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

ITALY.

Intelligence has been received from Rome of the
28th ult. At that date hostilities between the French
and the Romans had not been resumed.

A fresh note had been addressed by M. DE LEs-
sErs to M. MAzzINI of such a character as to leave no
doubt whatever of the insanity of the unfortunate
French Envoy. _ _

GARIBALDI, after having entered the Neapolitan
territory at Arce, where he was received with great
joy, made a movement to the right for the purpose of
etTtcting a junction with the troops which were
marching against the Austrians.

On the 28th a vehement fire was opened from the
Venetian batteries and gun boats upon the Austrian
works at Fort San Giuliano.

RADETZKY intended commencing the bombard-
ment of Venice on the 29th.

The Opinione of Turin, of the let, gives the fol-
lowing particulars concerning the abandonment of
Malghera by the Venetians. The extreme unhealthi-
ness of the place induced them to that step, as fevers
were increasing to an alarming degree. They,
therefore, removed everything valuable in the shape
of artillery and sores, blew up the remaining
eight arches of the bridge which formerly
brought the railway to the centre of the city, and
then fired three mines which completely destroyed
the fort, so that the Austrians are now in possession
of a useless heap of stones. A hundred gun-boats
have been armed to prevent any works being com-
menced by the Austrians on the site of the late
briage. At the siege of Malghera, the Austrians
had 100 pieces of cannon besides the rockets. The
Venetians had ono battery of howitzers and 42 pieces
of heavy artillery. The Austrian General WOLTER
has been named commandant of the fort of Malghera.
The Austrians have also occupied the fort of San
Giuliano, but a mine that exploded killed an officer
:aid 20 men. A battery of mortars has been estab-
lished on the remains of the bridge of the lagoons,
from which the Austrians are bombarding the island
of San Secondo.

The Corriere Mercantile of Genoa of the 31st ult.
sta?es that Malghera wa3 not taken by assault; but
that the Venetians, seeing the ruined state of the
walls, had abandoned it, previously removing all the
artillery and ammunition. The siege had lasted up-
wards of six weeks. Disturbances had taken place at
Como and the vicinity, in consequence of the con
scription. Similar disturbances having occurred at
Cantu, that town was laid under a contribution of
20,000 florins, and declared in a state of siege. A
rumour was current at Rome on the 26th, that the
POPE intended to abdicate, and retire to the hermitage
of Subiaco.

By a decree of the nth ult. the King of SARDINIA
has instituted a Commission, to devise a plan for the
reorganization of the army.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary PorrEn.)
SYERS V. COUSENS.-RIGHT OF WAY.

This was an action to recover damages for trespass in de-
priving the plaintiff of right of way over certain ground in
Water-lane, Bridge-street, Blackfriars.
The defendant suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. WORDSWORTH, for the plaintiff; stated the case, from
which it appeared that plaintiff was lessee of premises to
which the right of way attached, but the defendant who is
a furniture-dealer, notwithstanding notice had been fre-
quently given to him, persisted in placing furniture on the
ground to show for sale. The plaintiff, however, did not
press for heavy damages, but merely for such as would cover
his costs and establish his right. It appeared somewhat ex-
traordinary that although the defendant had determined to
abide the result of an action, yet that he did not appear in -
any way to dispute the plaintiff's right.
the Learned SECONDARY said it certainly appeared a
strange case of obstinacy, or whatever else it might be
termed; and the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a ver-
dict. There had been no special damage claimed, al-
though from the evidence there was no doubt plaintiff
hod been put to 4/. or 5/. expense, and he might have
let his premises had it not la( en for defendant's conduct.
The jury would, therefore, give general damages.
The jury, alter a short consultation, gave a verdict
fur 51.

3IA RLBRW-ST REET-( THIS DAY.

ATTEMPTED MURDER.—Mary White, an old woman of
repulsive appearance, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Hardwick, charged with having attempted to murder Peter
White, her husband, by cutting his throat with a knife, at
No. 15, Hertford-street, Fitzroy-square.
Webb, 77 E, gated that last night, about nine o'clock, his
attention was called to No. 15, Hertford-street, in conse-
quence of hearing the cries of " Murder" and " Police" pro-
ceeding from the parlour of the house. Witness having pro-
curelthe assistance of police-constable 85 E, endeavoured to
effect an entrance by the parlour door, but could not succeed
in consequence of its being locked. 85 E then got over
the railings and entered by the parlour window. He
her husband Having
lighted t e do
in the room by themselves. The man was bleeding
paenecclandthlee
hedoosraw and e admittedr
an d witness.
profusely from a wound in his neck apparently inflicted by
some sharp instrument. The man, on seeing witness said,
"My wife has cut my throat." As the man appeared to
be in a very exhausted state, he was taken to the Uni-
versity Hospital, and witness secured the prisoner. The
prisoner then, without any solicitation on the part of witness
made a statement, to the effect that her husband had beat
her, and was about to cut her throat with a razor, when she
wrenched'it from him, and cut his throat with the same
razor. She was in liquor at the time. Witness then
searched the room, and on a shelf found a shoemakers' knife,
the blade of which was stained with blood. He also found a
a white-handled razor, which did not appear to
have been used. The prisoner was then conveyed
to the station. Witness produced the surgeon's certificate
of which the subjoined is a copy :
" 1 hereby certify that Peter White was brought into this
Hospital last night, with a lacerated and incised wound in
the throat. He is not now in a fit state to be removed from
the Hospital.
(Signed) "HENRY SEARLE GAGE.
" House Surgeon, University Hospital.
a June 6, 1849."
Charlotte Stutter deposed that she was a single woman,
and lodged in the second floor front room, at No. 15, Hert-
ford-street. She knew the prisoner and her husband, who
occupied the front parlour. About nine o'clock last night
she was alarmed at hearing the breaking of glass, and the
screams of murder proceeding from the parlour. On going
down stairs she heard Peter White all out, "for God's sake
make haste down stairs, lam murdered. .aly wife has cut
my throat." She tried to open the door, but it was fastene I.
She then ran to the door, and called ie police. She had
seen the prisoner and her husband in the fore part of the day,
when they both appeared to be tipsy.
The prisoner, who did not attempt to deny the charge, was
remanded for a week.

MR. CHARLES BRAIJAM.—This young vocalist
takes his first benefit this evening, at the Princess's Theatre,
upon which occasion the once favourite opera of The Devil's
Bridge will be revived, Mr. Brabant sustaining the part in
which his father was once so famous.
Dispatches were received )esterday at the Colonial•
office from the Governor-General of Canada, and also
trove the Governors of kiev4 Scotia and Newl3rtinswick,

IMPERIAL PA RLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

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

THIRD READING.

James's Divorce Bill was mad a third time and passed

CONSIDERATION OF IiEPORT.
The report ill the Wisheach, CfnAteris, Tid Gote, and
Dov..nharn Bii(Le Turnpike (Continuation of Act, Alte-
ration of Provi,ions reia•ing to Re-pair of Walderscy
and South Side Banks, Abandonment as to Turnpike of
Road ovar same, Construction of new Turnpike Read)
Bill was coulidered and agreed to.
Sir F. FILMER presented several petitions frem
places is West Kent, complaining of agricultural
distres'.

Captain FITZROY presented a petition from Lewes
in favour of an extension of the jurisdiction of the
County Courtq.

Mr. AGLIONBY presented petitions in favour of the
alteration of the law with respect to medical attendance
in poor-law unions.

Mr. I)EEI)ES presented a petition from the Farmer's
Club of Faversham, praying for protection to agricul-
ture.

BANKRUPTA AND INSOLVENT MEMBERS BILL.

Mr. MOFFATT in moving the second reading ofe this
Bill, said that it was in all essential points the same as
had been formerly under the discussion of the Ilouse.
The chief alteration was that the present Bill placed
benkrupts and insolvents precisely upon the same footing.
Sir W. CLAY gave the Honourable Gentleman full
credit for the motives which had induced him to intro-
duce the Bill, but really he could not withdraw his Op-
position to it. This was the fourth time the Bill had
been introduced in an amended form, and it might be as
well that he should just state its object. With regard
to the alteration the Bill proposed to make in the bank-
ruptcy laws, he did not so much object to that, but this
was not the proper time to consider such an alteration.
What he principally objected to was, the power which
the Bill gave to the Insolvent Debtors' Court of directing
a Member to pay his debts within six months, and in
default thereof to grant a certificate which should jus-
tify the Speaker declaring the seat to be void. Now,
such a principle was highly objectionable, as it meddled
with that which the House ought not to touch, while it
placed an unconstitutional control over the consti-
tuencies as to the candidate they should choose. He
should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. There were other positions,
aid those very various, of which it 'night be said that
they were contrary to the dignity of the House for any
of its Mewl): rs to be placed in them, as well as that of
not being able to advance a large sum of money for the
purpose of discharging his pecuniary obligations. He
himself thought that it was not only equally but far more
discreditable to a Member of that House to prostitute
his vote for any personal or collateral advantage. A
Member might give his vote with a view to obtaining
office, to get an Indian judgeship—(Hear, hear)—a colo-
nial governorship, or a clerkship in the Treasury for his
son or a nephew.—(Hear, hear.) Such things might
be the reward of a legitimate and rightly-directed am-
bition—(Hear)—or they might be the return for the cor-
rupt votes given to an unworthy Minister.—(Hear,
hear.) In addition to all this, and beyond all
this, he felt that this Bill was calculated to interfere more
tbau almost any other pssibly could do with the privi-
leges of the House. It was, in fact, subjecting those
privileges to the decisions of the courts of law.—(Hear,
hear.) By the law which regulated the Insolvent
Courts a discretion was vested in the court to release
any one from custody at three different periods. The
judge might release him at once, at the end of six
months, or after a twelvemonth from the date of such
person being brought before him. Now, it was very
evident that the power to bring any person before the
Insolvent Court might be very greatly abased.—(Hear,
near.) Few men, even the must wealthy amongst them,
could on a sudden notice satisfy all the claims against
them. The influence of a large and wealthy com-
pany, or the G,,vernment, might at any time be
used for the exclusion of any particular Member.
By the Insolvent Courts Act it was decreed that
no Member should be re-elected after he had
been excluded from the House, in the event
of his having applied to that Court, until after six
months from the time of his release. Ho would be one
of the last to shield any insolvent Member, but he did
not think the want of money was a trait of that crimi-
nality which some persons were so ready to ascribe
to it.—Hear, hear.) He for one at least would not
contribute to grant any further power to wealth. He
thought that Mammon was quite sufficiently worshipped
in this country already—(tiear, hear)—aud he would
certainly give no further power to the rich man's
pocket.—(Cheers.) This was no novelty. The matter
respecting Mr. Wilkes had been settled long ago. But
there had been a more recent case than that. A Bill
for the same purpose had been introduced in 1832 by
Lord Ashburton, then Mr. Baring, but it was ex-
pressly opposed by both the present !Wernher for London
(Lord J. Russell) and the late Lord Spencer, then Lord
Altnorp, who had each urged strong objections to the
measure. The Hon. Baronet having read portions of
the speeches of the two Noble Lords from the debate
at the time, proceeded to say that he was totally and
entirely opposed to any such investigation into the pri-
vate circumstances of any Member of that House; that
wealth was in no instance a guarantee for moral fitness
or mental ability, and he should therefore move that
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. MACKINNON said, the lion. Member had pre-
tended to find fault with the details of the Bill, whereas
his whole arguments were against the principles of i'.
He (Hr. Mackinnon) would not go into the details of the
Bill htcathe every one who was acquainted with the
practice 01 the House knew, that they could be amended
and altered in Committee; and he would only say a few
words upon the general principles which made it neces-
sary that such a measure should be introduced into the
House. Now, to have a clear understanding of the
privileges of the House, they ought to refer to the Par-
liamentary history of this count.iy, and ask for what pur-
pose those privileges had been established—(Hear)—
and if they did so, they would find that
it was very necessary to surround the Members of the
House of Commons with certain privileges, because in
the early period of their constitution they were a very
weak body, when compared either to the territorial in.
terest a birth then existed, or to the Crown. It they
looked back to the time of the Stuarts they would find
that the influence of the Crown, the Court, and the
Barons, was far superior to the influence of that i louse.
The consequence was, that the House surrounded itself
in various ways, in former times, with privileges which
it deemed essential to its constitution, and for its defence
against the other superior branches of the Legislature.
But now that was not the case, and so far from their
wanting any such support, he asserted it without fear of
contradiction, that that House, if anything, had too
much power, as compared with the other branches of the
Legislature. They could not look to their political his-
tory during the last hundred and fifty years without
being thoroughly convinced that the powers of the
House had been gradually increasing, while the
influence of the other two branches bad been
gradually diminishing, and he was one of those who would
regret very much if the power of the House was ex-
tended any iurther. Now what had occurred since the
power of the House had increased ? Precisely in
proportion as it became more poweful it de-
prived itself of certain of its privileges, and
gave way in certain matters to public opinion. On the
12th April, 1738, it was resolved that it was a breach of
privilege to publish or to give any account of the debates
or the proceedings of the House. What was the conse-
quence? A contest arose between the publishers and
the House, and at length the House was obliged
to succumb entirely, and to allow the pro-
ceedings to be published, without any interference
en its part. Again in 1751, nearly a century ago,
Alexander Murray was for some offence called to the
bar of the House; he was desired to kneel down but re.
fused; whereupon there was a great excitement in the
House, and he was committed to Newgate, and con-
tinued there during the remainder of the ses-
sion. At the beginning of the session he was again
called before the House, when it came to a resolution
that no individual coming before the House to receive
a reprimand should do otherwise than stand. From
that period up to the present their privileges had been
gradually given up because they were no longer neces-
sary for the independence of its Members.
Now what did the Speaker say in those
days? who, by the bye, was as much un-
like the Speaker of the present day, as this
House was unlike that House? He said, if a party did
not kneel down to receive a reprimand, there would be
an end to the honour and dignity of the House. Now,
coming to the point, what earthly objection could there
be to abolish that privilege in which his Hon. Friend
the Member for the Tower Hamlets had spoken in
favour? What earthly benefit could an insolvent Mem-
ber have in remaining a Member of that House; had he
not better, if involved in debt, go and attend to his
own affairs than remain to legislate there?—(Hear,
hear)—what use was it for an individual whose
mind was preoccupied and annoyed by the peculiar
situation in which he was placed coming to vote in the
House when he ought to be attending entirely to his
own affairs?—(Hear.) He did not think that a single
Member of the House would be affected by the Bill,
but it was necessary to pass it in order to keep up
the respectability of the House. Paley, in his
Moral Philosophy, said, a privilege given to any
individual, unless good to the whole community, was a
positive injury to the community; and could any one
say that the privilege of not allowing insolvent Members
to be arrested was for the benefit of the community?—
could any one say that that privilege was approved of
by the community? It was impossible, he thought, not
to come to the conclusion, from the feeling in thecoun-
try, this
which was growing more powteorfti l
continue
that
much
privilege would not be allowedHe begged leave to state that he shouldive his hearty
support to the motion of his Hon.
Friend.:
Mr. BERNAL would oak what had the House to do
with the old doctrine, that Members of the House of
Commons were to bow or to sit in certain cases?—
(Hear' hear.) His Honourable Friend (Mr. Mackinnon)
talked of the influence that that House ought to
exercise over general public opinion. Did his
Honourable Friend say, if this Bill was to pass
in all its purity, that it would secure that respect for the
future legislation of the House of Commons? A man
might bold en estate charged with debts by no crimi-
nality or profligacy of his own, but by the extravagance
and the jointures of his ancestors, and it might be impos-
sible for him to go into the money-marketand raise money
sufficient to pay his debts. Could the House not imagine
the owner of extensive property to meet the charges
upon his estate, without his being deemed en immoral
or a profligate man? The question was, was the evil of
such megditude and such recurrence as to demand such
a remedy? It was perfectly easy for a rich man to be in-

dependent, but he (Mr. Bernal) was not sure that it Wag
so easy for a poor man to be so; yet there were men in
that Home who were not opulent. Hebelieved it wasa very
popular thing to support this Bill; he cared not for
that; he dared to oppose it. They were importing a
much more contingent danger for the sake of removing
a less contingent mischief, by means of this Bill. Who
had a right to go round that House and measure the
moral conduct of each individual Member?—(Hear'
hear.) He contended that it would not be possible to
work this Bill to any useful purpose. He had heard
so little complaints of Members availing themselves
of the privileges of Parliament, that he looked on the
mischief as too small to make him dare to encounter
the mischief that would ensue from this Bill.—(11carO
Captain HARRIS thought, without the machinery of
the Bill before the House, its o'oject would have been
attained by protecting Members during the recess of
Parliament.

Mr. MULLINGS said he had supported tho Bill be-
cause it would affect those who were wanting in one 0i
the main qualifications for a seat in that House. The
law was quite inoperative against Members of that
House who did not choose to pay their creditors, unless
they were engaged in trade. With respect to the state'
ment of the Hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. likrnel)
that a person might be the o kner of an estate
which was heavily mortgaged in consequence of the ads
of his ancestors, he wished to observe that no order
could be made by the Bankruptcy or Insolvent Courtsfor the pay ment of claims in consequerft of these ancient
debt.

Mr. BERNAL explained that he meant that a person
so situated could not go into the City and raise money'.
Mr. MUL S said then let him give security to 111,9,
crediturs.—(Hcar, hear.) His experience ctinvinced
him that a man thus situated could not act independently
in that House.

Sir T. COLEBROOKE said the Bill der/TAO:I
so much upon its details, that he trusted the klouse
wouid lose no time in going into Committee to discuss
them. He should support the Bill.
Mr. STUART was opposed to the Bill, because it
would interfere with the independence of the Members
of that House. For instance, the Bill provide'
that a Member might be made a bankrupt on the pets-
Lion of one of his creditors. Now what would be the
'
position of a Member so situated? In order to aye
so unpleasant a proceeding his vote would, as 1
natural consequence, be under the control of that cre-
ditor.—(Hear, hear.) He deeply regretted that the
creditors of any Hon. Member should be injured, but
there were paramount considerations, in which the chs'
ranter of that House was involved, which must not be
lust sight of.

The-House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 55
Against it ... 45

Majority in favour of it :10
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered tO
be committed this day week.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Clauses up to 9 were agreed to without discussion.