The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

110US.8 OF COMMONS, juts' 31.
METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
(Coitinued from Tile Sun of yesterday.)
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause

Against it ... 6
Majority in favour of the Clause --35
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 24 was agreed to.
On clause 25 being agreed to,
_ _ _

Mr. LAW suggested that it would be a great protec-
tion that a full record of all proceedings in hose Courts
should be had. He would suggest that short-hand writers
should be appointed to them.
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. LAW begged that clause 26 be postponed, as it
gave power to the Magistrates to summarily convict thieves
and receivers. This was altering the law of the land in an
important matter, and ought to be discussed in a full House.
Mr. F. MA ULE, at that period of the Session, could
not consent to postpone the clause. He considered it as
the most important in the Bill, and it was one which had
bad been most fully considered, and its effect would be
to save many from the contamination of a gaol before trial,
when they must necessarily associate with others more ex-
perienced in crime, who were in a like predicament.
Colonel WOOD, jun., said the clause was not in ac-
cordance with either the Report of the Committee of
Criminal Law, or of the Police Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought there ought to be a power of
appeal in every instance where a party convicted thought
the decision of the Magistrate was wrong.
Sir J. GRAHAM should be glad to know why the
jurisdiction was extended from 40s. to 51.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the clause as now worded
seemed to him most likely to effect the object in view.
After a few remarks from Sir J. GRAHAM,
Mr. LAW said, as to what had been stated about the
trivial nature of pocket-picking, his experience had shown
him that persons going out to pick pockets were engaged
in it as a trade, and would take all they could get. Their
habits were rarely to be amended by any term of im-
prisonment; they were lost to society in this country.
The only safe.course was to treat stealing from the per-
son as in all cases the result of some degree of habit.
He believed it never was a party's first offence,
and generally was effected by a careful combination.
He could not agree with his friend that summary jurisdic-
tion should be extended. He thought that it went fur-
ther than it ought to do at present. If the House should
be of opinion that in the case of larceny, it should be sub-
jected to the opinion of the Magistrates whether it was
committed under aggravated circumstances, be hoped re.
ceiving goods, knowing them to be stolen, would not
come under that provision.—( Hear, hear.) He felt
it to be his duty to oppose the clause, that took from the
Magistrates the discretion in cases of larceny, and if he
should not be able to carry that proposition then he should
propose to limit the amount of property taken. It was his
intention to resist the question of summary jurisdiction in
cases of larceny, and he should therefore move the omission
of those words in the clause that gave it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that it would be con-
venient that the Committee should decide as to whether
summary jurisdiction should exist or not, and then another
opportunity might be taken of determining to what extent.
Sir CHARLES GREY could not conscientiously
vote for the clause. If they gave summary juris-
diction to the Magistrates, without any intention3—but
from the hurry with which their decisions must be given—
hundreds, nay, thousands of errcneous ones must be
given; and a person might be confined for one month
without any appeal. If appeal were given in all
cases he would grant summary jurisdiction—if not, he
would probably take the hint given and walk out of the
House without voting.
After a few words from Lord ELIOT and Lord TEIGN-
MOUTH in favour of the clause, strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and t gallery was cleared for a division, but
none took place, the amendment having been negatived
without it.

On our re-admission we found the House bad resumed.
Mr. BERNAL reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again this day.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
up the Report of the Select Committee on the Metropolis
Improvement Bill.
The House then adjourned till Five o'Clock.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Five o'Clock.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the Lords'
Amendments to the Chesterfield Small Debts Bill were
agreed to. The Lords' Amendments to the Eckington
and Wirksworth Small Debts Bill were also agreed to on
the motion of the same Hon. Member.

Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from Edinburgh
in favour of Church Extension in Scotland.

TOTNES ELECTION.

Sir G. CLERK said, that on referring to the journals
of the last year and the year preceding he found the Ses-
sional Order to which he had yesterday referred. It was
only, therefore, necessary for him to move that the entry
of February 6th be now read, which would be a sufficient
notification that it was improper for any Gentleman to
vote until the return had been decided.

The Order was read accordingly.
INCREASED MILITARY FORCE.

Mr. HUME asked when the vote for the-75,0001. to
provide an increase in our military force would be brought
forward ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said, to-marrow.
PRIVILEGE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then said, Sir, I have to
present a petition from the Messrs. Hansard, printers to
this House, in respect to a notice they have received for
printing a certain Report by the direction of this House.—
(Hear, hear.) And I think it is best to read the letter
which they have received ; it is dated 47, Fish-street-hill,
29th July.
-. _ _

" Gentlemen, lam instructed by Mr. Polack, to com-
mence an action against you for printing and publishing
Minutes of Evidence taken before a Select Committee of
the House of Commons, respecting New Zealand—in
April and May 1838, which evidence contains a false, and
scandalous and malicious libel on Mr. Polack's character.
In order therefore to avoid the inconvenience of personal
service, I request that you will furnish me with the name
of your attorney to whom I can send process in your be-
half."

Sir, the petitioners, state that they printed and pub-
lished the Report in question by order of this
Honourable House ; that, therefore, they set out this
letter, and respectfully apply for the instruction of this
House, as to the course which they should pursue.—( Hear,
hear,) It is my intention, Sir, to move that the petition
be printed, and that it be taken into consideration to-
morrow.--( Hear, hear. )
The Petition having been read at length by the Clerk,
was ordered to be printed, and taken into consideration
to-morrow.

Mr. HUME presumed it would be taken the first thing.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it would come on, as a matter
of course 'first, as it was a question of privilege.
Sir R. PEEL had understood that it was a Report of a
Committee of the House of Lords.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the evidence was given
before a Committee of the House of Lords, but that evi-
dence was afterwards printed by an order of the House of
Commons. The subject then dropped.
Mr. WALLACE then gave notice that on going into
Committee of Supply, he should move for certain returns
relative to Small Debts (Scotland).
Mr. HUME gave notice that on going into a Committee
of Supply upon the vote for 75,0001. for an increased military
force he intended to move that taxation bad pressed so heavily
on the working classes that it was necessary that the
House should adopt some measures for removing those
grievances, of which the people so loudly and so justly
complained.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice that to-morrow
he would bring in a Bill for establishing a more efficient
police in Birmingham, according to the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet. He would take that opportunity
of stating that he would take a Committee of Supply the
first thing on Friday, and the vote for the increase of the
army would be taken first.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from many
of the most respectable inhabitants of Birmingham, who
had taken no decided part in politics, in favour of such a
Bill as that of which the Noble Lord bad given notice.

RURAL POLICE.
Mr. PAKINGTON begged to ask the Noble Lord
whether it was his intention to pass a measure for raising
the County Constabulary during the present Session. It
was a question of the very highest importance, and ought
to receive the fullest consideration.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said it might certainly be neces •
sary to consider in Committee what checks should be
imposed on the powers given by this Bill--(Hear,
hear)—and he should be ready to consider if those
powers were in any respect unduly extensive.—( Hear.)
But the question now was whether there had not been
made oat a case requiring some legislative remedy, and
whether the Bill should be rejected on the second reading.
—( Hear, hear.) He must say, if there were overseers in
parishes trying to defeat the Poor-laws, by resorting to de-
lays in the payment of money in their hands, he should vote
for the second reading of a Bill, to prevent parties from
using the forms of law to throw difficulty in the carrying
out of an important measure.--( Hear, hear.) He-began
to feel that some Members were shrinking from the odium
of the New Poor-law experiment.—( Hear, hear.) He
had taken his part. He had supported the Bill in the first
instance—but when the Bill was going on smoothly, the
" Liberal" Members attempted to engross the whole credit
of it to themselves, and to create an impression that he had
merely given it a tacit acquiesence. When the Bill, how-
ever, became unpopular, he had scorned to make it the
subject of an outcry to influence the elections. And when
it was stated at a meeting of his constituents, that he had not
been a party to the Poor-law Bill, and when comparisons un-
favourably to the present Government were drawn, be had
promptly declared that he had been a party to it, he rejected
the praise which had been offered to him, and said that
though there might be individual cases of hardship, which
he regretted, he supported the Bill, not to diminish the
charge on the land, but because he believed it would tend
to raise the character of the working classes, by giving to
labour its due reward.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He feared
that gentlemen knew that overseers were indirectly defeat-
ing the law. But he asked them, if they were tired of the
experiment, to manfully come forward and attempt to put
an end to it.--( Hear, hear, hear.) He would not, for his
part, reject a measure which was meant to prevent persons
from availing themselves of legal forms to withhold contri-
butions for the relief of the poor entrusted to them, and
thus defeat the operation of the New Poor.law.—( Hear. )
Mr. HODGE S said he should not be deterred—by the
imputation of shrinking from the responsibility of the New
Poor-law—from opposing the present Bill. He had re-
ceived communications from his constituents requesting
him so to do. And if time sufficient were given, he
was persuaded that from many counties petitions against
the Bill would be presented. He hoped it would not be
pressed to a second reading now, but deferred till the in-
troduction of the general measure. He strongly objected
to the provision legalizing the regulations of the Poor-
law Commissioners, and the more especially because it
could not be known whether they bad all of them been sub-
mitted to and sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, as required by the original measure.
Col. WOOD said the hostility to the present Bill did
not proceed from opposition to the principle of the New
Poor-law--(Hear, bear)—but from those local authorities
who had been superseded by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. There were many parishes, such as Lambeth and
Chelsea, where the authorities, established under local
Acts, and which authorities had formerly carried out the
the very principles of the New Poor-law, had yet been
superseded by the Commissioners in spite of every remon-
strance from the parishioners.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. E WART said the principle which Lord Althorp
had established was, that the collection and distribution
of the rates should be left to the local authorities,
while the administrative power was to be lodged with the
Commissioners. The distinction was important.—( Hear,
hear.) It was not to be supposed that because a central
authority was established that therefore all local authorities
must necessarily be abolished.—( Hear, hear.) Still, the
Poor-law Commissioners were recognized as necessary to
enforce those great principles for which the Liberal
Members of that House had contended, and to which as.
suredly the Right Hon. Baronet opposite gave a tacit
acquiescence. He must confess ho deeply regretted that
the Poor-law Commissioners should have devolved their
legislation on some important matters, to subordinates ; at
least in no other way could he account for the departure
which had been observable in their proceedings from the
principle laid down by Lord Althorp.—( Hear, hear.) He
certainly did not think he should be justified in opposing
the second reading of this Bill ; it would still be in his
power to oppose objectionable clauses in Committee. But he
again repeated his earnest wish that the Poor-law Com-
missioners would rely more on their own independent judg-
ments.---( Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM aereed in the concluding observa-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman. He should vote for the
second reading of this Bill, not of course committing
himself to the details. But he doubted whether the
experience of the Noble Lord would confirm the
statement which the Honourable Member for Fins..
bury was in the habit of making, that there was
such extreme facility for passing Bills in this House,
(Hear, and a laugh.) He wished to call the attention of
the Houso to the fact alluded to by the Hon. Member for
Wigan, that Lord Althorp had desired that the local au-
thorities should collect the funds, but that the Commission-
ers should superintend the administration of them. Now he
( Sir J. Graham) had acquired some experience in the
working of the original Act, and could state that the
second clause had been in effect acted upon by the Com-
missioners in accordance with the express desire of many
Poor-law Guardians. It was well known that many rural
unions, embraced a number of parishes and townships,
which maintained their own poor, the overseers beingbound to collect their rates. Now, the collection of th
rates was the most obnoxious duty which could be per-
formed by the Poor-law local authorities ; it was performed
with great reluctance—it was ill, and negligently per-
formed—and it had been suggested that the relieving
officers should collect the rates, as they were constantly
going through the districts, and as they were paid officers.

The second clause, therefore, was only declaratory—le- /
galising a practice which at the instance of Poor-law
Guardians had been very generally resorted to, but which
it seemed the Commissioners had at present no legal power
to sanction. He could not hesitate for a moment to give
his support to the second reading of this Bill, having sup.
ported the original measure, deeming it just to give to it
a fair trial--not wishing it to press with undue severity on
the poor, but believing its operation would be beneficial
to the industrious and only prejudicial to the idle—( Hear,
hear)—and therefore resolved to support all subsidiary
Acts necessary—as he considered the present—to give to
the original. measure its fair operation.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord WORSLZ said in his county he had found the
the Overseers and Guardian: favourable to the Bill. He
would just remark, that it was rt.:_ber unfortunately ob-
served that the Right Hon. Baronet opp,:site should have
left the House just when the Poor-law Coni,zwance Bill
was opposed.—(oh, oh.)
Sir R. PEEL would be obliged to the Noble Lord if
he would forward to those very ignorant persons who had
observed what he had stated—the lists of several divisiors
on that very Bill—in which his (Sir R. Peel's) name
would be found.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had,
in fact, stayed on purpose to give his support to the mea-
sure—( Hear, hear)—and it was more remarkable, as the
Noble Lord had on one occasion followed him in a debate
on the Bill, and had said that his " arguments had been
anticipated by the Right Hon. Baronet who had preceded
him."—(Laughter.)
Lord WOR,SLEY said he must have mistaken the
debate on the Bill for the debate on the motion of the
Hon. Member for Susses (Mr. Darby), when certainly he
observed the Right Hon. Baronet leave the House.
Sir R. PEEL said the second mistake of the Noble
Lord was much more unhappy than the first, for he (Sir
R. Peel) bad not been in the House at all on the discus-
sion respecting Mr. Darby's motion, which occurred on a
Saturday.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and laughter.)
Mr. FIE LDEN opposed the Bill, as taking from the
rate-payers the control over funds raised by themselves for
the relief of the poor. If the present Bill passed, he
hoped to God the other House of Parliament would kick
It out.—(Laughter.)
Sir T. FREEMANTLE supported the Bill.

Mr. HINDLE Y thought the Bill exceedingly objec-
tionable, and he should, therefore, give it his most deter-
mined opposition.
After a few words from Lord J. Russell, Mr. Hawes,
and Mr. Morris, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading of the 8i11...... 88

Against it _ 29
Majority for the second reading... —59
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Monday.