The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-23 00:00:00

GAMBIA.

Sir E. BUXTON pursuant to notice asked the Under-
Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a sanguinary
attack that had lately been made on two native towns
by the British authorities at Gambia had been made
with the sanctiou of the authorities at home; and
whether he had any objection to lay on the table of the
House the correspondenao that bad taken place between
the Governor of Gambia and Earl Grey with respect to I
this exhibition?
Mr. HAWES said that the Government had no other
information upon the subject than that which was con-
tained in the dispatch of the Governor. Whatever had
been done had been done on the responsibility of the
Governor of Gambia alone. He was not prepared at
present to lay the dispatch from the Governor on the
table of the House until there had been time to consider
it, and the steps to be taken in consequence.
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.

Upon the motion that tilie---CleVißelief Bill, as
amended, be considered,
Mr. MULLINGS moved, after clause 3, to add the
following clause:—" And be it enacted, that immediately
upon the transmission of such: certificate letters of
orders and statement, such person shall forfeit all right,
title, and interest in the preferment held by him, and to
the possession of the parsonage house, buildings, lands,
tithes, and other hereditaments belonging to or held
with and as appurtenant to the same, and to the receipt
and benefit of the rents, issues, profits, and proceeds
thereof, subject, nevertheless, and without prejudice to
the claims of sequestration creditors as hereinafter
provided."
On the clause being ordered to be brought up,
Mr. GOULBURN said that he could not by any
means assent to the introduction of a clause like this.
The Bill, as it now stood, provided that if any one had
been ordained to holy orders whose principles were
altered could, upon a declaration that his faith was
changed, obtain a power to retire altogether from the
Church. By this clause, if a clergyman had contracted
debts,
doctrines however
whichm ue h he
we
re
contrarydesired tto escape
to
hisb
frome
belief',
preach-
inghwould still be compelled to remain in his living simple y
for the sake of securing the creditor. This he thought
was a monstrous stretch of an Act of Parliament, and
caleuhited to create a greater evil than that which it was
intended teoetuntgdohe dtt
the
etoo remedy.existence
ostand
pfla'
suchor rt
o r that reason he could not as-
atheelaßuisiel.
The clause ,
and must say that
time,
mwhueLn was then brought up, and read a second
LINGS enlained the legal effect of the clause,
and showed that, though it would
cotivii
living affect the spiritual'
position of any clergyman whosewas ufnder se-
questration, yet.it would have the advantt
ing all the temporalities of a living into the e bon a cdarry-
a of
the ordinary diocesan, and thus the creditor
would be
1
secured.

Air. BOUVERIE said that the clause would be of no
avail, inasmuch as it would in no way affect the fortune
of 4 clergYuaaa who obtaiued a second living.

Mr. SPOONER said that the clause would certainly
avail, for if the seqmestration were obtained under a
judgment, and the clergyman obtained another living,
the power of that sequestration would follow the debtor.
Mr. MULLINGS then stated that he had no personal
object to serve, and would withdraw the motion.
The clause was then withdrawn.
At the suggestion of Dr. NICHOLL words were
ordered to be put in for amending the form of the de-
claration.
After several verbal alterations suggested by Mr.
Goulburn, Dr. Nicholl, and other Members, an altera-
tion was proposed giving power to secede from the
Church after a certain short notice, on which
Mr. GOULBURN said that the Church had very
wisely instituted regulations by which every man was
prevented from entering upon its sacred functions with-
out due deliberation. Those functions were so holy, of
so high and elevated a character, that there ought to be
every bar placed before either the admission to and the
abandoment of them. They would not admit of a
clergyman sitting in that House, because they believed
that a seat in that assembly would be inconsistent with
the performance of his clerical duties, and yet they were
ready to grant a power by which the moat serious ob-
ligations might be set aside with the same ease that he
would any lay profession. This was likely to occasion
great mischief, and he should therefore move for the
omission of the words by which so great a facility was
conferred.
Mr. STAFFORD said that as he was favourable to
the principle of the Bill he was anxious that it should
pass without mutilation. He did not know whether his
Right Hon. Friend was aware of the fact, but it never-
theless was so, that the clause as it now stood had
been unanimously assented to by the Committee. There
was no difference whatever upon the subject among its
members, and as the observations which had been made
in moving this amendment squally applied, or perhaps
more forcibly applied, to the whole Bill than to the
clause as it stood, he should oppose it.
Mr. SPOONER said that he was as favourable to the
principle of the Bill as his Hon. Friend who had just
sat down, and being so he was anxious to carry it out as
usefully as possible. There ought not to be any such
facility for throwing off those functions which clergymen
had so solemnly assumed, and if the amendment was
pressed he should certainly vote along with him.
After a few words from Mr. HOPE, indicating a de-
sire, that in making a provision for the secession of minis-
t f ofs
hthoeu
lCdhbuer cohb,s
etrhvee.dmaosd
ce
oa
snedl radsepr so
sosfi b
lteh, e Church
iMr. BOUVERIE said that he could not share in the
apprehensions that members of the clerical body would for
a slight or frivolous reason be ready to throw off those
duties which they had so solemnly undertaken to fulfil.
The reason why clergymen were excluded from the
House of Commons was that their ministerial duties
were incompatible with the discharge of legislative
functions. In that regulation the clery had very gene-
rally and almost unanimously concurred, and as that was
an object which was one of honourable ambition to most
men, he thought that that was an ample proof of the
little likelihood that the privilege would be abused,
Mr. GOULBURN said that the last thing which he
desired was to cast any imputation upon the clergy. He
then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. HAGGET said that it was perfectly impossible
for this Bill to pass through the House this session, and
he, therefore, would make another appeal to the Hon.
Member to delay any further proceedings on the Bill at
present. If such a Bill was to be passed, it ought to be
introduced by the Government, who alone had the power
to pass an opposed Bill through the House in one ses-
sion. The time would come, and perhaps shortly, when
the Church would-be efficiently heard in the regulation
of ecclesiastical affairs.—(Hear.)
Mr. BOUVERIE said that it was not his fault that
the Bill had not been earlier brought before the House,
and he certainly should persevere.
The amendments as altered were then passed, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Hindley, Sir W. Hall, Lord Robert Grosvenor,
and several other Members, presented petitions from
Finsbury, Islington, Marylebone, and several other por-
tions of the metropolis, in favour of the Bill. One of
these especially Mr. Hindley wished to draw attention to.
It was numerously signed by the shopmen of Lambeth,
and stated that they had time neither for recreation or
improvement, or for attending upon Divine worship.
Sir G. GREY trusted that the Hon. Member would
not, at this period of the session press this Bill upon
the House, as it was evident that there was a per ect
impossibility of its passing through the House
this session, and the debate upon it would in all
probability prevent the discussion upon those Bills which
might possibly become law at the end of the session.
Mr. HINDLEY said, that on the 12th of July last
year he had agreed to postpone the details of his Bill
till the present session, the principle having already been
affirmed, and the Right Hon. Baronet having stated that
he would speak to Mr. Waddington on the subject.
When he came to town at the beginning of the present
session, he had called at the Home-office, but could
get no_decisive determination from the Government,

'Or the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), on whose
support he was aware he must rely. He found that the
Right Hon. Baronet had not spoken to Mr. Waddington
at ell. He had himself written to the Right Hon. Baro-
net on three subjects. On two of these he got replies,
but none upon_this. lie had been deirous to bring in
the Bill as early as possible ; but the Hon. Member for
Hoiiiton (Mr. Locke) had a Bill of a somewhat antago-
nistic nature upon the paper, and he wished aach of the
Bills to be discussed upon its own merits, as he had,
therefore, postponed his own Bill.
Sir G. GRkY said that he was by no moans unfriendly
to the principle of the Bill; but the peculiarity was that
all the difficulty lay in the details, and if the Hon.
Member would postpone the Bill and bring it on early
in the next session, he would give it his best con-
sideration.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he thought the responsi-
bility of withdrawing this Bill ought not to lay upon the
Right Hon. Baronet, or even upon the Government, for
the matter was more the business of the House than

theirs.
Lord Dudley Stuart, Lord Robert Grosvenor, Sir W.
Clay, and Mr. Disraeli, severally made appeals to the
Hon. Member to withdraw the B►ll.
Mr. LAW thought that it would be better to divide at
once than have a discussion which led to nothing.
Mr. BARING WALL then moved that the debate
be adjourned till Wednesday week.
After some hesitation the House divided, when there
appeared
For the adjournment of the debate 56
Agaitst it 25
Majority
The Bill is consequently lost, as it is understood that
the House will be adjourned on the day specified, or on
the day before it.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

The House then went into Committee on the Cruelty
to Animals Bill, when considerable discussion ensued
upon the legal effect of much of the phraseology of the
Bill, during which the Attorney-General suggested se
veral verbal alterations. After some objections as to
the difficulty of working the third clause, it was struck
out.

On the motion of Mr. HENRY, the following clause

was introduced, a conversation having ensued as to the
amount of the penalty to be levied, and it was
ultimately reduced from ten to five pounds.
And be it enacted, that if at any time after
the passing of this Act any person shall ride, or, being
the owner, shall permit any other person to ride, any
animal in any steeple-chase, or other race in which
any hedges, fences, walls, hurdles, or other erec-
tions, or any ditches, dykes, streams, brooks, or
rivers, are intended to be leaped or jumped over
by the animals engaged in such steeple-chase or
other race as aforesaid, then and in every such case, if
any damage or injury shall occur or be occasioned to
such animal whilst engaged in such steeple-chase or other
race as aforesaid, every such person shall be deemed to
have wantonly and cruelly used such animal, and for
every such offence shall forfeit - and pay a penalty of
pounds.
On clause 8, which proposed some regulations for se-
curing the cleanliness of cattle being put, it was sug-
gested that its continuance was only calculated to throw
ridicule upon the Bill, and it was accordingly withdrawn.
On clause 11, which instituted a penalty of 101. for
cruelty committed in sl ►ughtering cattle, being put
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that it
should be five pounds instead of ten.
The alteration was adopted.
On clause 15 being put, the object of which is to re-
gulate the carriage of cattle and sheep by railway,
Mr Alderman COPELAND said that there could be
no greater cruelty inflicted than that which might be
witnessed daily:in the, carriage of calves ti Smithfirld.
market, and he hoped that a clause would be introduced
to meet the caste.
Sir G. GREY said that he believed the offence was
covered by the provision of the seventh clause.
To this Mr. Ellis, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Palmer,
and other Members objected, the House was cleared for
a division, as to whether the clause should be in its pre-
sent shape, but the objections were withdrawn and
agreed to.

On the interpretation clause being put, in consequence
of an observation made by the Attorney-General,
Mr. STUART suggested that the description of ani-
mals intended to be included under the protection of the
B►ll, might be safely left to the consideration of the ma-
gistrate. It was well known that three-fourths of the
difficulties which were experienced from Acts of Parlia-
ment arose from these interpretation clauses, and he was,
therefore, anxious that this claws() should be left out
altogether.

Alter observations from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and
the Marquis of WORCESTER, the clause was agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the Bill
should nos extend to Scotland.
Sir G. CLERK then rose to move that the operation
of this Bill should not extend to Scotland. He said that
there would be some doubt from the term United King-
dom being used as to whether the Bill extended into
Scotland :or Rot. He was happy to say that they did
not need a special statute on this subjeot in that country,
and if the Bill were to be extended to it there would be
a necessity to alter the phraseology of the Bill from first
to last.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the Bill was
not formally expressed as being extended to Scotland,
but that the fines wolud be leviable in that country as
well as in this.

In consequence of the observation of an Hort.. MEM;
BER,
Sir DAVID DUNDAS said that he was not aware
that there was any peculiar cruelty practised in Scot-
land. If the Hon. Member knew of such, he was bound
as a Scotch Member, to bring in a Bill to amend the evil.
Mr. BROWN then read a letter from Scotland which
stated seveal instances of cruelty in that country, and
adduced legal opinions to show that the law there was
perfectly inefficient for the repression of that erimi-
uality.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the machinery
of th© Bill would not work in Scotland.

Mr. W. BROWN then withdrew his opposition to the
further progress of the Bill, and said that in a future
session he would bring in a Bill with respect to Scotland.
Mr. HENRY then moved, at the end of the third
clause to insert the following enactment:—" And be it
enacted, that if at any time after the passing of this Act
any person shall ride, or being the owner, shall permit
any other person to ride, any animal in any steeple
chase or other race in which any hedges, fences, walls,
hurdles, or other erections ; or any ditches, dykes, streams,
brooks, or rivers, are intended to be leaped or jumped over
by the animals engaged, or such steeple-chace or other
race as aforesrid, then, and in every such case, if
any damage or injury shall occur or be oc-
casioned to such animal whilst engaged in such
steeple-chace or other race as aforesaid, every
such person shall be deemed to have wantonly and
cruelly used such animal, and for every offence shall
forfeit and pay a penalty of 1001. The Hon. Member
denounced steeple-chasing as cruel and unfeeling, and
that it should be put a stop to by a heavy penalty.
Sir C. BURRELL thought that cases in which horses
were backed to perform unusual feats on the high road
should be ircluded in the clause. He greatly approvdd
of the clause.
gotialeßci lals
case, it
tp reeovuelndt
ncor
tu ebl tey
etaoi
da noi
be
il
Ens ;
Mr. MACKINNON had introduced no less than
an
sy
heue cYh'
Itbroesuilnal advocate that whisk was cruel. He
thought, however, that this clause would injure the Bill
altogether; for it would be said if steeple chasing was
cruel, so also was horse racing and bunting. In fact,
if that clause was adopted, persons would be afraid of
gauping in the Patk.—(Hear, litar.) He should,
therefore, divide the House upon the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, though he did not
approve of the clause in its present shape, for it did not
make as it ought to do steeple. chasing illegal, would vote
for it if the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lyrnington
divided the House against it. He thought it better to
declare, by the clause, that every person engaged in
steeple-chasing should be deemed guilty of cruelty to
animals.
Mr. ELLIS supported the clause, and deprecated the
practice of steeple-chasing.
Mr. R. PALMER thought that steeple-chasing ought
to be put a stop to, but he was much afraid the clause as
it stood would interfere with gentlemen racing with their
horses in an open meado w.'
Mr. F. FRENCH could not see the cruelty of steeple
chasing. for the horse was often very much excited by
his, rider.—(Laughter.)

Mr. LAW thought that steeple chasing ought to be
put down, and suggested that the words " cruelly over-
riding" would meet the views of the Hon. Member.
I ICoionel THOMPSON remarked that the words over
driving included, in his opinion, over-riding. He thought
it better to leave the propriety of steeple-chasing to pub-
lic opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEG ATE thought steeple chasing a low
sport, and the sooner it was put a stop to the
better. He thought if it was left to the decree of public
opinion, it would soon become obsolete.
Mr. HENRY said he would adopt the amendment
suggested by. the Attorney. General.
Mr. W. EVANS thought the spirit of steeplechasing
anything but manly. It they did not put it down it
might be said that they legislated in that House against
the poor and for the rich.
Mr. B. DENISON had an utter contempt for steeple
chasing, but he doubted the policy of legislating to put
it down.

The Marquis of WORCESTER opposed the clause,
as likely to endanger the Bill, though he by no means
approved of steeple-chasing.
After some observations from Mr. Mackinnon, Mrl
Stu in Wortley, and Mr. Heywood,
Mr. P. PRYSE had ridden many steeple-chasers, and
could not agree that it was a cruel sport.
After a few words from Mr. LAW and Mr. ELLIOTT,
strangers were ordered to withdraw.. The Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause... ..•
Against it ••• •••
Majority against the clause ... 8
The clause was consequently lost.
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the B
passed through Committee, and the report was ordered
to he read to .morrow.
The House then resumed.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.

.. ... 50
... 58

The Hous9 then went into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. R. SPOONER, proposed several amendments,
which, with several alterations, were agreed to, and the
Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
reported to-morrow.