The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-15 00:00:00

was the noise prevailing below the bar that the Hen.
Member was wholly inaudible for some time. He was
understood to say that he for one tieehiroi most Or.-
teignedly th,rt he felt the greatest possible difficulty
in coming to a conclusion as to how he should veteon thiJ
question. If he had been forced to that vote last nighi.
he should, however relectantly, have given that vote
against the resoludon of the Right Hon.:Gentleman, noe
so much because he sp,,roved of what was to bt
done by her Majest)'s Government as that h,, was
taken by surprise, and tl.at he believed in a moment
of surprise, that it was the wiser and more prudent
course to take. Ho was free to confess, however,
that his intention was very much shaken by what
had taken place in the course of the debate. He con-
leased he did see great inconsistencies in the speech of
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord said he would not
give his assent to this Bill, or take any steps to give the
sanction of her Majesty's Government, until
he had received the instruction which Lord
Elgin was to address to the Commissioners,
which instruction he was sure would have the
effect of preventing any part of this compensation being
withheld frem those to whom it was justly due, and
which would exclude persons who were manifestly
guilty of rebellion.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-( THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
POLLETT V. RILEY.

This was an action for libel brought against Mr. Riley,
the clerk of the Whitechapel County Court for a libel
contained in a letter written by him to the editor of the
County Courts Chronicle, and published in that paper.
Defendant pleaded not guilty, and ajustification.
Mr. O'MALLEr, with whom was Mr. Clark,
appeared for plaintiff, and stated that Mr.
Pollett was a very poor man, more than fifty
years of age, with a large family, who had for some
time employed himself in colleetin''-r.,monies, on which he
rt ceived commissions. Iu 1846 he had some transactions
with a Mr. Riddiegton, who recovered a small sum of
money from him in the Whitechapel County Court. An
order was made by the judge of that court, Mr. Sergeant
Manning, and the money, which was 11. 19s. Bd., not
having been raid, the result was the c,mmittal of Pollett
to. the Clerkenwtll douse of Correction for five days.
On his liberation he publish( d u pamphlet entitled " An
Appeal to the Public," with a view to obtain assistance
by way of contributions from parties. This ppinaphlet
set forth the treatment which Mr. Pollett had received
in the House of Correction, and which he represented
as very harsh, having, as he said, been treated as a
convicted prisoner. Some time after Mr. Riley wrote
a letter to the County Courts' Chronicle, in which
he spoke of the trust reposed in him by his employer
having been wilfully abused by him (Mr. Polley), which,
together with some other expressions which the letter
contained, induced plaintiff to bring this action.
. Mr. Clark, the attorney for plaintiff, Mr. Cocks, the
editor of the County Courts' Chronicle, and Mr. Stephen-
son, the attorney of Mr. Riley, were then called to prove
the principal facts stated by the Learned Counsel.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., who, with Mr. Mannesty, ap-
peared for the defence, then addressed the jury, con-
tending that none of the statements contained in de-
ft ndant's letter' to the County Courts' Chronicle were
libellous.
No witnesses were called for the defence.

Mr. Justice ERLE then summed up. He said that he
thought the last letter clearly came within the defini-
tion of a libel, and therefore the only question would be
the amount of damages.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages 20s.

A SAD MISTAKE.—On Tuesday last an honest
farmer, from the estate of Kinnaird, sent into our Cross
market six excellent pigs for sale, in a close chest. One
of his servants was in charge of the innocents. After
the man arrived at the marketplace he very naturally
lifted the lid of the chest to ascertain the state of the
flock, when, to his great surprise and sorrow, they were
all found to be dead as herrings, having been cuff icated.
The servant was not iu the slightest to blame.—Arbroath
Guide.

IMPERIAL PAItLIAIVIENT.
ROUSE OF LORDS, June 14.
PETITIONS.
Earl STANHOPE presented several petitions, com-
plaining of agricultural distresS, and praying for the re-
enactment of the corn-laws. , The Noble Earl, at some
length, urged the dangers to which the country wou d
be exposed by"a"perseveirtnee" in the ',path of free trade,
and denounced " the unexampled perfidy and shameless
apoistacy" which had marked the.carry;ng of the repeal
of the corn-laws, and ""inquired whether her Msjesty'a
Government intended to off r any cornp,,itaition to the
agricultural interests for the loss-of protection, by re-
pealieg.the tax on molt or 'tiny other ot. the- taxes affect-
ing farmers.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said her Majesty's
Government did not intend to propose the repeal of any
of those taxes.
Earl STAN HOPE then continued to argue that
protection must be maintained, or the real interests of
the country would be destroyed. He condemned the
economy which induced the Government to discharge
700 artificers from the Dockyards at Portsmouth.
they did not do justice to the people they might re-
sort to a passive resistance by a refusal to pay taxes,
which no Government could successfully resist. The
last point he had to urge was, that the labourers
might be driven to destitution by this egrieuhural
distress. It had been formerly said that low prices re-
sulted from a superabundant harvest, but never, until
now, had it been argued that a el, ficient supply caused
low prices. Wheat could be supplied in the port of
London, all charges paid, at 25. the quarter. There
was throughout the country agricultural distress and
general discontent. Ail classes ought to meet, and with
a voice of thunder, call fur a redress of their grievances,
and a restoration of their rights. Let them look to the
state of their colonies. Their system of free trade had
confiscated the property of the planters in the West
Indies. When they saw such revolutionary movements
on the continent, they ought to act before it was too
late, for they should know that patience has its limits ;
but if the Government had the hardihood to persevere
in their present system, the consequence would be a most
disastrous revolution.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented petitions from
Macclesfield and other places, in favour of the Bill for
the protection of women.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition
from Wisbeuch and the surrounding neighbourhood,
complaining of the adoption of free trade. It was signed
by parties engaged in every branch of industry. He
said every interest in the country was suffering from
want of emplol ment. The petitioners prayed for pro-
tection to native industry.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from the bore ugh of Forres, in favour of the Police,
(Scotland) Bill.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.
The Bishop of OXFORD then moved the third read-
ing of the Protection of Women Bill. He said the Bill
would not accomplish all he should desire to be done upon
the subject, but would effect some good, and embrace all
that could be effected at present. It was also free from
the objections a hich had been raised against the Bill of
last session.
Lord CAMPBELL said he would be most happy to
see the objects aimed at by this Bill effected, and tully
appreciated the laudable motives which actuated the
originators of it, but the Bill could do no good, and
might do great injury. All those who had attempted
to interfere in ;his matter were placed in the alternative
either of legislating for that which was not a crime, or
for that which was a crime already, and which the law
was ready to punish. The Earl of Mountcashel sought
to make fornication a crime to be punished by law.
`He. would point out what the Bill proposed to effect.
It -provided " that if any one for lucre or gain, and
by false pretences, should solicit any woman for
illicit intercourse with any man, he should suffer im-
prisonment for. two year's and hard labour." Now that
was at present by. the common law a misdemeanour. A
plot to corrupt female innocence was at present held to
be a conspiracy, for which a party might he indicted and
punished. A case occurred in which a nobleman in the
reign of Charles the Second had been tried for seducing
from her home a young lady of quality. In that case
Lord Pemberton laid the law down as all his predeces-
sors had done, that it was a misdemeanour, which it
continued to be. Offences of that description were de
scribed by Lord Mansfield as misdemeanours, and the
Bill of the Right Rev. Prelate did no more than what
the existing law rendered criminal. It could not, there-
fore, have any good effect in improving the law; it did
not facilitate prosecutions, the bringing forward of evi-
dence, or to punish the offenders. If a third party com-
bined to destroy an innocent female the common law
punished him; whereas by the present Bill it is only an
offence when done for the lucre of gain. It only applied
when corruption took place under false pretences.
These foul practices were carried on very often
not under false pretences, for promises had been often
made, and sometimes carried into effect too, of parties
getting settlements, carriages to ride in Hyde park, and
the offence committed; but the measure of the Right
Rev. Prelate did not meet such cases. He believed. with
the Lord Chief Justice of England, that nothing-more
could be done in connexion with this subject by legisla-
tion—that no remedy could be found, except by imprev-
ing the morals of the people; but not wishing to treat
the Right Rev. Prelate with discourtesy, he should not
move that it be read that day six months, but simply
say not content to the motion.
The Bishop of NORWICH observed' that it was
simply to the infamous traffic carried on that the Bill was
directed, and their Lordships had nu idea of how that
was conducted. It was well known that persons were
engaged throughout the country for no other purpose
but to seduce and ruin innocent young persons. For his
own part he should certainly give it, his support to put
an end to so disgraceful a practice.
The Bishop of OXFORD replied, and observed that
he had the authority of several eminent lawyers who
held, that inasmuch as seduction by one was not criminal
in the eye of the law, so neither was seduction by two
persons. The fact of one being called to another's
councils in such a case, did not, amount to conspiracy.
His Bill did not declare seduction criminal, but the in-
famous traffic which so frequently took place. Innocent
young females arriving in that great metropolis wore
often entrapped into the hands of others, and without
any previous intention on their part completely -ruined,
and subjected hereafter to a living death. It was to
meet such cases that his Bi.l was intended. If the mea-
sure did not go far enough, it was in cons( quence of the
difficulties that presented themselves; and their Lord-
ships ought to remember that the common law of Eng-
land did not meet such a case. He would, therefore,
entreat their Lordships not to reject the thousaud peti-
tions they had received on the subject, but to pass the
Bill, and, if possible, to remedy.one of the greatest evils
with which a state can be afflicted.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Contents 23 ••• •.• •••
149n-Contents -.toe • ••• ••• 19
killiitgitY ~. a., —4