The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-13 00:00:00

SHANNON NAVIGATION.

Viscount DUNCANNON moved the Order of the
Day for the House going into Committee on the Shan-
non Navigation Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know whether
the estimate included the salaries of officers, and how
many years the works would be in progress ?
Viscount DUNCANNON said the salaries of offi-
cers was included, and it was supposed the works would
take six years to complete.
Lord ELLENBORO UG H said it appeared to him
that the amount available for diminishing the evil of
want of employment in Ireland, which was the great
ground for introducing the present Bill, was very small
indeed. Deducting the expense of machinery, &c., and
spreading the surplus over a space of six years, it would
leave only a sum of about 80,000/. a year to be expended
in labour. He did not think, in the present state of the
public revenue, the advantages of the plan_ were suffi-
cient to induce their Lordships to assent to the measure.
Viscount DUNCANNON believed it. would be
found that there would be not only a great amount of
good directly produced by the measure, but that a vast
amount of labour would be called for, indirectly, in
framing new lines of communication with the improved
navigation of the Shannon. Colonel Burgoyne had
stated in his letter that he feared the Board of Works
would not be able to carry on these works, and recom-
mended the establishment of a separate Commission,
with one paid Commissioner. It was also considered
necessary to appoint a solicitor to settle the conflicting
claims that were likely to be, made.

After a few words from Lord LYNDIJURST and the
Marquis of LANspowNE, the Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and was reported and Ordered to be read a third
time on Thursday next.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
Viscount DUNCANNON moved the second read-
ing of the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, and briefly
stated its objects.
The Earl of WICKLOW had one or two objections
to the Bill, which he should bring forward in Committee.
After a few words from Viscount DUNCANNON and
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI the Bill was remd a se-
cond time.
METROPOLIS POLICE BILL.

Viscount DUNCANNON moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee on the London Metropo-
lis Police Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM had no objection to going into
Committee, because it was necessary this Bill should
pass during the present Session in one form or other, or
all the police-offices would be shut up, but there were
several clauses to which he should object ; he objected to
the power given to the Government of appointing 27
new officers with salaries of 1400/. a-year each, at the
same time permitting them to superannuate any of the
present Magistrates on two-thirds of their salary. Ho ob-
jected also to the power given to Magistrates to commit
without the intervention of Grand Jury, Petty Jury, or
Public Prosecutor, for what in the margin was de-
scribed as a petty theft, but what in the body of the
Bill was entitled any chattel, so that if a man stole the
Pigot Diamond, or a bond for 10,0001., if the Magistrate
thought he did it without circumstances of aggravation,he
might fine him 5/., or send him to prison for three
months, with or without hard labour. This was giving
too great power to the Magistrates. He also objected
to the 17 clauses giving power to the Secretary of State
alone, without the intervention of the Judges, of mak-
ing regulations for these Courts, providing only that they
should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but
unless both Houses agreed to repeal these regulations of
the Secretary of State they would have the force of law.
The 27th section struck him as most absurd, inasmuch
as it enabled any Magistrate to convict a man as a re-
ceiver of stolen goods if in his house, or his outhouse,
stolen goods should be found ; so that if a thief choseto
secrete stolen goods in his (Lord Brougham's) coach-
house, he would be liable to's conviction as a receiver
of stolen goods. The blame of this clause, however, did
not rest on the framers of this Bill, for he was
surprised to find that it existed in former Acts, and was
in fact the law at this moment. It was very
well that some justices and some informers were not
aware of the existence of this clause, His objection to
the Bill that it was never brought up to the House
until the 6th of August, did not apply to this clause.
because it was not a new one. With regard to his
other objections, he should take the sense of the Com-
mittee on them.

Viscount DU NC AN NON said respecting the power
of removing Magistrates given to the Secretary of
State, it had been reported to both Houses by Com-
mittees which had sat on that subject that some al-
teration was necessary in the appointment of Magis-
trates in the metropolitan districts—it was necessary
the Secretary of State should possess power to effe3t
these alterations, and. unless their Lordships passed
this clause, the Secretary of State could not remove
these Magistrates, as he could have no power of su-
perannuation. It could not be supposed that the Se-
cretary of State. would exercise this power needlessly,
as he must do it on his own responsibility. The new
Magistrates were to be Barristers of some standing,
and he did notconsider twelve hundred pounds a-year too
much for that class of persons. The Bill enacted that
two Magistrates should be appointed to each office, in-
stead of them ; and if the present number of officers
were continued there would be no increase of the ex-
pense ; but in consequence of the increased extent of
the metropolis an additional number of officers had
become necessary, therefore the expense would be
greater. His Noble and Learned Friend on the
Wool-
sack could speak to that part of the clause respecting
the separate jurisdiction, in favour of which, it should be
recollected, that two Committees of the House of Com-
mons and one of their Lordships' House had reported.
He had received a letter from one of the Magistrates, re-
commending the passing of this clause, and stating that if
some such enactment was not made, the Central Cri-
minal Court would be overwhelmed with business.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.

-•
On clause 2 being proposed,
Lord BROUGHAM wished merely to move the
old Act for another year. This Bill ought to have
been brought forward last Session ; by not bringing it
forward then, the Crown was actually prevented from
dissolving the Parliament, because the instant the Ses-
sion closed the police offices would all be shut up. He
had no doubt that under the second clause half a dozen
Magistrattis would be superannuated, and half a dozen
new appointments made ; and from the case with which

the Bill had passed in another place, he would almost
venture to point out who those half dozen would be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said this clause was
part of the existing law.

Lord BROUGHAM begged pardon. it was the
I third clause he objected tn, giving retiring pensions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this clause
was necessary as the only way of securing the services
of an active officer, in place of one rendered incompetent
by infirmity.
Lord LYNDHURST objected to giving the Secre-
tary- of State this power ; he thought it would be better
merely to renew the existing law for a year, which might
be done by passing the first clause and rejecting all the
others.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had no apprehension
of any one retiring on two-thirds of his salary who was
able, by continuing to perform the duties of his office, to
receive the whole.
Lord BROUGHAM said that as this Bill had been
passed by a House of Commons that consisted of
scarcely more than a bare majority, and when it was
ound that it votes away so many do isands of pounds
and created so much patronage, their Lordships ought
never again to complain of the lateness with which a
Bill was sent up by the Commons.
Lord LYN DHU RST considered it quite
monstrous that while there was a House of Commons
that might be disposed to consider such a Bill, it
should not be introduced, but that when the House was
reduced to a mere board of the Government, that then
it should be brought in.
Lord DUNCANNON said that that had not been
the case here, for this Bill had been under discussion
in Committee in the House of Commons for the last
month.

Lord BROUGHAM could assure his Noble Friend
that in that he was in a mistake, because he bad nar-
rowly watched the proceedings of this Bill in the other
House, and it. was only a fortnight ago since it had
been introduced into a Committee there, and the Votes
had shown a bare quorum of the House.—( Hear, hear.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division—
For the clause
Against the clause
Majority for the clause —3

Clauses to 24, inclusive, were then agreed to.
Lord LYNDHURST objected to clause 25. This
clause, for the first time in this country, proposed to
take away trial by jury in cases of felony, and to test
the trial in an individual appointed by, and removable at
the pleasure of the Crown. It proposed further to leave it
to the discretion of the Magistrate to say whether he
would try the prisoner or not—thereby opening a door
to every species of favouritism. It was said that this
was only to be in the cases of trifling felony ; but he
would warn their Lordships against admitting the prin-
ciple at all, and he was fortified in his objection to this
by the the great authority of Blackstone, in his com-
ments upon trial by jury. Under these circumstances,
he should move as an amendment the omission of this
clause.

The Earl of DEVON supported the clause. It had
been introduced upon the recommendation of the Com-
missioners, and ought to be retained.

Lord BROUGHAM said, even if it was thought fit
to introduce that extraordinary change in the criminal
law of the country, namely, the power of trying felonies
by a single Magistrate, still it would not follow that it
would be fitting to introduce the power in such a man-
ner and at such a time—in a Police Bill at the end of
a long Session of Parliament. The Commissioners had
themselves confined the operation of the clause to juve-
nile offenders and petty thefts. He denied that it
was carrying out the principle of Sir R. Peel's Bills to
introduce such a power as that. Sir R. Peel's propo-
sition was, that trespasses might be adjudicated upon by
a single Magistrate, while the present clause would ex-
tend that power to cases of felony. He did not think
it would be possible for their Lordships to consent to
such a clause as the present, which went to abolish
trial by jury, when the subject could be more fully dis-
cussed in the next Session of Parliament.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said no one was
less disposed to abolish trial by jury than himself; but
it was necessary that they should not fall into the
opposite extreme, and inflict a long and unmerited con-
finement upon parties who might be summarily dealt
with before'•the Magistrate. It appeared to him, however,
that the power given to the Justices by the clause was
rather too extended, and that some limitation might be
judiciously introduced.—(Hear, hear.) Two modes
had been suggested, one was to limit the cases to the
value of the thing stolen, in his opinion a very inaccu-
rate test, as there might be circumstances of great ag-
gravation in such cases—the other was to make the
age of the party accused the test, and that appeared to
him less liable to objection. It would, perhaps, be bet-
ter to defer the clause till a future stage of the Bill,
when it might be more fully discussed and considered.
Lord BROUGHAM would beg .to remind his
Noble and Learned Friend that the district to which
the clause referred was almost the only one in which
the party accused could not endure any very long con-
finement, as the sessions were held every fortnight, and
that was the very longest imprisonment a party could
suffer before trial.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause, Content 3l
Non-Content 34
Majority
—3
The clause was consequently lost.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the rejection of clause
26, to which his objections applied with equal force as
to the one just rejected.
The clause was struck out.

Lord BROUGHAM also objected to clause 27.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the clause
should be struck out, and an amended clause introduced
on the bringing up the Report.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR the suggestion was acceded to and the clause
struck out.

On clause 43 being proposed, which prohibits fees
to Magistrates' Clerks and the Clerks to Police Magis-
trates,

The Duke of RICHMOND mentioned the case of
an individual who was, as he thought, entitled to com-
pensation.

Lord LYNDHURST said that by this Act Police
Magistrates could not act out of their courts, and cases
of emergency might arise where the presence of a Magis-
trate might be required.

Lord BROUGHAM said the clause must be altered.

The clause was then struck out, as was clause 44.
The remaining clauses were then disposed of, the
schedules agreelto, and the House resumed.
The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that on
the bringing up the Report, he should move aD
amendment to clause 20.

The Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
SPIRIT LICENSES (IRELAND) BILL,
Viscount DUNCAN NON moved the second read-
ing of the Spirit Licenses (Ireland) Bill,
Lord LYNDHURST objected to the last clause.
The Earl of WICKLOW said a Bill similar to this
clause had been sent up from the other House, but no-
body had been found to move its second reading, and it
consequently fell to the ground. The object was to re-
peal a Bill introduced by Government prohibiting the sale
of spirits by grocers, and yet, because an individual of
great influence with the Government, who wished to
stand well with the petty grocers of Dublin, thought fit to
introduce a clause into the Bill, repealing their own mea-
sure, the Government permitted him so to do. He consi-
dered this so gross an attempt at imposition that he
trusted the House would make an example of the au-
thors by refusing a second reading to this Bill.
Viscount DU NUANNON said the public would be
the sufferers, in the event of this example being made,
The clause had not been introduced by the Govern-
ment, but hnd been proposed in the other Hok:se by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded to-1n a full
House, and had been carried. He, so far frond attempt-
ing to impose, had drawn their Lordships' f;,itention to it;
therefore, he trusted the Bill would be read a second
time.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed to-morrow.

SHEEP STEALING (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount DU Ne A N NON moved the second read-
ing of the Sheep Stealing (Ireland) Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought the law ought
to be the same in both countries, and that the prevait
Bill was unnecessary.
The Earl of WICKLOW supported the Bill. It
was necessary in Ireland, and if the Noble nuke wished
it to be extended to England he should nut object to it.
The Bill was a second time, and ordered to
be committed ill
to.igoaw.
The other Bills on their Lordships' table were ad-
vanced a
minutes to sNine o'Clock. tage, and the House adjourned at Twenty

HOUSE OF COIktMONS, Aucusr 12.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
Mr. O'CONNEL (in continuation from our
Second 2 Edition) proceeded to spy—Within the I,„st
week 0 families had been ousted by the E,..r1 of
Courtown. They did not owe him a shilling rent—
they were ready to pay him the full value of his pro-
perty—but they had been made housrAess, and were
now abroad on the pelting common, without covering,
without shelter, without food, and without the means of
sustenance. Could gentlemen be surprised that riots
and agrarian disturbances should take place in Ireland
God help them! They had intended to resist, but a
gentleman in the neighbourhood and a Catholic clergy-
man, went to them and gave them good advice, but bad
the misery of seeing their houses torn down. Could they
wonder that tranquillity should be disturbed when
scenes like that took place ?—(Hear, hear.) Could they
the
be surprised that something which bad been called Rib.
bonism, whatever it was (for although they had heart). a
great Cleal of it yet nobody could tell what it was)
telibigaldblint7'
of
nded to do
hsRI:
miobubl(odn ssrpm. r tvn,•gca so utnh: fl a) v. To
uhßre whichutonnh
theyly i!nn g
coulf.l4 be more false
than the charges that bad b:,en mad' relative to Lord
Normanby's conduct. Nothin could be more false
than the asserti.ca that prorrty was becoming insecure
or life uoLit'ie in Ireland. The facts were directly the