The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-15 00:00:00

CANADA.

Mr. ROI3INSON wished to know when Government
intended to bring in a Bill founded on the Resolutions
passed by the two Houses ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was impossible for him
to fix any day.
Mr. ROBINSON agreed with the Noble Lord that
there mizht be some difficulty in going on with the Bill,
but it might at least be laid on the table, that the country
might become acquainted with its provisions.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether Government
meant t.) act upon the Resolutions, without. bringing in
any BiU ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that they would not act
without an Act of Purliament.

Mr. WARBURTON, in reply to Mr. S. O'Brien, said
he did not think if he brought in a Bill to regulate the
medical profession, that he would be enabled to carry it
through this Session.

Mr. F. BARING, in reply to Mr. Goulburn, said that
it was necessary to enable the House to go into a Com-
mittee of Ways and Means on Monday next, to go into
a Committee. of Supply on Friday.
Sir G. GREY said, in reply to a question put by Mr.
Hume, that no address from the House of Assembly of
Nova Scotia had been received by the Colonial Office.
Mr. ROE BUCK—They arc printed.
Upon the motion that the House go into Committee on
the Est Ircl'a Maritime Officers' Bill,
Mr. ROBINSON hoped that if Counsel were heard
against the Bill7Counsel would also be heard in support of it.

Sir I HOBHOUSE could not come to any under-
standing on the subject refeired to by the Hon. Gentleman.
After a few further remarks, Mr. Sergeant Spankie and
Mr. Wigrarn were called in and heard against this Bill.
When Mr. Sergeant Spankie had concluded,
Mr. ROBINSON proposed that, as he did not intend
to produce Counsel on behalf of the Bill, no others should
be heard.

Sir J. HOBHOUSE said it was not to satisfy him
Counsel called, and it was extraordinary that the Ho-
nourable Gentleman should object to hear Counsel on his
own Bill.

Mr. ROBINSON male the proposition to save the
time of the House.

Mr. V. SMITH was decidedly of opinion that Counse'
should be heard.

Mr. ROBINSON would, of course, submit to the wi
of the Ilouse.

Mr. Wigram was then heard in favour of the ELst India
Company.
Counel were then directed to withdraw, and
The SPEAKER put the question that he do leave the
Chair.

Sir J. HOBHOUSE opposed the motion for the
Speaker's leaving the Chair.
Mr. ROBINSON supported the motion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it would be
a gross injustice to interfere with the East India Company
in the manner proposed by the Bill. The East India Com-
pany had considered the case fully, and had determined that
compensation could not be given consistently with the rules
laid down for carrying into execution the Act of Parliament.
Mr. PRAED contended that the House ought to pass
the Bill in justice to the officers in question.
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE said, that if the House
passed the Bill they would be interfering with property with
which they bad no concern. A more strange, more un-
just or more iniquitous Bill had never been presented to
Parliament, and he should oppose it at every stage. The
Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving, as an amend-
ment, " That the House resolve itself into a Committee
that day six months."
After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Lord SAN-
DON, and Mr. CLAY,

The House divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 32
Noes

Majority for the Amendment —36
The Bill was ordered to be committed that day six
months.
BONDED CORN MANUFACTURE BILL.

Mr. ROBINSON moved the second reading of this Bill
Mr. HE ATHCOTE moved; as an amendment, the se.
cond reading of the Bill that day six months.

Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE should most cordially support
the second reading.
The Marquis of CHANDOS cordially concurred in the
amendment.

Mr. BENETT felt bound to oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the Bill.
The Earl of DARLINGTON opposed the Bill with
reluctance, because he was always indisposed to oppose
any measure which could probably benefit any class of the
country ; but he did so, because he could not deem himself
acting consistently to those who sent him there if he sup-
ported it.
Lord SA NDON supported the motion.
Mr. WYSE said a few words in support of the Bill.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG was of opinion that this measure
would be attended with some beneficial effect, and could be
of no detriment to the landowner.

Mr. HANDLEY opposed the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. WALLACE, the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the/second reading
Against it 42
Majority ll
The Bill was then read a second time.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On our re-admission we found

Mr. A. TREVOR opposing the second reading of the
Bribery at Elections Bill, on the ground that it went to
prevent a candidate from giving any sort of refreshment to
those electors who voted for him, however great the distance
they might have come. He concluded by moving, as an
amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day
siK months.

Colonel SIBTIIORP seconded the amendment. It
was an atrocious Bill. lie would oppose it in every stage.
Mr. BAINES was opposed to the Bill, not because it
went too far, but because it did not go far enough.—(Loud
laughter.) The Hon. Member having alluded to a pre-
vious election for Pomfret, at which head-money was said to
have been given, announced that, if the Bill proceeded, he
would propose a clause, to prevent it in future.
Mr. HARDY had admitted before, and he now ad-
mitted again, that he gave head-money upon the occasion
alluded to. If the Hon. Member for Leeds inquired lie
would find that it was still the practice in the borough
alluded to. But head-money was no more like bribery than
it was like the Greek loan. He admitted, however, that it
was an improper custom, and he should take care never to
burn his fingers again in that way. It ought to be put an
end to, and there was a clause in the Bill which he thought
would effect that object. This Bill, with the exception of
two or three clauses, was in fact but a consolidation of the
Acts against bribery.

Mr. FORBES defended the conduct of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Bradford, and expressed his con-
viction that the attacks upon him, in reference to the pay-
ment of head-money at Pomfret, originated in personal
feelings.
After a few words from Mr. FORSTER, which were
inaudible, the Gallery was cleared for a division.

The numbers were—
For the second reading...7o I Against it... 0 I Majority...7o
CUSTODY OF INFANTS' BILL.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, in moving the second
reading of this Bill, said that it related to a subject of great
interest to all those who were parents. He was not aware
that there would be any opposition to the principle of the
Bill, which was to give to the Judges, in many painful cases
of separation between parents and children, that power with
which he believed they all regretted they were not invested.
—(Hear.) He should, therefore, content himself with
moving that the Bill be read a second time.—Agreed to.
The Bill was ordered to be committed on the 28th inst.

GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved the second reading of this
Bill.

Mr. JERVIS moved an amendment that the Bill be
read a second time that day six months.

After a few words from Mr. F. MAULE,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took
place, the Bill being read a second time, and ordered to be
committed that day week.
SHERIFFS' COURTS BILL.

Captain PEC HELL moved that the report of the She-
riff's Courts Bill be taken intp further consideration.
Lord STANLEY hoped the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber would consent to a proposition he rose to make to him,
which was, that the Bill should be recommitted, as he
wished to have a clause added to it, extendingits provisions
to the Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of
Lancaster.

Mr. JERVIS also wished that the provisions of the Bill
should be extended to the Court of Passages at Liverpool.
After a few words from Lord Stanley, the Solicitor-Ge-
neral, Mr. Aglionbv, and Mr. Tooke,
Captain PECHELL expressed his hope that the propo-
sition for any postponement would not be pressed at so late
a period of the session.
Mr. JERVIS objected to give way, and moved as an
amendment that the Bill be recommitted, and that it be
an instruction for the Committee that the provisions of the
Bill be extended to the Court of Common Pleas at Lan-
caster, the Court of Passages at Liverpool, and any other
Courts in the country having, (as we understood) similar
jurisdiction to theirs.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the Amendment 5O
Against it
Majority _ _ _ 7736

On our return to the gallery, we found the House in
Committee on the Bill, and

Mr. JERVIS moving to add the following proviso to
the Bill :—" That nothing herein contained shall authorize
the trial before such Sheriff of any issue for or in respect
of any debt or demand exceeding the sum of 20 pounds,
unless a barrister of not less than three years' standing
shall preside as assessor at the trial of such issue."
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the motion, but said that
he objected to the principle of the 201. clause.

After a few words from Mr. TOOKE and Lord
STANLEY,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Chester was a reason-
able one. He should not feel himself warranted in offering
any opposition to it.
Sir L. PARRY considered the amendment an advan-
tageous one. He would recommend to the law officers of
the Crown to consider the propriety of employing the Com-
missioners of the Insolvent Courts for the future, as asses-
sors on the trials.

Captain PEG HELL was willing to adopt the amend-
ment, though he did not think that it would be of much
benefit to the south of England.
Mr. TOOKE moved that the Bill should be printed,
with the amendments, for the purpose of being taken into
further consideration.—Agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, after which
the House resumed.
RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS BILL.

Mr. AGLIONBY, in moving that the House should
resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, had to present a
petition from Leicester, signed by 500 persons, in favour of
the measure. The petitioners prayed that if any difficulty
arose in carrying the Bill through the House, his Majesty's
Attorney-General might be requested to take it in charge.
Two Sessions had elapsed since the Bill was first brought
before the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the Hon. Member had in
some measure taken the house by surprise in bringing the
Bill on that evening. The Bill was of a most arbitrary

character. It empowered any person who declared himself
to be owner of a dwdling-house to turn out the tenant in
four days after he said that the tenancy had expired. He
had suspected that the Bill could not be a good one when
he saw that so many lion. Members of the House had
been eager to have it passed.—(Oh, oh !) He had thence
concluded that it must be against the interests of the mass
of the people—(01), oh !)—for he had observed ever since
he had the misfortune to sit in that House—(A laugh)—a
misfortune it certainly was, if things went on in the present
fashion—he had observed that the anxiety of Hon. Mem-
bers for the passing of a Bill did not speak in favour of its
utility. Why should Hon. Members confine the operation
of the Bill to tenements of 201. a year ? Why not apply
it to the rich as well as the poor ? If ever a plan was pro-
duced in favour of the rich, and in opposition to the poor,
this was the one. He felt it to be his painful duty to move
that the House should go into Committee on the Bill that
day three months.
Mr. JERVIS thought that the Bill was in direct oppo-
sition to the interests of the poor. It was, in fact, a land-
lord's Bill against the tenants.
On the question being put that the Bill be considered

that day three months,
Mr. AGLIONBr said that from the moment that
the Honourable Member for Finsbury had been so un-
fortunate as to sit in the House up to the present hour,
a more unprovoked attack had not been made against
any Honourable Member than had been directed against
him that night.—( Hear.) He would not, however, fol-
low his example, but merely reply to the charges made
against him. He de lied that the Bill in question was one
in which the rich were favoured at the expense of the poor,
and he could not believe that because Hon. Members sup,
ported a Bill it must therefore be a bad one.—(Hear.)
Petitions had been sent in from all parts of the country in
favour of the Bill, and although he had taken great pains
to send the Bill to mechanics' institutions and associations
of the poorer classes for remark, he had never heard a single
person speak ill of it. The Hon. Member was quite under
a mistake as to the answer he had given to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oxford. He (Mr. Aglionby) had expressly declared
that it was his firm intention to proceed with the Bill. He
had explained, on the second reading, why he had limited

the amount of value to 201. It was because those possess-
ing dwellings worth more than that sum were able to sus-
tain the expense of law proceedings. In " Burns's Justice"
the necessity of some measure like the present was strongly
insisted on, as the poor required some quick mode of legis-
lation. The Bill could only be opposed by those tenants
who desired to retain possession of houses fraudulently.
Mr. CRIPPS considered the Bill a most excellent
one. He thought it exceedingly hard that landlords should
be kept out of their property for years, as sometimes oc-
curred at present.
Major BEAUCLERK said that the opinion out of
doors was, that something should be done on the subject.
Mr. HARDY would ask the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury if he intended to divide the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said that at present such certainly was
his intention.
Mr. HARDY said that in that case he desired to make
a few remarks. The present system of ejectment was
most mischievous. The poor did not understand the mat-
ter, and they were almost always inclined to oppose the pro-
ceedings. By the Bill before the House no mistake could
take place, and the poor would therefore be better off
than at present.
Mr. JERVIS explained.
Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR was of opinion that there
was something in this Bill harsh and tyrannical towards te-
nants, and strange as it might appear, if the Hon. Member
for Finsbury persevered in dividing the Housa he (Mr.
Trevor) should vote with him.—(hear.)
Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the Bill
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment _9l
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
Bill.

On clause 1 being put,
Mr. JERVIS moved that the provisions of the Bill
should extend to cases where the rent was 501. instead of
201., as proposed by the clause.
Mr. AG LIONBY could not agree to the amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the clause
as it stood.
After a short conversation the House divided, when
there appeared--

For the Amendment l6
Against it
Majority -49
After some further discussion,
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress and obtain leave to sit-again.
On which the House divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Majority against the amendment ...... --.41

Mr. AGLIONBY then proposed that the Bill might go
through Committee pro forma, and that the amendments
suggested might be printed.
Mr. JERVIS said he could not possibly consent to such
an arrangement, as he thought the Bill altogether bad.
Mr. A. TREVOR said that he should adopt every
means in his power to throw it out.
Mr. BROTHERTON then moved, as he saw no likeli-
hood of coming to a satisfactory termination of the question,
that the Chairman do report progress, and obtain leave to
sit again, which being agreed to without a division the
Chairman reported accordingly, and the recommittal was
ordered for Wednesday, the 28th.
The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill went through Com-
mittee, and was ordered to be printed.
Mr. A. TREVOR moved for a return of the charter
recently granted to the University of Durham.—Agreed to.