The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 12.
Their Lordships assembled shortly after Five o'clock

PETITIONS.

Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
citisens of London, complaining that their franchises
were suspended, and pra)ing their Lordships to pass the
Bill tor the emancipation of the Jews; also a petition
from James Hamilton, Esq., barrister•at-law, against the
punishment of death.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the in-
habitants of the Cape of Good Hope, against the trans-
portation of convicts to that colony; also a petition from
the corporation: of Belfast against the Rate in Aid Bill;
and a petition from the House of Assembly of Tobago,
complaining of certain statements made by the Colonial
Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with regard to the state of captured slaves in
that island. He felt it his duty to present
the(petition, although he was doubtful whether their
Lordships would receive it. The Noble and Learned
Lord then presented the petition.

. -
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
grand jury of King's County against the rate in aid ;
also several other petitions with a similar prayer.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Belfast against the Rate in Aid Bill ; also
several petitions with a similar prayer.
CASE OF MR. COTTER.

Lord BEAUMONT rose to putaiuestion to her
Majesty's Government with respect to the arrest and
imprisonment, and transportation to Manilla by the
Spanish Government of Mr. Cutter, a British subject.
Mr. Cotter was arrested in Madrid on September 15, and
detained in prison 29 days, when he was removed to
the infirmary. He could obtain no information as to the
cause of his arrest. Ile wrote to the Lieutenant-
General of Madrid, and to Narvaez, demanding to
know what was his offence, and when he should be
brought to trial. He appealed to the British Consul,
and was told he would be removed to Cadiz. He
thought that he would be sent back, to
England, but on his arrival at Cadiz be was sent on
board a ship, and transported to Manilla. The British.
Consul was appealed to in vain. The Spanish Govern-
ment declared they cared nothing for the British Go-
vernment, and they transported him, and since that the
Spanish Government has boasted of their triumph over
the British Government. If Mr. Cotter was a British
subject it was our duty to interfere for his protection; if
ho was not a British subject, but a Spanish subject,
then, of course, we had no reason to interfere; and it.
the Spaniards liked to hug the chains whic they
were afraid to break, it was no business of ours. But
he could not but observe on the inconsistency of the
Spanish Government, so jealous of foreign interference,
in endeavouring to light up a war in Central
Italy to restore by bloodshed to a temporal throne the
Pope, who, as chief of the Christian Church, held a
much more glorious position, than could the holder o 6
any earthly crown.
Lord EDDISBURY said that on the receipt of
the complaint of Mr. Cotter an inquiry was
made, and it was found that Mr. Cotter
was accused of being implicated in a conspi-
racy for the overthrow of the Spanish Govern;
went, and the assassination of Narvsez. Application,
was made to the Spanish Government, who claimed him
as a Spanish subject, inasmuch as, having belonged to
the British Legion, he bad afterwards served in a
Spanish regiment, , and,.. 'had subsequently occupied
an office as comptroller of customs in Spain; he
therefore was considered to be a Spanish subject,
and the Government thought they had no occasion to
interfere.

Lord BROUGHAM said that a British subject re-
siding in a foreign country, if he offended against the
municipal law of that,country, was amenable to that law,
notwithstanding his character of British subject.
After a few words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
Lord CAMPBELL said that a British subject,
although he might become a subject of a foreign state,
was yet bound to pay allegiance to the, British Crown.
• CASE Oi' MITCHEL.

In answer to a question from the Earl of WALDEGRAVE,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE stated that he bad
no objection to produce the instructions issued by the
Admiralty to the captain of the Scourge, with regard
to the: treatment of the convict Mitchel, but he felt
bound-to state that the Scourge had sailed before these
instructions arrived, and that, consequently, the captain
was left in some measure to his own discretion.
The Earl of WALDEGRAVE moved fur the pro-
duction of these instructions.

The motion was agreed to.
LARCENY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL moved the third reading: of the
Larceny Act Amendment Bill.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY,
the Bill was read a third time and passed.
PETTY SESSIONS BILL

Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this

Bill.

The Earl of INIALMESBURY would not oppose the
second reading of this Bill, but he hoped the Noble Lord
would consider the suggestions contained in a petition
which he had presented in rela►ion to this Bill from the
justices' clerks.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 12.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

GAS FOR THE CITY OF LONDON.
On the motion of Mr. FRENCH it was ordered,

That the petitions of inhabitants of the city of London,
for the adoption of measures for enabling them to be
supplied with better and cheaper gas, presented on the
23d day of February last, and on the 9th day of this
instant March, be referred to the Committee on the
Group in which the Great Central Gas Consumers Cum-
pany's Bill is included.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.
The reports on the following Bills were considered
and agreed to :—Blackburn Waterworks (Additional
Capital and Amendment of Act) Bill and Kingston-upon-
Hull Doak Company Bill.
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time and or
dered to be committed:—Eastern Counties and Norfolk
Railways Amalgamation Bill and Hospital for Consump-
tion