The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. WEDNESDAY

S.:ut'l Easter ... ...... - 331
Do.. No. 1 .28
iio., N 0.2.
Da. Registered No. 4 10
Yale of Neath ... ..
fcrk, Newcastle, and
Berwick. .. . .
,o. Newcastle Exton. 20 ...... 151/s A 15 151 A 15'4
Do. G.N.E.Preterence 8 ... -51 i & • 5%
York and North Midland 50 ..... 35 36... ... ..... 36
Ditto, Preference
i . o. East and W est Rid-
ing Extension
FOREIGN RAILWAYS.
Boulogne and Amiens
Central of France (Or-
Vierzon)
East Indian ......
Great Indian Peninsular 5
Northern of France
Orleans and Bordeaux.. 7 ...... 34 31%
Paris and Orleans ...... 20
Paris and Rouen 2O • IDS ••• -
Paris and Strasbourg ... 10
Sambre and Meuse 2O -- .. 3i 37,,
Tours and Nantes

204

131/2 ........
67/4 N . .
1/2

MINES.

lustralian 3 —
Brazilian Imperial
Do. St. John Del Rey 15
JOINT STOCK BANKS.

Colonial 25 - 000000000 .. awe •
London Joint Stock lO
London & Westminster. 20
Union of London.... 00000 10 —... 104

Melton
Cossack

Loupgarou

35%
514 dis.

13

173/4

6%
1434
2334
101/i

AI PE RIAL PARLIAMENT.

(Tills IJAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions against the
removal of Smithfield-market.
Mr. FORDYCE presented petitions from the county
of 14 ite against the Marriage and Registration Bills.
Mr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the
-Nonconiormist clergy against the Bill legalising mar-
riage with a deceased wite's sister.
Sir .1. Y. BULLER presented petitions from a place
in Devonshire in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill.
Mr. BROTIIERTON presented petitions praying for
the suppression of beer-shops.
Mr. B. HUGHES presented petitions from Carnarvon
in favour of international arbitration.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented two petitions from
Bristol against beer-houses.
Mr. BERNAL presented a petition in favour of inter-
national arbitration.
Mr. K. SEYMER presented petitions from places
in Devonshire against the Bill for legalising marriage
with a deceased wife's sister.
Mr. GLADSTONE presented petitions to the same
effect from the Archdeaconry of St. Albans.
Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from places in
Wiltshire to the same effect.
Mr. BOURKE presented petitions from Kilkenny
and the counties of Cork and Dublin, and other places
in Ireland, in favour of the Cattle and Sheep Bill.
CANADA.

On the motion for proceeding to the order of the day,
Mr. BERRIES rose to inquire whether the Govern-
ment had received any communication from the Gover-
nor-General 61 Canada, stating that there was a Bill
before the Legislative Assemblies of Canada providing
that recompense should be given to those who had suf-
fered losses during the rebellion; and, secondly, whether
it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to
give, or whether they had given, their sanction to any
such Bill?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, in 'reply to the first
part of the question of the Right Hon. Gentleman he
had to state, that although no public dispatches had been
received, the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial
Department had received several private letters upon the
subject from the Governor-General of Canada, extracts
of which would at the proper time be laid upon the table
of the House. With regard to the second part of the
question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he could only
remark, that when the matter came officially before him,
Lord Elgin would be in possession of the feelings of the
Government at home, and would be prepared to exercise
his discretion respecting the Bill, and would, no doubt,
exercise that discretion beneficially for the empire, and
with advantage to his own reputation. When dispatches
were received, such parts of them as were necessary for
promoting' the public service would be presented to the

House. -
Mr. HERRIES inquired whether the Government did
not intend to publish the whole of the dispatches.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it had frequently
been found very inconvenient to publish the whole of the
dispatches received from the colonies. In some in-
stanoes—he might cite that of Jamaica especially—the
publication of the dispatches had produced great irrita-
tion in the dependencies.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know whether it was
necessary for the Governor General of Canada to send to
the Home Government before he gave his sanction to a
Bill of the Colonial Legislature.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that certainly it was not ne-
cessary; speaking from his own recollection, ho should
say, not usual, for the Governor-General of Canada to
communicate with the Home authorities before giving
his sanction to a Bill of the Colonial Legislature,
although he thought that it was advisable to communi-
cate with the Home authorities on matters of peculiar
importance, so that all might work together in liar-
mony.—(flear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether he heard the
Noble Lord aright when ho understood him to state
that it was customary for the communications between
the Colonial authorities and the Home Government to
take place rather by private letter than by public dis-
patches.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Certainly not. Private matters
were usually communicated by private letters; commu-
nications respecting public affairs came in the form of
public dispatches.—(Hear, hear.)
CATTLE STEALING (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BOURKE then rose to move the second reading
of the Cattle Stealing Bill, and in doing so, he said it was
only necessary to state some facts briefly for the necessity
of the Bill, and to show how fearfully this crime had
increased. In 1845 the number of offences under this
head reported by the constabulary was 620, in 1846 the
number reported was 3,025, and in 1847 they had risen
to the startling number of 10,044, out of which only
about 1,500 convictions occurred. It was not owing
entirely to distress that an increase had arisen in that
particular class of crime, but the fact was that evil-dis-
posed persons who were to be found in every community
had availed themselves of the distress to commit de-
predations. The evil, he regretted to say, had materially
increased during the last year. Mr. Baren Lefroy, in
his address to the jury at the Galway Assizes, stated
that the number of cases on the calendar was 764, of
which there were 115 for sheep Red cattle stealing, and
57 for cow stealing; and added that, although it might
in a great degree be attributed to the failure of the
potato crop, it could not be longer endured, now
that efforts had been made to alleviate distress in Ireland.
Mr. Baron Richards had also stated to the grand jury
of the county of Kerry that cattle and sheep stealing was
on the increase, and that some effort should be made to
put a stop to it. The Honourable Member called the
attention of the House to several letters which he
had received from magistrates and others not only from
places where distress existed, but from the county of
Wicklow, which was peculiarly exempted in that res-
pect, and which was remarkable for its good order, stat-
ing that scarcely a night passed without de-
predations being committed; and that, although
the guilts parties were in most cases known, a con-
viction could not be obtained under the law as it
now stood. Tho usual practice after stealing the
animal was to skin it and cut it up, and to destroy
or dispose of the skin in order to prevent identification
The present Bill was merely the revival of an old one,
which was repealed by the 9th of Geo. IV., c. 55, and
which was in operation in Ireland for many years. It
was generally regretted by all parties that it had ever
been repealed. The Bill was introduced in 1839, by
Lord Morpeth and Mr. Pigott, and although there were
only 272 cases of cattle and sheep stealing reported by
the constabulary in the previous year, the Government
deemed that a sufficient cause to recommend the passing
of the measure. He, therefore, thought when he
showed by returns that there were now as many as
10,000 cases, that he was entitled to ask
the Government to support the present Bill;
A statute similar to this was to he found in the 7th and
Bth of Geo. IV., which enacts, among other things, that
every one to whose possession meat suspected of being
stolen was to be traced should be made to account for
it in the same way as the present Bill provided. An
enactment of a similar nature was to be found in force
in Ireland as regarded timber. Now, he thought he
had shown that it was not asking too much of legisla-
tion to endeavour to mitigate the dreadful evil which
was so ruinous to the farmers in Ireland. It was the
general wish of the inhabitants of Ireland at large, both
of proprietors and small farmers—more particularly
those very small farmers whose sheep were so
few, and whose flecks were so small that
they could not afford to pay for watchmen to
protect them during the night against nocturnal depre-
dators, that this Bill should pass into a laic. In corro-
boration of that he had a resolution passed at the quarter
sessions of Waterford, signed by the lord-lieutenant of
the county, and by every magistrate there assembled.
A number of petitions had been presented in favour
of the Bill, including not less than twelve grand
juries of Ireland. It had attracted very considerable
attention in this country, and all with whom he had com-
municated on the subject had concurred with
him in opinion that the Bill should pass
.into a law.
He hoped that the House would permit the principle of
the Bill at least to pass into a law, which placed the
onus probandi on the person in whose possession meat
suspected to have been stolen was found of showing that
he lawfully and honestly came by the same.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, notwithstanding the con-
cluding sentences of the Honourable Member's speech,
he (Sir George Grey) felt that it would be still his
duty to oppose the Bill in its present shape.
The objections which he entertained towards the
Bill would be very much removed if very considerable
modifications were made in it, without affecting its prin-
ciple. He had given the Hon. Gentleman an intimation
to that effect the other 'day. The first clause appeared
objectionable, because it proposed to enact what was the
law already. It empowered magistrates to grant search
warrants against any person who was suspected of hav-
ing stolen goods in his possession. He did not know
how this Bill passed through the House on the former
occasion ; but, at all events, he felt it to
be his duty to object to its passing
through the House in its present shape.
He thought that the Hon. Gentleman from whom the
ißatritdl
sheep
had emanated had rather overstated the necessity of
e
IGoaft. euy•
rheeeayeeraspr ,s
theeaal
iro. )g r
es
lasi
od d t hhaatd t
gh er
ao
tffl
ye Dien% r oe fa
scattle
and sheep stealing in Ireland had greatly increased of
commitments) . h drom i
oinh a
Parliamentary
ilsBh4a4o wdaisto
315. pp ea
rlr
eendt return w
Ireland
aatn hdt i
hc
the
number
ehel (s Ss
ei rs
country.fa rnodm
thahe e e
In
h convictionss
1848 te a stealing ntgh
elho,asodr4h, beewre
which
c ho
o greater
a itthaoit
thought
ht
tahsathtehe
haddiffietreiil2
showed,Bt 310 i s,
cusittayteogdfa
ritgos th
oof convicting
House.pe
sheepr sons was not so great
Hateealesrasid
whothat
there existed
resided together in certain neighbourhoods, and
whose footsteps would be traced from the places
where they killed the animal and flayed it to the houses
in which they lived ; and that further the remains
of slaughtered animals were found in their houses. In
one case that occurred to his (Sir George Grey's) me-
mory, blood was found on the knee of a suspected in-
dividual. Under such circumstances it would not be
difficult to induce a jury to believe that a person traced,
and in whose house there was fresh meat, which did not
appear to have been cut by a butcher, was an offending
party. In such a case sufficient evidence could, he
thought, be adduced to show that there was moral
evidence of guilt, though, perhaps, the persoe.
to whom it belonged could not swear to it. The con-
victions in 1848 showed thattbere was not much difficulty.
He was told that Irish juries often declined to convict
except in cases
of absolute identity. He advised the
aw t iu order to d
Hon. Gentleman to witted r
ut • otherwise he should feel itamen his
it as he had pointed
duty to oppose it.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD should oppose the Bill, believing
tuatelhan dim -
id rather increase and pere
that it won because, in Ireland at least.,
'Ash the evil complained of, p

persons convicted of the offence did not care for the in-
fliction of the utmost punishment which the law awarded
for thi. offence. In support of this view he read the report
of the trial of 4 young men for sheepstealing, who pleaded
guilty, and besought the assistant-barrister who tried
them to transport them, as it they were liberated after
short imprisonment they must commit some other crime,
in order to provide the means of existence, for they were
starving. He acceded to their prayer, and they were
.all
transported for seven years, which seemed togratify
them exceedingly. This Bill provided that a suspected
person might be brought before a magistrate! and It he
could not show how the property came into his posses-
sion, and there was reason to think he had not come by
it honestly, that he might be committed for not less than
three months, or until a fine was paid. Why this would
induce persona to commit the offence . in order that
they might obtain a comfortable asylum in
prison. He opposed the Bill, and recommended
its withdrawal, because ho believed it would be alto.
gether inoperative. Arbitrary laws might be necessary,
and be for one would support such laws if they were likely
to do good, but this measure was not of that class. From
the facts quoted by the Hon. Gentleman who had in-
troduced the Bill it appeared that the great cause of
crime was absolute famine. Was it right, therefore, be
asked, to pass a law like this against such a people as
the Irish?