The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-21 00:00:00

SPRING GUNS.

The Earl of SHAFTERBURY brought up the report
on this Bill; and moved that the House do agree to the
amendments adopted in the Committee.
Lord WYNFORD said that he found one of the clauses
adopted in the Committee was, that any person should be
at liberty to set spring-guns in his grounds upon obtaining the
permission of one Magistrate. As a protection fur game, he
must di.tinctly declare it as his opinion that spring guns
ought never to be used ; but as a protection for property
in barns, and stacks, and out-houses, liable to the worst of
depredations, he thought they might be properly employed.
lie believed that used in thLt manner they would not only
be beneficial to the individual whose property they pro-
tected, but to the country at large ; anti that for such a
purpose no one would object to their partial introduction.
But if the object to be attained was the protection of pro-
perty, he thought it would be best effected by allowing the
setting of spring-guns without an application even to one
Magistrate, for such an application would of course direct
attention to the applicant, and, the depredators would be
forwarned. He suggested, therefore, that the amendment
adopted last night in the Committee should be withdrawn.
Viscount MELBOURNE observed that the use of these
machines of di struction was to be avoided in all but cases
of strong necessity. He thought tree prevention of the
crime of incendiarism was a case of that sort, and he had
therefore introduced this Bill ; but at the same time that
he thus proposed to the Legislature again to make the use
of spring-guns lawful, lie guarded the permission with as
many cautions ,as possible. One of these cautions—that
of making an application to two Magistrates, had been re-
moved last night, and he thought that their Lordships had,
in that relyct, gone as far as was prudent or proper. He
could not, therefore, consent to the sugg stion of the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite.
The report was received, and the Bill, as amended
in Committee, agreed to.
Adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SEPTEMBER 20.
Sir J. NEWPORT rose to move that there be laid before
the House an account of the sums raised and expended upon
account of the church in the parish of St. George, in the
county of Dublin, the amount of the outstanding debt,
and the authority under which the various sums had
been raised and expended, and the number of houses in
the parish liable to pay the church rate. It appeared
that many years ago the parish had agreed to build
the church at an estimate of 15,5001,, of which 5,0001.
was contributed by the Irish Parliament, and 5001.
by the Board of First Fruits. By two subsequent Acts,

viz. the 46th and filth of George HI., the church was
placed in the hands of trustees, and now it appeared that
this building, which bad originally been estimated
to cost 15,5001., had cost nearly 100,0001., of which there
was a debt of 24,0001. It was highly important
that an account of the manner in which the building
had been made to cost so much money should he laid
before that House, mere particularly as it was under-
stood that last year a Qonmittec had been appointed
to inquire into the subject, and they were prevented
from fulfilling their duty by the refusal of the trustees
to exhibit their books. As an instance' of the neces-
sity of an immediate inquiry, be need only say that he
held in his hand a warrant of distress which the trus-
tees had recently issued against a poor widow with eleven
children, for no less than twenty-one years' church-building
rate.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEADER, in seconding the mot!on, said the pro-
duction of the returns would show the monstrous sys-
tem of parish jobbing in Ireland. He was extremely
sorry to say, that if the inquiry were to be extended
thoughout all the parishes in Ireland the same system would
he found to prevail.—(Hear.) It was monstrous to learn
that when the House had granted one million of money to
build churches in Ireland, one church alone should be
proved to have cost 100,0001.
Mr. O'CONNELL was anxious to set himself right
respecting what he bad said on a former night, and wl►ich
bad found its wry to Dublin. He then expressed his
conviction that not more than one year's Minister's money
could be recovered by distress; hut lie had since disco-
vered that this parish was governed by a spedial Act of
Parliament, which authorized the levying for any number
of years, arid thus it was that this poor widow with her
eleven children had been levied upon for twenty-one years'
rates. He was convinced that this church would Wa-
rn-Itchy cost 100,000/, when it should only have cost the
parish 11,000/.
Mr. LE[ ROY reminded the House that the rates were
made by an assessment of the parishioners themselves as-
sembled in vestry.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL and Sir JOHN
NEWPORT,
Mr. H. GRATTAN said he knew an instance of a
per,on, who, after he hail been only a year in a
house, without any previous knowledge of the ex-
istence of a rate, being ordered to pay immediately
13 years' building rate, for 1811 to 1824, amounting to
101. 10s. - That person presented a memorial to the Mar-
quis Wellesley, by whose secretary, Mr. Gregory, be was
referred to a court of law for redress.

Mr. SHAW said, all the circumstances detailed by the
two Hon. and Learned Members (Mr. Grattan and Mr.
O'Connell) proved rather that the trustees had been re-
miss in their duty in not levying the rates punctually and
regularly. He undoubtedly agreed with them, that
no such power as the levying for a number of ears at
one time should be permitted ; but the circumstance of the
widow with the eleven children proved that very great lenity
had been shown to her.—The motion was then agreed to.
• Mr. EWART presented a petition from Mr. Hugh
James Sanderson, a merchant of Liverpool, complaining
of a heavy loss %OIL!' he had experienced by the capture
of his vessel. In 1826 Lis vessel was captured
by the Brazilian squadron, and carried into the River Plate.
Proceedings were taken before the Brazilian Authorities,
and two decrees had been pronounced in his favour ; an
appeal was then made io the Emperor, nho ordered the
restoration of the vessel, and the payment to the petitioner
of all the costs. The costs were but trifling, but in con-
sequence of the damage done to the vessel from lying so
long in that quarter of the world she was rendered un-
seaworthy, and a loss was created to the petitioner amount.
ing to 7,000/. The petitioner adverted to the measures
taken by the American and French Governments to obtain
compensation in all such cases for subjects of that country,
as a contrast to the course pursued by the British Govern-
ment, and prayed an enquiry into his case with a view of
affording bins relief.
Mr. LITTLETON said some of his constituents bad
been extensive sufferers in consequence of the conduct of
the Brazili.in Government, and he trusted that his Ma-
jesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs would see the urgent
necessity, for the sake of justice, of enforcing those claims
which the American and French Governments had already
enforced in regard to their subjects.
Mr. DIXON spoke to the same effect, and intimated
his intention, if energetic measures were not adopted, to
move an address on the subject on an early day.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL brought in a Bill for establishing
a general registry for the deposition of documents rela-
tive to real property.
The 13i.1 having been read a first time,
The }lox. MEMBER, in moving that it be read a second
time on the 4th of October next, stated that the present
Bill was substantially the same as that which he had in-
late Parliament. It waS. however, some.
what simplified, and made shorter; so that he hoped it
would meet the approbation of the House.
Mr. O'CONNELL stated Irons practical knowledge his
thorough conviction that a greater benefit could not he
done to the country than by a general registry. The
greatest objection to the Bill was the publicity it would
give to the deposited documents. That was met however
at once by the fact, that in Doctors' Commons a man of
curiosity for a shilling might read all the wills that had been
proved for the last 300 years. Oi all the prejudices there-
fore that had existed relative to the Registry 8.11, nuns
were more delusive or unfounded than its publicity. • As
a practising barrister, of many years standing, he was
bound to declare, which he did conscientiously, that his
Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. J. Campbell) would con •
fer a great benefit en the country if be succeeded . in this
useful measure. He (Mr. O'Connell) had seen its itn-
portance and good effect in Ireltnd.

Mr. STRiCKLAND- said if the Hon. Member for
Kerry supported the Bill because he belonged to a county
which had the benefit of a registry, he (Mr. S.) would
oppose it because he belonged to a county which enjoyed
also a similar benefit. The Yorkshire people had ex-
pressed no general dissatisfaction in consequence of the
alleged imperfection of the registry there. In one of the
ridings, indeed, the index was imperfect, but all the in-
dexes were not so, and active steps were now making, he
believed, to remedy all existirs, imperfections; his doubt,
however, was whether the Bill did not go too far.
Mr. SLANEY supported the Bill, hoping that no petty
objection would stand in the way of the discussion of a
measure which would be of so much advantage to the
community in gen, ral.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT would give his hearty concur-
rence to the measure, and in doing so observed that many
years ago a banker in London had told him that he had that
day paid for an estate he had purchased for the third time,
in consequence of the want of registration.
Mr. PAGET supported the Bill.
Mr. CRAMPTON considered the public registry
of deeds of great importance, as those who had good titles
ought not to be afraid of shelving their titles publicly. He
considered the lion. Member who had introduced this
measure a great benefactor to his country, and be should
therefore give him his support.
Mr. LANGSTON considered it his duty to give this
measure his decided opposition, as the great body of his
constituents were opposed to it.
Mr. HUME was happy that the Hon. Member for
Stafford had brought in this Bill, and be hoped every op-
portunity would be given to have its merits properly
discussed. He could only attribute the opposition from the
county of Somerset to the patties having no knowledge
of the merits of the measure. He trusted the Hon. Mem-
ba (Mr. Campbell) would at every stage court opposition,
that the arguments urged against it might be answered
and refuted.
Mr. SMITH supported the Bill, and trusted it would
be persevered in.
Mr. HUNT hoped the measure would be fairly discussed
before it was carried into operation.
After a few observations from Mr. SLANEY, in expla-
nation, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. KNIGHT,
The Bill was ordered to be printed, and to be read a
second time on the 4th of October next.

Mr. MOSTYNpr;eatecrap;;itionfrom the Clergy,
Magistrates, and inhabitants of Beaumaris, alluding to the
loss of the Rothsny Castle steam-pachet, and praying for
some legislative regulations respecting steam-vessels.
Mr. HUME considered this not at all a subject for le.
gislative interference and regulation, inasmuch as the sea-
worthiness of strain-vessels was a matter that ought rather
to be personally inquired into by those whom pleasure or
business induced to embark therein.

....
Mr. F. BARING could not see how it was at all prac-
ticable for persons to know whether the passage-boats
than latesoemiPeecilY' occurred,
legislative regu-
were secure or not, and he did think it was a subject
which called loud for legislative interference and inspection.
Mr. HODGES thought, from the repeated and most
nmoetlhainnegh ocloyu accidentsr
ethat
nhtai
ndg, of
lations upon this subject.
Mr. GRATTAN could state, from communications
which be had held with an individual who had
been on board the Rothsay Castle for four years, that
during the whole of that time she bad been a condemned
vessel. He recommended in all cases that a survey or
examination of the sea-worthiness of the vessels should
be made under legislative regulations.

Alderman VENABLES hoped some measure preven-
tative of such accidents as had lately occurred, and satin_
factory to the public, would speedily be brought forward.
Mr. C. WYNN ridiculed the it idea. of legislative

interference 0
in this important matter. He had pe-
rused with as much distress and sympathy as any
individual the painful records connected with the loss of
the Rothsay Castle. It did not signify whether, as it
had been stated by an Hon. Member, that vessel was or was
not sea-worthy several years before, as she bad, it ap-
peared, undergone a repair which her owners considered
sufficient. The melancholy catastrophe which had lately
filled so many families with mourning, and excited universal
sympathy, had proved that these men were mistaken in their
opinion ; but still there could be no good security in cases
of this sort, but that which was established by the in-
quiry of individuals themselves, as to the efficiency and
sea-worthiness of the vessel in which they embarked.
Mr. CAMPBELL agreed, that on such a subject as con-
veyance the public ought to be left to take care of them-
selves, and that the Legislature should not interfere in such
matters. If it could be proved that the persons connected
with this steam-packet knew she was unfit for performing
such a voyage, they were liable to an indictment for
manslaughter.
Mr. WARBURTON considered it extremely injudi-
cious to appoint persons as supervisors over steam-boats,
fur in that case there would be a hindrance to that species
of improvement, and those persons would be appointed who
would be pushing forward every new scheme of their own,
the same as was done when the gas companit s were first
established, and an inspector of them was appointed, who
fur a few years received a salary of HU a year.
Col. SIBI'UOItPE was surprised to heir the Hon. and
Learned Member (Mr. Campbell) talk of preventing people
taking away their own lives. Yet he was desirous that a
Bill should pass to make people take care of
_their own
lives. He (Colonel Sibthorpe) should feel it to be his
duty to move for leave to bring in a B 11 to answer the
purposes prayed for by the petitionets. The petition was
then read, and ordered to be referred to the Committee on
Steam Navigation.

THE DUCHESS OF KENT AND PRINCESS
VICTORIA.

On Mr. STaurr moving the Order of the :Day for
resuming the debate on the third reading of the Reform
Bill,
Mr. HUNT rose, and stated it was well known that
a great deal bad been said in the public newspapers re-
specting the non-attendance of the Ditchess of Kent
and the Princess Victoria at the Coronation.—(This oc-
casioned some confusion and cries of Order.")

The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member wa; at
liberty' to ask a question, provided he did not in!ringe that
privilege.
Mr. HUNT said it had appeared in the public prints.
(Here the Hon. Member was again interrupted.) lie
sure), might say what the question was he was about to
explain.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member was not in
order, for an explanation was unnecessary, as it might
lead to a debate.

Mr. HUNT said, be ready did not know what ques-
tion to ask.—(Loud and general laughter, which lasted
at least some minutes.) With submission to the
Speaker, he sincerely hoped to be allowed to state
the facts, and then to ask the question. It had been
stated in the public prints that the Duchess of Kent and
the Princess Victoria did not attend the Coronation-
Various reasons had been assigned, which had not only got
into all the country papers, but also into the foreign pa-
pers. It was because he believed their Royal Hight', sses
should be protected from such attacks that he now
put this question, in order that his Majesty's Ministers
might give an explanation that would be satisfactory
to the country.—(Heie the Hon. Member made
a pause, which occasioned laughter, and a cry of "What
is the question ?") The question, said Mr. Hunt, is
will the Ministers state the reason of the absence of their
Royal Highnesses from the Coronation ?
Lord ALTHORP said, that the facts of this case bad
certainly been much misrepresented.—( Hear, hear.)
The truth was that the Duchess of Kent, on being
informed when the Coronation was to take place, stated to
the King the reason which induced her to wish to be
excused attending. Those reasons were satisfactory to the
King, which was graciously signified to herßoyal Highness.
The House would see it was not proper for bins to notice any
thing which had appeared in the public prints, but what
bad then appeared was not consistent with- the truth.
Mr. CROKER felt great gratification at the explana-
tion of the Noble Lord.