The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

110 USE OF LORDS, AUGUST 16.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at ten minutes past Five o'Clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.

Considerable disappointment and curiosity were ex-
cited in the House this evening from the circumstance
that the Royal Assent was to have been given to a
great number of Bills, but when the Duke of Argyle
arrived with the Commission the House of Commons
had been counted out, therefore the Assent bad to be
postponed.
Lord FALKLAND presented a Petition from
Auchterarder against the intrusion of Ministers into
Parishes.
JOINT STOCK BANKING COMPANIES'
BILL.

On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Joint
Stock Banking Companies' Bill was read a second time.

ASSAULTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the As-
saults (Ireland) Bill was read a third time, the amend-
ments having been agreed to, and passed,
SALE OF SPIRITS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Sale
of Spirits (Ireland) Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

MILITIA PAY BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Mili-
a Pay Bill passed through a Committee without
amendments.
ROGUE MONEY ASSESSMENT (SCOT-
LAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Rogue
Money Assessment (Scotland) Bill passed through a
Committee without amendments.

STAGE CARRIAGES BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Stage
Carriages Bill passed through a Committee without
amendments.
POOR RATES COLLECTION BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the Poor
Rates Collection Bill passed through a Committee, and
was ordered to be reported without amendments.
The Earl of GOSFORD presented petitions from
Armagh against any alteration in the Corn-lawa ; also
in favour of a penny postage.
BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
The Earl of STANHOPE presented a petition to
which he begged to call their Lordships' serious attention.
It was from the Shoreham Working Men's Association
(we understood), and the petitioners stated that they
contemplated with sorrow and indignation the late attack
upon an unarmed assemblage at Birmingham, by a police
force, the employment of which they deemed alto-
gether unconstitutional. The Noble Earl proceeded
to state that he had received from a most respectable
person—a person of unquestionable veracity—(not a
Chartist, but opposed to such sentiments)—an account
of the proceedings at Birmingham, to which he would
briefly advert, in confirmation of the statement of the
petition. This person had been an eye-witness of the
affair ; and his account was, that some 600 or 700
persons were quietly assembled reading newspapers—
not at all obstructing the thoroughfares—when the police
drew their staves and began beating people, knocking down
and breaking heads ; that the people at first retreated, but
soon rallied and returned armed with sticks, &c.—
and then, and not till then, the riot commenced.
There could be no doubt at all that it was the bounden
duty of the Magistrates and police constables to assist
in the preservation of the peace. The question
was whether, on this occasion, the riot was not occa-
sioned by the police, in consequence of their
violent and outrageous interference. He was not
aware, from the inquiry he had made, that any order
had been given by the Magistrates that the parties
should not meet, or that when they had met they should
disperse. He had thought it to be his duty to
give the House this information for the s, purpose of
showing the necessity for adopting the prayer of the
petition, which was, that a full inquiry might be en-
tered into upon the subject. He submitted the petition to
their Lordships in the hope that they would accede to its
prayer.
The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Lord DUNCANNON then moved the third reading
of the Aletropolis Courts' Bill. •
The Duke of RICHMOND complained that one
of the clauses enacted that the Magistrates to be ap-
pointed under the Bill should not act at other place
than their offices without directions from the Secretary
of State. He thought that enactment would render
the Magistrates very inefficient in case of tumult.
Lord LYNDHURST moved the omission of the
9th clause, giving increased salaries to Magistrates, as
the clause imposing additional duties on them had been
struck out of the Metropolitan Police Bill.
Lord DUNCANNON objected to the clause being
struck out. It was a money clause, and if struck out
the Bill would be lost altogether.
The Earl of W 1 CKLO W said the clause had
had nothing to do with the levying of a tax, and, there-
fore, it could not be considered in the nature of a money
clause. The clause merely gave salaries.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR, strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House divided—
Contents
Not-Contents
Majority in favour of the clause
The clause was then agreed to.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE then moved some verbal
amendments which were agreed te, and the Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE presented a peti-
tion from Honiton in favour of a uniform system of
penny postage.
SLAVE TRADE SUPPRESSION BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of MINTO the House
resolved itself into committee on the Slave Trade Sup-
pression Bill.
Lord LYNDHURST said he should move an
amendment to the preamble of this Bill, the effect of
which would be to confine the operation of the Bill to
Portuguese vessels which were to be seized in conse-
quence of their not having fulfilled their treaties with
this country, and piratical vessels, which were not en-
titled to the protection of any flag at all.
Lord BROUGHAM was quite sure that their Lord-
ships all had but one object. This was not a party
question, as the nature of the vote of last night clearly
showed ; and the question now was how they could best
accomplish a common object. Now he submitted a
great difficulty might arise by the alteration of the Bill
as proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend. If the
seizure were to be confined to vessels hoisting the Por-
tuguese flag and to nondescripts, piratical vessels would
immediately hoist a French, or American, or Dutch, or
some other flag, and immediately set at defiance a
seizure.—(Hear. hear, hear.) The pirate constantly
sailed under the flag of some other country than
that of the country to which she belonged. They did
that until a battle with them began, then they lowered
that and hoisted the black flag. The consequence of
this alteration of the Bill would be, that the slave trader
would do just the same thing, and therefore the object
would be entirely defeated if the colour of the flag in a
chase was to be attended to. Then, if it were inquired
what would be done if a wrong seizure were made, the
answer to that was, that there was nothing particular
as applicable to maritime police that was not applicable
to our domestic police. Persons were every day
searched who had no right to be searched, under the
supposition that they might have stolen goods ; but
then that search was made at the peril of those who
made it. So it would have to be with regard to those
vessels, every necessary precaution would have to be
taken by the captains and crew consistent with their
orders and the proper discharge of their duty. Under
such circumstances he hoped his Noble and Learned
Friend would not persist in his amendment.
Lord LYNDHURST said that the searching of
vessels, as the Bill now stood, would be in contravention
of treaties with other powers, and nothing could be
done that was in such contravention. If it were to be
asked how a Portuguese vessel was to be known so as
to be seized, provided she was sailing under the flag of
another country, all he could say in answer to that was,
that he would leave that to the Ministers of the Crown,
and to the directions they might think proper, upon
their own responsibilities, to give. He wished nothing
to be in this Bill but what was purely legal. It could
not be legal to seize other than Portuguese or piratical
vessels, and an Act of Parliament could not make that
legal. There was no country moro alive to the dignity
of its independence than America, and she would not
permit her vessels to be seized under any mistake.
Lord MINTO would be sorry to have it understood
that he bad last night said the Americans were will-
ing to concede the right of search. He had not said
so, nor intended to say so. If a ship, for instance,
had an American or a French flag hoisted, and she
were suspected improperly to have that flag, it would
be competent for the British cruiser to board her, and
if the suspicion turned out to be well founded, it would
then be proper to seize her. This was all the power
the Bill proposed to give, and which power the captains
of cru'sers would have from her Majesty even without
the Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said the Noble Earl
proposed to introduce a legislative measure, indemnify-
ing officers, not for seizing under the Queen's orders,
Portuguese vessels, but seizing the vessels of any other
nation whatever. To this he decidedly objected,
and he wonld cite a judgment of that most emi-
nent authority Sir William Scott, delivered in
the celebrated case of De Louis (we understood)
and in which he said, " It is stated that if this right of
search is not permitted, there will be great difficulty in
suppressing the traffic. So there will ; and no man
can deny that the suppression, however desirable, is at-
tended with enormous difficulties. It must be evident,
that without the general and sincere concurrence of
all the maritime States in the principle, and the mode of
pursuing it, comparatively little good can be effected.
Endeavour, therefore, by all peaceful means—by treaty
—by persuasion—by example—to induce the co-opera-
tion of other states in the work.—(Hear, hear.) But
to pursue an eminent good by unlawful means, is as
littlp consonant to private morality as to public, justice.