The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-11 00:00:00

LONDON TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 111 .1.854.

NI R. ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC;
IL including the BERNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON,
TIIE3 EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (except
Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Mornings, at Three.
Stalls, 33. (which can be taken, at the box• office every day from II
till 4; area, Is.; gallery, la.—Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly.

-211.0 NERVOUS SUFFERERS .-A RETIRED
CLERGYMAN having been restorectto health in a few days',
after many years of great nervous suffering. is anxious to make
known to others the means of cure. He will, therefore, send free, on
receiviu,g a stamped envelope, properly addressed, a copy of the pre-
scription used.
DireFt the Rev. E. Douglass, 18, Holland-street, Brixton, London.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF ,LOIDS-4YESTERDAY.).
The house met at half-past four o'clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal assent was given 10, commission to the fol-
lowing bills :—The Customs' DutiesfSugar and_Spirits);
Excise Duties (Sugar) ; Railway and Canal Traffic Regu-
lation ; Church Building Acts Amendment ; Public Sta-
tues ; Witnesses ; Registration of Bills of Sale ; War-
wick Assizes; Vice-Admiralty Court (Mauritius); Roch-
dale and BurnleY Road • North and South Western
Junction Railway ; Tralee and Killarney Railway ;
Horneastle and Kirkstead Junction Rail ray ; Leomin-
ster and Kington RailtVay ; Kirkby Lonsdale, Kendal,
and Milnthorpe Road; Ayr and Maypole Junction
Railway ; -Perth dnd Dunkeld Railway ; Stourbridge
Waterworks ; Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway
(stations) Towy Vale Railway ; North York-
shire and Cleveland Railway ; Thirsk and Yarm
Road; Eastern Counties Railway (Station Enlargement,
&c.) ; Camden-t Own Cemetery ; Caledonian Railway
(Wishaw and Coltness Railway, &c.) ; Caledonian Rail-
way (Lesmahagow Branches, &c.) ; Dulcinfield Gas ;
South Wales Railway ; Bolton Improvement ; Bradford,
"'Wakefield, add Leeds Railway ; Lowestoft Improve--
ment (No. 2) ; Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction
Railway ; West Bromwich Improvement, &o. ; york,
Newcaste, and Berwick Railway (Construction of
Docks, &c.) ; Chapel en le Frith Roads Patent Solid
, Sewage Manure Company (No. 2) ; liain*orth and
Kearsley Gas ; Bangor and Caernarvon Railway ; Lord
Lovat's Restitution ; Fleming's Estate; Green's Estate;
Masters' Estate ; Smith's Charity Estate ; Wyndham's
Estate ; Thornhill's (Clara) Estate.
The Lords' Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
Earl Granville, and Lord Stanley of Alderley.
Lord STANLEY (of Alderley)
,presented a petition
from a place in Lancashire in favour of the Oxford Uni-
versity Bill.

amongst his own friends the members of the company.
' (Laughter.) Captain Carpenter having discovered that
the money, or at lean a. part of it, had been paid (for
10,0001. was only given away in the first instance), saw
the Duke of Northumberland, and after hearing the
statement of Captain Carpenter he hesitated to give the.,
official signature for the other. 10,0001. till some further'
inquiry had taken place. But he subsequently did 80,
on learning from Mr. Stafford the Secretary of the Ad-1
miralty that the money was paid-over under guarantee.
There the matter ended. Now what could be more ex-
traordinary than that a sum of money which had been
handed over to the Board of Admiralty, to be by, them
distributed to the persons fairly entitled to it, should
,be handed over to a partieular individual, who was himself
at the head of a screw company, and left to he distri-
buted by him ? (Hear, hear.) That was as great a
dereliction of public duty as it was possible iaei. public
station to be guilty of. (Hear.) But this was not all.
What was the next step ? One of the persons who re-
ceived part of this money, and a member of the com-
pany, was named Lowe. Its, applied for an extension
of a patent which he claimed. The case was tried be-
fore his noble and learned friend, the two Lords Justices,
'Sir E. Ryan, and the Judge of the Court of AdMiralty.
The matter was investigated with great minuteness, and
thejudgment they gave was that theydid not consider Mr.
Lowe to have made any discovery, and they accordingly
unanimously refused the extension of the'patent. Yet this
was one of the gentlemen who, by favour of Mr. Currie,
had received a large proportion of the money. (Hear.)
Capt. Carpenter applied to the same tribunal for an ex-
tension of his patent, Sir J. Pattison presidinginstead of
his noble and learned friend. The other members of the
court were the same. The right of Capt. Carpenter was
investigated with great minuteness; his claim was opposed
by the AttOrney-General; many witnesses were examined
—the manufacturers of the screw propeller, and the set-.
perintendentsof the steam navigation in theriverThames
—and the result was an unanimous judgment iq.favour
of the Seim of Caps_ Carpenter. Yetaltheugh hie*Zeiiiiii-
tion was exclusively used in the7ships of the Royal Navy,
he was excluded from all participation in the fund which
had been appropriated by Parliament. A more unjust or
unfair proceeding was never committed. (Hear.) The
Attorney-General said. that he would riot oppose the claim
of Capt. Carpenter to an extension of • the patent, pro-
vided he ;consented to allow the Admiralty the gratui-
tous use of it. The court considered that an unjust con-
dition, and they granted the extension for six years " un-
conditionally." Having obtained the judgment of the
Privy Council in his favour, Capt. Carpenter again ap-
plied to the Admiralty on the subject. The Admiralty
referred him to Mr. Currie, who received the money to
give it to the persons entitled to it. He did apply to Mr.
Currie, saying that the Admiralty recommended him to
do so. Mr.' Currie said he bad nothing to say, and
referred Capt. Carpenter to his solicitor. He applied to
his own solicitors, who said that he could not bring an
action [against r. Currie, because he had given a
guarantee to the Board of Admiralty, nor against the
Board of Admiralty, for the use of the invention in
the Royal Navy. He went again to the Board of Admi-
ralty, and received the common official reply :—" We
refer you to our former answer." (Laughter.) What
was this unhappy officer, then, to do?.- could not
proceed against any individual in the Admiralty for the
use of a patent for the service of the 'Royal Navy., That
would be, a bar to the action ; and he could not proceed
against Mr. Currie because he had given a guarantee to
the board. Here, then, was a gentleman who had de-
voted from two to three years of his life, and 3,0001. of
his money, upon an invention which proved most valu-
able, which was exclusively used in the Royal Navy—
in every vessel of the service ; and yet he did not re-
ceive one farthing of the money which was voted by
Parliament for the purpose of remunerating those who
had improved the scrAv-propeller. Independently of
the plestion of patent right, he would- ask if it was
reasonable or just to treat an individual who had devoted
his time and money for the benefit of the public in this
way. If his noble friend opposite would suggest any
way by which Captain Carpenter could obtain his right
he would be satisfied. He knew how difficult it was to
deal with boards. He had some experience in cases of
that kind. His noble friend himself was not the same
man in two different places. In Argyle-house he was
all kindness, benevolence, and justice, but at the Trea-
sury he was as bard as a rock—he was quite impassable
and impenetrable. (Laughter.) He maintained that
the money had been misapplied—grossly misapplied.
The case ainst be investigated in seine way. He would
be satisfied with any mode that his noble friend might
point out. On his own part, and on the part of the
public he asked for investigation, for investigation there
must be in justice to the individual and in justice to the
public. (Hear, hear.) The noble and learned lord
concluded by moving for a copy of the agreement en-
tered into by the Lords of the Admiralty, or on their
behalf; in respect of which a sum of 20,000/. had been
paid on account of patent rights for the propellers used
in her Majesty's navy, and 'to present a petition from
Captain garpenter, ReN.erespecting such payment.
The Earl of. ABERDEEN said there could be little
doubt that Captain Carpenter had found a most able and
effective advocate in bringing forward his claim. (Hear.)
His noble and learned friend must know that he had no
desire to do, any injustice to Capt. -Carpenter, or to-his
claim whatever it might be. The only question with
which he had to concern himself was not as to the rela-
tive merits of the, patentees, for he confessed he had no
knowledge of the advantages of Capt. Carpenter's, or of
the others which were in question, or which of them
ought to have the money that was voted by parliament.
His noble and learned friend stigmatised in very strong
terms the conduct of the Admiralty, in entering into the
agreement they did on this subject. But he must ob-
serve,that the Admiralty acted as they did under the
best legal advice and the highest authority that mild be ,
obtained, for they acted under the authority and sanc-
tion of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the
Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Justice Crowder. This
was done in 1851 by,the Board of Admiralty, of which
Sir F. Baring was the head—a man who .was most just
and prudent, and who was not likely to commit an act of
injustice of any description. In 1851 the sum of 10,0001.
was paid. In 1852 the late Board of Admiralty took
the same view of the question, and paid the remaining
10,0001•. They declined to enter into the question of
the respective merits of the invention, which was purely
a question to be asserted and decided in a court of law.
Lord LYNDHURST—The patent of Capt. Car-
penter is that which is used in her Majesty's ships.
The Earl of ABERDEEN—One of the patentees
(Mr. Lowe) did that which Captain Carpenter might do
----he brought an action in a court of law against the per-
sonsrp.r
Liwayvon
Lowe
orei
pnhagar
dht
fiei:sdxls
lot.aoenc
et
1. o no v
oont
wasl ad against
tehstat
aht ebciciasr
pho
twahni
nn,
who made- use of his screw. Let captain Carpenter
right,ibut he
nsagainstasl n
ie
CC ao rupneoni rb' an
tpatentdid
nwoats
follow
dferdo bym
t that,
tCh Courto owf
aPs r
ei vny
.
titled to the sum of money voted by Parliament. These
persons to whom Sir F. Baring and the late Bawd of
Admiralty paid over the money were solvent parties,
and Captain Carpenter could btinehis action against
them and establish his right,- Captain Carpenter had
within the last few days risen very much in his demand.
Two days ago he made a claim upon the Admiralty not
only for the whole sum of 20,0001., but for 45,0001.,
on account of -the use of his propeller, which ho said
heave was
abnaotted surprised
inis hdetinh:a demands,
dCsa,ptain after
hav-
ing Car
was adopted in the navy ; also a royalty of 21. for every
horse power till the expiration of his patent in 1860, and
a fnrther sum of 21. for every license for the'practice of
h
noi
the able advocacy of his noble and learned
nd not. He
frieis v
nentiendr.eshn obtainedHtoie did not say whether Captain Carpenter was
or waf not entitled to the money voted by Parliament,
but this he would say that the Board of .Admiralty paid
the money to a certain number of patentees, Of whom
there were several, and that between them it was not
iwnhCaaterver was the proper
the province of the Board of Admiralty to decide. They
could not pay over the
asmeCriardpaoetalrtsyiee than to do justice, but
had, however, taken security' from solvent parties that
they should satisfy those who could epsetnabtelirshdadulsbtactlaibmy
tfatiourne tmniahr action
eytlo f.sorundamscHhtoivitonlists, aecwddi the
voted.
IdTAan tcldhilsee that it was impossible far him
to pretend to pronounce an opinion of Ilia own on such
is subject. The only advice that/ he could give to Capt.
Carpenter, under the circumstances, was, that he should
take proceedings to establish his right. That was the
only remedy that seemed possible as far as he was con-
cerned.
The Earl of•HARDWICICE did not consider the re,
an
person a
living for the
in Carpenter,
who had
been wronged, and- had no means of-righting himself.
ply of the noble erl
I t
appearedsatisfactory,
the t
Captainaate
statement
or the public.
powfuhbloi
ishc nobleasde
rdvio :o and
more
olaers in
learned
tnhetadhn'efprpieoernshidat
position
aaontfyCanaap
With regard to the public, he considered-the Board of
Admiralty bad grossly misapplied the money voted by
Parliament, and had grossly neglected their duty.
(Hear, hear.) Captain Carpenter was absent on public
duty when this money had been so misapplied, and on
that account it *as the duty of the Admiralty to have
been more careful of his interest. It teas the duty of
the Admiralty to have ascertained who were the parties
properly entitled to the money, but to save themselves
the trouble they handed it over to Mr. Currie, a banker
in Cornhill, who because he was the head of the." Amal-
gamated Screw !Propelling Compeny," was supposed to
be a most competent judge on the subject. (Laughter.)
The public was grossly injured, and an excellent officer
was cheated and trounced by the Ministers of the Crown
out of that to which he was entitled. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. ,
The house having gone into committee on this bill,

Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2, which empor.vcrs two justices to inflict
a punishment not exceeding three calendar months in-
stead of a pecuniary penalty on persons guilty of vio-
lating the act, the clause, at the suggestion of the Lord
-Chancellor, was assimilated to the provisions of the
Police Act in this respect.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that after the word
"dogs" the words "or goats" should be inserted.
After a conversation, which did not reach the gallery,
but which excited continual roars of laughter,

The Earl of WICKLOW protested against so impor-
tant a subject being treated so lightly. This bill had
been eat up thrice from the other 401 40, aucl way nrcly

entitled to their serious consideration. He looked upon
the 4mendment of the noble lord in favour of goats as
nothing less than an attempt to throw ridicule on the
measure,
Lord LYNDHURST said he had seen much smaller
animals harnessed than either dogs or goats, and surely
the were entitled to. protegtion ; he meant "the indus-
trious fleas:" (Laughter.)
The amendment was then put and negatived.
The Earl of EGLINTON moved the,omission of the
clause. He objected to it as a piece of uncalled-for legis-
lation, and as inferring with, and confiscating the pro-
perty of a large number of the poorest of the community.
It was said the drivers of dog-carts were not a reputable
class ; but the only reason for this allegation was their
extreme poverty. He also objected to it, as an instance of
class legislation: If they put down dog-carts, how could
they allow goat-carts to be used ; the latter were just as
likely to frighten horses as the former.' It was said the
feet of dogs were liable to be rendered'- sore ; but this
depended entirely on use. The real inhumanity would
be to pass this clause, for 10,000 or 20,000 dogs would
be shot the next day--to the great increase of pork pies
in the shops and railway statiens. (Laughter.)
The Duke of ARGYLL could not admit that the onus
probandi lay entirely on the supporters of the clause ;
for Parliament had already legislated on this subject, as
far as the metropolis was concerned, on the ground that
the use of dogs was a nuisance and dangerous' to the
public. (Hear.) It had been said that wheelbarrows
and birds flying out of hedges might frighten horses as
well as dog carts ; but the proof that the latter was
the greater nuisance was found in the fact that there
were no petitions againstlthe former, and a great number
against the latter. A gentleman who was examined
before the select committee some years ago, a veterinary
surgeon, gave it as his opinion that the employment of
dogs in carts rendered them more liable to madness, and
that cases of hydrophobia had increased in consequence.
The use of dogs for carts was not known in Scotland,
and /es believed it was chiefly confined to the south of
England. ' There could be no donbt it Was a great nui-
sance in that district, and on that ground he supported
this bill. Allusion had been made to the use of the deg
as an animal of draught.in the arctic region; but there
they trod on a frozen surface, and their feet were soft.
'He had asked the opinion of the greatest physiologist of
the day, Professor Owen, on this subject ; and his an-
swer was to the effect that the foot of the dog was not
adapted for traction along bard and hot roads in thisconn-
try ; the case of the Esquiniaux dogs was not at all analo-
gous. One of the witnesses before the committee spoke
of the horribly barbarous usage to which the animals
were subject ; and if they were not adapted to traction,
ill usage was almost sure to' result. As in other cases,
this re-acted on the character of the men themselves,
and tended to lower them in the social scale. It was
the opinion of Mr. Nash, of the Reformatory Institution,
that when a man became addicted to cruelty-to animals,
he was incapable of being reformed.
Lord BROUGHAM support6d the clause, and said
that legislation on this subject was necessary on account
of the great dumber of dogs. Had goats been so numer-
ous, and been subjected to such ill-usage, he should have
been in favour of the protection being extended to them,
He had no fear of any destruction of animals as the re
suit of their lordships' legislation.

Earl y-RLNATILLE said that the ridicule attaching
to this subject was owing to its being scarcely a fit one
for legislation. As well as the noble duke, he had con-
sulted a scientific friend of his, the lecturer on compara-
tive anatomy at St. Thomas's Hospital, and he agreed
with Professor Owen as to the delicacy of the dog foot,
but a!so pointed out the provision of nature by which
animals adapted themselves -to the work they had to
perform. (Hear, hear.) Re believed that horses suf-
fered much from this cause ; and if all the cab-stands
were examined at that moment, it was probable that a-
great number of horses would be found diseased in this
way. Not only, in Newfoundland were dogs used for
draught, but all over France, Holland, and various other
countries on the continent. If the house deprived a num-
ber of poor men of their means of livelihood, they would
have no alternative' but to resort to improper courses. As
to cruelty, he believed that a far greater amount of
torture was inflicted on donkeys and if dogs were ill-
used, the end was defeated, for they would defend them-
selves by lying down, and in other ways. He was very
fond of dogs, and would not see them ill-used ; but the
queition was, whether they would deprive a number of
poor men of their livelihood. (Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of OXFORD stated that the town coun-
cils of Winchester, Salisbury, and many other places,
had found it necessary to frame by-laws to put'down
the Practice of using dogs in carte. There *as no doubt
but that, dogs were very much. 111-used when used as
beasts of draught, because they were of comparatively
little value. It was the very same thing as was found
in connexion with negro slavery. Experience had shown
that since negro slaves had become more scarce and
valuable, they were better treated in those countries
were slavery still existed.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that in the mid-
land-counties there wore 1,500 families whose livelihood
depended union the use of dog-carts. He did not con-
sider there was any need for the bill, as 'cruelty to ani-
mals was already punishable to `another way. He be-
lieved that the real ground of this measure was a sgdfish
one; these dog-carts were a nuisance to those who drove
horses. He admitted they were a. nuisance, but he
thought that was not a sufficient reason for taking
bread out of the mouths of the poor.
Lord FEVERSHAM. supported the bill as effecting
a great public improvement, in the way of , which pri-
vate rights ought not to stand.,
_ _

Lord- AIREIE objected to the arbitary manner in
which the clause under consideration was framed.
The house divided—
For the clause .
Against it 23 - '
Majority against —2o
The remainder of the bill then passed through com-
mittee.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL:
The LORD CRANCELLOR proposed to leave out
so much of this bill as related to the shifting of jurisdic-
tion from the ecclesiastical courts, and to confine it solely
to the construction of a tribunal for determining qua-
tions of divorce. He had been led to do this because
from what had occurred in another place with reference
to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, he thought that
these clauses would tend to the defeat of the entire
measure.

Lord CAMPBELL complained that the Testamentary
Jurisdiction Bill had not been persevered with. He had
been assured by the noble and learned lord on the wool-
sack' that it should be pressed. Notwithstanding this,
without any reason assigned, it had been abandoned.
He deplored and entirely condemned that step. How-
ever it was taken, and the bill-was consigned to oblivion.
It now appeared that a greater, portion of the Divorce
Bill was to go also. He should certainly'recoramend
that the bill in tote should be dropped, so that all these
legal bills should remain in a state of suspenled anima-
tion until next session.

The Bishop of OXFORD hoped that the Lord Chan-
cellor would accede to the suggestion of the noble and
learned lord (Campbell). If the bill were proceeded with
he should be prepared to show that it was most injurious
in its tendency as regarded the laws of marriage, tending
in fact to loosen that which it should be the object of all
to render binding.
Lord REDESDALE thought the session was too far
advanced to deal with so grave a measure.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was- quite true
that he had informed his noble and learned friend (Lord
Campbell) that it was the intention of the Government
to press the Testamentary. Jurisdiction Bill, and when
he told him so he was perfectly justified in stating so
much. Circumstances had, however, shown that there
was no chance whatever of carrying it through the other
house, and therefore the Government, instead of pre-
tending to try to legislate, had at once withdrawn the
measure. Taking warning by this he had made the pro-
position to" sacrifice so much of the Divorce Bill as in-
terfered with the ecclesiastical court, in order that the
other portion might not be delayed ; but after the ob-
servations which had fallen from all sides of the house,
he felt it his duty to withdraw the bill. (Hear.)

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of this bill. He had only to state that its main
objects were two. The first of these was to enable him
to leave those posts vacant which were no longer re-
quired to be filled on account of the decrease of busi-
ness in the Bankruptcy Court. This would empower
him to curtail the number of country commissioners as
vacancies occurred, as well as to effect retrenchments
by degrees in other branches of the court. The other
object was to allow traders to make themselves bank-
rupt, provided they had sufficient assets to pay expenses.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
The bill was read a second time.
CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved for the appoint-
ment of a select committee to consider the nine criminal
law bills, including those of last session, with the letters
of the judges to the Lord Chancellor, and to report as
to the course which it will be expedient to pursue in re-
lation to the said bills and the recommendations of the
criminal law commissioners. The noble and learned lord
said his reason for moving for this select committee was
that a difference of opinion prevailed among the law
lords with regard to the subject. Nine bills had already
been prepared, and his object was to refer them to a se-
lect committee of their lordships' house who should de-
clare wfiat course had better be taken. In his opinion
the best course would be to form these bills into conso-
lidations of the statute law. There were several points
in the criminal law which required improvement ; for
example, the strange enactment that no woman could
commit larceny in the presence of her husband. i
Lord CAMPBELL said he should not despair f Par-
liament vested an absolute power of framing the code in
certain individuals to bo named in the bill ; but he should
despair if the code had to be passed through two delibe-
rative assemblies, and to be canvassed, clause by clause,
in that house, by chancellors and ex-chancellors ; and in
the other house by all the aspiring lawyers who held of-
fice, or expected to bold office.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he did not suppose
that all or any of the bills could become law in the pre-
sent session, but the moment he received the sanction of
their lordships, he would devote himself, in conjunction
with the gentlemen by whom the bills were prepared, to
1110 puttipg the hip! prom fprui for introductiQn iu
- _