellor of the L.'xchequer hi ad himself
condemned in respect of the measure which passe d in 1846.
Another reason for limiting the duration of the Bi ll was the
circumstance that remedial measures had been pe omised by
the Government, and that the House should haves an oppor-
tunity of knowing the character ,of these mess tires before
conferring for such a long period the extraordin a ry powers
contained in the Bill.
Mr. COGAN said an attempt had been made to misre-
present the opposition to the Bill, which he en, eirely repu-
diated. He admitted that crime existed in sot tie parts of
Ireland, but he could show that it had general! decreased
from 30,000 to 20,003, and though he would aid the repres-
sion of crime as such, he would not aid in coercion as a re-
medy for the evil. Coercion had been tried fee: a century
without effect : the Government should go to, the root of
the evil, namely, the social condition of the ,country, if
they wished to cure agrarian outrage in Ireland. He gave
the Government credit for a desire to suppress crime in that
country, but not a single member on their side h std shown a
justification for the Bill on the ground that it heel repressed
crime. In that respect the Government had altogether
failed; and as the measure was most unconstitutional in
its character, he hoped they would not oppose title amend-
ment.
Lord NAAS said that some Hon. Gentlemen 01' posite had
stated that the Act had been inoperative for the . i uppression
of crime; but a statement more unfounded had ;never been
made in that House. He held in his hand a rate rn, which
showed the effects of the Act in different d'i Aricts in
which it had been put in force, and from that return it
appeared that its operation kad been eminently successful.
During the three months which had preceeded f he issuing
of the proclamation in the year 1847 in Cble county
of Cavan, the number of outrages had amounted to 43,
and during the last three months they had only amounted
to 20; in- the county of Limerick the outrages at, the same
period had amounted to 262 and 39; in the county of Ros-
common they .had amounted to 93 and 23; and in the
county of Tipperary they had amounted to 235 and 81.
The Act had, in fact, been attended with great and most
beneficial results. At the same time there wan nothing
which could in ,the slightest degree inconvenience men who
were determined to obey the law, and to perfierm their
duties as good citizens. Honourable Gentlemen opposite
hadefailed to show that a single instance of ()ppm scion had
taken place under the Act, and under those circumstances
he believed the House would readily consent to Re renewal.
Mr. F. SCULLY supported the amendment. 'The Irish
Members had not exhibited anything like factious opposition
to the measure, and he hoped that would have sortie weight
with the Government in adopting the amendment of his
Hon. Friend; if not, their duty to their constituents might
compel them to take another and a much more unpleasant
course.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, although he supported the
amendment, could not adopt the course which was shadowed
out by his Hon. Eriend who preceded him; and if a course
of delay was nttemoted he would be inclined to adopt the
bent of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and retire to his rest.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said that
any offence committed up to the 31st of December would
go unpunished unless the Act was in existence in order
to enforce the law at the next March assizes. That, he
thought, was a complete answer to the amendment of %the
Hon. Gentleman.
Sir D. NORREYS supported the amendment, believing
that such an arrangement would meet the views of the Go-
vernment.
Mr. CARTER objected to coercion Bills—he considered
that Irish grievances ought first to have a proper considers.-
tion, and then such Bills would be needless.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not c
template the Bill operating longer than to the end of Angus .t,
1853. He would cause such an alteration of words to 100
made to carry out that alteration, and this he hoped wou Id
satisfy the Hon. Member opposite.
After a few words from Mr. SCULLY and The O'Gortere
MAHON,

Mr. COGAN thought it might be advisable to let the Bill
be in operation only so long after December, 1852, as those
criminals in custody could have their trial.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
the concession of Government, in altering the time of th e
Bill to August, 1853, ought to be satisfactory.
Mr. F. SCULLY would consent to no concession. 11 a
thought the Bill ought not to go beyond the next session.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL adopted the suggestion of the GI )-
vernment, though he stood alone on that side of the Hous e.
It was cercainly an improvement on the.original terms of
the Bill to alter the limit to the 31st of August, 1853. Ele
should agree to that alteration, reserving to himself the
right of still further linaiting
the operation of the Bill a
future stage if he thought fit. t a
Mr. F. SCULLY again repeated that he could listen to
no compromise.

Mr. V. SCULLY said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not in a condition to offer a compromise. Had the Bill
not been closely looked into it would have been made to ex -
tend—he would not say by a " dodge"--t. the year 1854. B e
wished the Bill to be limited to that time, and that tim e
only, when the question would be brought forward for full
and final discussion.
After some more discussion, and when
The CHAIRMAN was about to pat the amendment,
Mr. F. SCULLY objected to the amendment being put,
on the ground that sufficient discussion had not been given
to the question.—(Laughter.)
Another discussion ensued.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL would be sorry to have a division
on reporting progress. He hoped Government would re-
consider the matter, and accept the offer of an earlier month
—May, for instance—as suggested by the Hon. Member for
Tavistock.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
impossible to alter the determination of having the date the
31st August, 1853. That question had been already well
considered, and he trusted Hon. Gentlemen opposite would
not delay its progress by further opposition.
Mr. V. SCULLY would not be a party to inflict the Bill on
Ireland until the 31st August..
Mr. F. SCULLY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress.
Another short discussion ensued.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, Mr. Scully having withdrawn his motion for reporting
progress.
The Committee then divided on the question of filling up
the blank, when there appeared—
For the Government proposition
Against

Majority
The remaining clauses having been agreed to,
The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill, with amendments, to
;he House.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
DISABILITIES REPEAL BILL.

Oa the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Sir W. P. WOOD did not rise to oppose the passage of the
Bill, but to complain of its extreme meagreness. It fell far
short of the requirements of the case, and would merely be
regarded by the public as an instalment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that the action of "Miller
v. Salomons," was a collusive one. He should oppose the fare-
ther progress of the Bill until the law officers of the Crown
had had an opportunity of duly considering the novel cir-
cumstances in which this action at law had placed thequet3-
tion. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day
three months.
Mr. CONOLLY seconded the amendment.
Mr. R. PALMER defended the Bill, which had been
ushered in under no less distinguished auspices than those
of Lord Lyndhurt. The measure, which was confined to the
object of sweeping out of the statute-book some of the most
extravagant and absurd provisions which had ever defaced
our legislation, had passed the scrutiny of the Law Lords
of the other House of Parliament, and he was at a loss
to conceive what reasonable objection could be started to
the Bill. The measure was simply one of justice, and he
e wthoeusled be acting withana little wisdom if
ct ho
no us
egnhtte thed to Hoti it
retain
dis-
abilities.
After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY, who was of opirdon
that the measure was quite inadequate,
Mr. WALPOLE said that he had always opposed the
admission of Jews to Parliament, and would continue to do
60,—(Hear, hear.) The question before the House, how-
ever, was, whether certain penalties should be retained, and
these he thought ought to be swept away. •
Mr. HUDSON advised the Hon. Member for North. War-
wickshire to withdraw his opposition.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was satisfied with the state-
ment of the Home Secretary that his hostility to the admis-
sion of Jews to Parliament continued unabated, and would
ANSTEY moved an amendment for the purpose
of extending
* the Bill to persons others than Members of
not press his amendment.
ziti
Parliament. the House divided, when there
For the amendn
appAefatererda—brief discuss:::
Against it ••• _ •
Majority against the amendmen., —46
• The 13111 was then read a third time, and passed.
The LoCrdOsA'ial‘mffenNdmLeAnWts tPoßtOliCeEßDiUllßwEereßiLsidered and
agreed to.
MASTER IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.

The iOrdTarnendments were considered and agreed to.
The MASTER of the ROLLS brought up a clause giving
compensation to the chief clerks in the same manner as to
the Masters.
Mr CARTER opposed the clause, which, after some dis-
cussion, was agreed to.
The Holloway House of Correction Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The house then adjourned...at Ralf-past Two o'clQck,