The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-28 00:00:00

BENEFICES IN PLURALITY BILL.
Mr. FREWEN moved the second reading of this Bill,
and stated that its object was to apportion districts to
the population.
Mr. HUME said this Bill raised the whole 'question
of pluralities, and he should be glad to know if the Bill
had the support of the Government. He had moved
for returns on the matter, to show the number of plurali-
ties granted since the Act. He opposed the Bill because
it recognised the existence of pluralities, which he con •
id ered should not long• r exist.
Sir G. GREY was not prepared to assent to the Bill,
the principle of which the Hots. Gentlemen had not
stated. The only restriction proposed to be introduced
by this Bill over the present system was in regard to
the value of the benefices. At present a clergyman was
permitted to hold two contiguous benefices of small in-
come.

Mr. FREWEN, after some observations, withdrew
the Bill —Bill accordingly withdrawn.
GENERAL AND QUARTER, SESSIONS.
The House went into C.)mmittee on this Bid.
Mr. BAINES said that he proposed to establish an
official board by which the claims of one parish upon
another might be enforced; and this he proposed to do
by an order of the magistrates of the Quarter Sessions,
equivalent in those respects to an order of the Court of
Queen's Bench. This he would,do by striking out the 16th
clause altogether, and making such an alteration in the
17th clause as would render it applicable to all purposes.
The 16th clause was then struck out.
Mr. BAINES then proposed the words by which this
alteration was to be effected.
After a few observations from Mr. W. Miles, who called
the attention of the Attorney-General to the subject,
and some observations in reply from Mr. Baines, with a
suggestion from Mr. Beckett Denison, the clause, with
the amendment of the Learned Commissioner, was
passed.
On the 18.11 clause being read,
Sir J. DUCKWORTH suggested that in cases of
bastardy, after the evidence of the woman had 13,en
given, that an opportu.nity should be afforded to the
putative father of making an appeal. It had happened
that before the usual time for making the appeal the
woman had died, and the man had no remedy, but had
been saddled with the expenses without any prospect of
remedy.
Tne suggestion was adopted, and the words being
embodied, the clause was passed.
The other clauses of the Bill were then passed with-
out comment, and the Chairman was ordered to bring
up the report to-morrow.
The House then resumed.
_ PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.

Several petitions on th,s subject were presented from
the women of Stroud by Itir. BIINBURY and other

Members.
Mr. SPOONER rose to move that this Bill be read a
second time. In the first place this Bill originated and
had come down from the /louse of Lords. Further, he
would state that this Bill had received the autho-
rity of, and, he believed, had been framed by the
Lord Chief Baron. The object of the Bill was,
to remedy a great and notorious evil, the extent
of which could not be known except to these
who bad charge of the Bill. Its purpose was to
enact that any person who had been convicted
of having been guilty of causing the seduction of
any female for the sake of lucre should be severely
punished. Having stated this, he proposed to go into a
Select Committee, and submit to such alterations as
would render it practically useful.
Mr. ANSTEY said that he believed that it had been
condemned by all the law Lords in another place.—
(Hear, hear.) The principle of this Bill was to punish
any woman, who had caused any man to have carnal
connexion with a woman—(Laughter)—with two years
hard labour. But this was a one-sided Bill, fur it did
not provide any punishment for any man having
connexion with a woman.—(Great laughter.) It
did not provide in any way for the punishment of
seduction.—(Laughter.) Now it was directed against
those unfortunate females who were already seduced,
and had no other means of gaining a livelihood than
that which they now pursued. It was notorious that
the Bill was directed against certain houses, and it was
wt l known that these acts arose on; of false pretensions.
It arose only out of a morbid feeling, and the passing
of it would only gratify that feeling, and he was only
discharging a duty to society and to humanity in doing
anything which would prevent the position of those
females to whom he had alluded from becom-
ing more intolerable than it was at present.
If the Bill had been levelled against seduction it should
have had his best support. But seeing that nothing of the
kind could be effected, that the law was already stringent
enough, and if the magistrates refused to administer
the law as it stood, hew could it be expected that they
would pat a new statute into force. Seeing this, he
should certainly divide the House on the question, and
move that the Bill be read this day three months.
Mr. HUME said that a certain religious society was
reported to have the care, or at least possession, of
houses of a very bad description. If they wanted to
have a law of this kind, they should go to the Universi-
ties, and take the opinion of those who were the ac-
knowledged authorities on morality and religion in the
country. He should certainly vote with the Hon. Mem-
ber who had just sat down.

Sir J. JEIiVIS said the Bill was not only directed
against these who, fur lucre or gain, procured a carnal
communication between any wan and any woman, but
there must also be the consideration of lahe pretences.
This Bill did not seem to him to be necessary, nor did
he think it was at all calculated for the protection of
women. He should certainly vote against it.
After a few words of explanation,
Mr. SPOONER proceeded to call the attention of the
sti veizscOcovr vS case' wuICII lie lICA-U 111 1115 nand,

of women having been seduced by false representations,
and who were now sunk into the lowest rank of
society. The object of the Bill was to put down all
such traffic. The Hon. Gentleman quoted the autho-
rity of Mr. Baron Parke, that the present common law
was not sufficiently comprehensive. He contended
that the principle of the Bill would embrace many
offances which now escaped unpunished, owing to the
imperfect state of the law.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL,
Mr. ELLIS begged the House to allow the Bill to
go into Committee.
Mr. LAW hoped that the House would not throw
out the Bill, imperfect as it was, because it was capable
of great improvement, and had a most important object
in view.

Mr. NEWDEGATE trusted that the objections that
had been raised to the Bill would not prevent the House
from acceding to its principle.
Sir G. GREY opposed the second reading of the Bill,
Considering it one that was confessedly inefficient
tor its object. If the Hon. Gentleman who had the
charge of the Bill would give him an assurance that he
would make its provisions effective, he would nut oppose
the second reading of the Bill.
_ _

Mr. SPOONER would most readily give the Right
11.41. Baronet the assurance he required.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 6
Against it ... 130
Majority against the amendment...
On our admission to the gallery we found
Mr. M. GII3SON on his I,gs, expressing a hope that
as the Governmet had supported the second reading of
the Bill, they would do all in their power to make it
effective.

-124

Mr. HUME thought the course pursued by the Go-
vernment was a strong proof of moral cowurdice.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL defended the course
pursued by the Government.

After some observations from Mr. C. Anstey, Mr. H.
Berkeley, and Mr. Spooner,
Colonel SALWEY moved that the debate should be
adjourned.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and in the course
of his speech, the hour of Six o'clock having arrived,
the House adjourned amid much laughter.

PRUSSIA.
The trial of the political prisoners implicated in the
affair of May was brought to a conclusion at Berlin
on the evening of the 23d. The following was the
sentence of the court :—A year's imprisonment against
M. Gercke for violating a decree issued for the main-
tenance of the public safety; three months' imprison-
ment against the members of the Democratic Com•
mittee, Schonemann, Cubitz, Herzfeld, Dr. Waldeck,
Berends, Weiss, Koch, and Pfeiffer; Steide, Petersen,
and Schildknecht were acquitted.