The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-31 00:00:00

railway whatever, but whether past connection would
opente as a disqualification be would not pledge himself.
Mr. EAST HOPE said that the present was a mea-
sure of great importance, and one that was but little
understood even by those who brought it in, in compari-
son with its importance. It was admirably adapted to
do harm, and in no way of considering it, was it
calculated to do good. He must, therefore,
deprecate further proceeding with the Bill, until an
opportunity had been afforded of discussing its merits,
as in no stage of the Bill had thosa merits been dis-
cussed. He trusted, therefore, that a period would be
fixed upon which that discussion might take place, in
order that those who were interested in the measure
might state their opinions.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE did not understand how the
Bill was to be carried into effect—whether there was to
be a constant supervision, or whether persons were to
be occasionally employed to inspect the railways.
Mr. LABOUC HERE observed that the Bill had
not yet passed. Whenever the Bill did pass he should
consider what the powers given to him under the Bill
as President of the Board of Tiede were, and how
they could best be carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.)
He would have to submit to the Treasury every '
scheme, and would be responsible to Parliament if it
should appear that he had improperly exercised the
powers given to him,
Capt. BOLDERO was glad to find that the Bill had
been much improved since it was last before the House.
Mr. E WART hoped the Bill would be postponed
till to-morrow.
Lord SEYMOUR. had postponed it from week to
week for the accommodation of Members, and could
not consent to any further delay.
Mr. HINDLEY hoped the Bill would be postponed
till next Session.—(A laugh.) It was a very bad Bill,
in his opinion, and unnecessarily interfered with the
management of the railway companies. At present the
company were responsible, but if an Inspector were
appointed, the public, between the two stools,
would fall to the ground ; and in case of any
accident nobody would know to when blame should be
attached. However, he hoped the Noble Lord would
give the House an opportunity of discussing the Bill
to-morrow.

Lord SEYMOUR could not consent to postpone
the Bill over that evening.
Mr. 11 INDLEY then moved that it be postponed
till to-morrow.
Lord SANDON seconded the motion.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it B3
Majority against the postponement.. --.,50
The third reading of the Bill was then postponed
till after the other Orders of the Day this evening.
The Roscommon Town Lands Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
A message from the Lords brought down several pri-
vate Bills, which had passed the other House.
The Oyster Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
On the reading of the Order of the Day for receiving
the Report on the Bank of Ireland Bill,
Mr. YOUNG said that he had been requested by
the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland to deny
a statement which had been made in the course of the
discussion upon this Bill, to the effect that the Bank of
Ireland had rendered theirßank pecuniary assistance in
their difficulties. The statement was wholly unfounded,
as the Provincial Bank had never received any kind of
assistance, pecuniary or otherwise, from the Bank of
Ireland.

The Report, with some verbal amendments, was then
received, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

On the Report of the Slave Trade (Venezuela) Bill
being brought up,
Captain PECHELL complained of the manner in
which the bounties were paid to the captors of slave
ships. They were measured by the British tonnage,
and the consequence was, that the captors of a 300
slave ship of 138 tons, from its peculiar build, were paid
for only 38 tons. By the present Bill a compromise was
effected, but he contended that those employed
in the arduous task of keeping down the slave
trade, did not receive that which Parliament
intended to give them when the bounties were
instituted. He would rest perfectly satisfied if
the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
assure him that the Treasury would pay for empty
slavers as well as for those having slaves on board ; and
he begged to return his thanks, in the name of the
Navy, to the Right Hon. Gentleman for abolishing the
fees which used to be so unjustly exacted from captors
upon being paid the bounty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was necessary to have some sort of evidence as
to what the tonnage was ; that in the absence of all such
evidence there was great difficulty in adjudicating. In
that, as in all other prize captures, sometimes they got
a good prize and sometimes a bad one.
Captain PECHELL said that those ships were
broken up in 1836, at which time no account whatever
of the tonnage was required by law.
The Report was then ordered to be received.
CHURCHES BUILDING BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the report on the Churches Building
Bill was received, and the Bill was ordered to be read
a third time on Monday.
POPULATION (IRELAND) BILL.)
On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the report on
the Population (Ireland) Bill was received, and the Bill
was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

LINEN, &c. MANUFACTURES (IRELAND

BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
containedsome
pro
having moved that the House should go into Commit-
tee on the Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland) Bill.
wasM rr.eaNdVyAtußßadUmßitTthOaNt
it
said he hoped thee Bill
useful
l would
.
not be allowed to proceed farther this Session. He
Vi\sions, but he also found in it clauses of a very
stringent nature, derived from An English Act, passed
so long ago as the year 1774, when measures of very
great rigour were not closely enough investigated, or
were permitted to pass with greater facility
than at present.—(Hear.)
mthaaoto
fatohteo
rorßs:
ori n its
of He did not think
pseenrtativfoermwea
rohe
would meet
Ire
with the approval of a great portion of t.
thepe
Ire-
land, and no Bill which did not receive such
approval, could be attended with beneficial results.
Some of the clauses of the Bill appeared to him so severe
and loosely drawn, as to render it impossible to amend
them without giving more time to the consideration of
those amendments than could be given during the pre-
sent session. As an instance of the severity o some of
the clauses he might state that by one a power was
given to search premises for goods supposed to
be stolen, without a warrant from a Justice.
By this Bill any person resisting the entrance of a
peace officer, with or without a warrant, was liable to
have his property seized, and, after notice, that pro-
perty might be exposed to sale, and one half of
the proceeds given to the Peace Officer who went to
seize without a warrant !—(Hear, hear.) He would put
it to the House whether such a Bill as that ought to be
allowed to pass. At any rate they ought to go into
Committee:on the Bill, and examine strictly every word,
and sentence. He did not deny that some Bill might
be necessary, or that there were rot some useful clauses
in the Bill, but he contended that the el itises required
, the most close and strict investigation, and that investi-
gation could not be properly conducted in the present
session. He would therefore move that the Bill be
committed that day three months.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could assure his Hon. Friend
that nothing could have induced him to propose the
Bill to the House if he was not persuaded that it had
the entire concurrence of the manufacturers, and the great
majority of operatives engaged in the linen trade in Ire-
land. He had received the strongest representations, that
the present state of the law was most detrimental to
the interests of the trade, and urgently demanded
alteration.—(Hear.) His Honourable Friend had
commented on the extreme stringency of the Bill,
but it would be found that all those clauses were ex-
actly in accordance with the present law of England,
in many cases mitigated. No doubt that law was of an
old date, but it was in operation and acted upon at the
present time. The Bill consisted of first, clauses to
assimilate the law to that of England ; and, secondly, to
provide for some peculiarities in the manufactures in
Ireland, but he could assure the House its provisions
had met with the approbation of both parties to be af-
fectedly it. The delay which had arisea in its intro-
duction arose from the circumstance of his refusing to
introduce the Bill until he had sent it over to Ireland.
It had been considered there, and the result was that
both manufacturers and operatives were most anxious
for the Bill. Of course, if his Hon. Friend persisted
in his opposition, the MI could not be proceeded with
during the present Session, but considering the urgency
of the measure, and that it was only to last for one year,
he trusted his Hon. Friend would withdraw his objection.
discuss the question,
He believed when they came to
the Bill would not be found so objectionable in principle
as the Hon. Gentleman thought it. It was merely as-
similating the law of Ireland to the law of England, at the
same time introducing additional clauses, which were as
serviceable to, and as much approved of Ly, the work-
men as the masters.—( Hear.) There were certain
clauses in the Bill to which the great body
of the operatives attached the highest importance,
as they considered them a set off against the stringent
c'auscs to which the Hon. Member had alluded. There
were hundreds of workmen who felt the necessity there
was, for their own interests, for putting a stop to the pre-
sent wholesale system of embezzlement of materials. The
manufactures in the North of Ireland were not carried on
as they were in this country in factories, but the ma-
teridls were given out to the workmen who manufac-
tured
them in their own houses.
This system he should
not wish to see altered, but the opportunities of embez-
zlement under such a system were so great that it
would be impossible to carry on manufacturing in that
way without the adoption of some such measure as
the one now proposed.

Sir R. FERGUSON hoped his Hon. Friend would

allow the Bill to proceed. It was impossible that the
present system of embezzlement of materials could be
allowed to continue. This was carried on by the
weavers principally, and it was impossible to prevent it
without some such stringent measure. It was
absolutely necessary to get rid of the receiving houses,
and it was that portion of the Bill that the Hon. Mem-
ber had objected on account of its arbitrary character.
The operation of the seven clauses was strictly limited
to cases where it might be supposed that the goods
would be removed before a warrant could be procured.
This had long been the law in the City of Glasgow
Police Bill, and so far from being found too stringent,
both workmen and masters were now calling for in-
creased power. The present state of affairs on this
subject in the North of Ireland was such that he was
authorised to state that if some such Bill as this were
not passed, they would be compelled to withdraw from
the trade altogether.
Captain JONES approved of the Bill, and he was
sure it would produce very desirable effects. If the
Bill did not pass, thousands who were now receiving
wages would be thrown out of employment.
Mr. WAKLEY disapproved of the stringent clauses
of the Bill. He hoped that if the House went into
Committee the 11th clause would be struck out, and
that the measure would not extend beyond the Ist of
May next.
Mr. DUNBAR defended the Bill.

Mr. S HEIL said there would be every disposition on
the part of his Right Hon. Friend the President of the
Board of Trade to attend to any suggestion that might be
made by Hon. Members. He could assure the House
that the interest of the hand-loom weavers had been
consulted in the Bill. Nobody could deny that consi-
derable embezzlement took place under the present
state of things. He hoped that for the sake of the
operatives the Hon. Member would allow the Bill to
go into Committee.
Mr. WARBURTON was willing to afford the
Hon. Gentleman an opportunity of amending the Bill,
if he could, in Committee. He would therefore
withdraw his amendment, reserving to himself the right
of opposing the Bill upon the Report, if he still thought
it objectionable.
The House then went into Committee.
Clause 1 was agreed to, as was also clause 2, with
some verbal amendments.

Clauses 3,4, and 5 were agreed to.
On clause 6 being proposed,

Mr. HAWES said this clause was the most extra-
ordinary legislation that had ever been proposed ; it
provided that the person from whom the property
was seized should be obliged to prove to the satisfaction
of the Justice, either that he had come honestly by it,
or that it had been surreptitiously put on his premises
—he must prove from whom he bought it, or it was to
be taken as stolen property. He moved that the clause
be struck out, for the purpose of assimilating the clause
to the English law.
Sir R. FERGUSON had no objection to the words
of the English law—it went as far as the promoters of
the Bill wished to go.
The clause was struck out.
Clauses up to 10 were agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 were struck out, to be remodelled
and introduced on the bringing up of the Report.
Clauses up to 18 were then agreed to.

On clause 19 being proposed, imposing a penalty of
21. on the workmen offending against the provisions of
the Bill, and in default of payment, subjecting him to two
months' imprisonment,
Mr. WAKLEY asked if 1/. a month was the value
set upon a man's liberty in Ireland ? He should pro-
pose as an amendment that the term of imprisonment be
one month instead of two.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, were agreed to, with
verbal amendments.

On clause 25 being proposed,
Mr. WARBURTON objected to it as unnecessary,
and it was struck out in consequence.

...... _
Clause 26 was agreed to.
On clause 27 being proposed,

Mr. WARBURTON moved that the term of im-
prisonment ordered by the clause should be reduced
from two months to one.
Agreed to.
The clause as amended was ordered to stand part of
the Bill.

Clauses up to 36 were agreed to with verbal amend,
ments.

On clause 37 being proposed,
Mr. WAKLEY said that, as the clause stood, the
Act might be in force for two years.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it advisable to
continue the Act until the end of the next Session of
Parliament.

The clause was then agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to
be received on Monday.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE DILL.

On the Order of the Day for the House going into
Committee on the Church Discipline Bill being read,
Mr. WARBURTON said he hoped that the

Bill would not be passed during the present Session,
as the clergy had not had an opportunity of making
themselves acquainted with its provisions. He was
not much in correspondence with those gentlemen—
(Hear, hear, and laughter)—but his Hon. Friend the
Member for Halifax, had sent copies of the Bill to se-
veral clergymen, who objected to the Bill, on the ground
of there being no means of getting at the accuser of a
clergyman, who might skulk behind the Bishop's robe.
The Bill gave several appeals, but said not one word
of costs. The Court was altogether a prelatical one,
and no power of challenge was given to the parties ac-
cused. In the former Bill there were various enact-
ments for giving protection to the clergy, but none such
were introduced into the present measure, which had
placed the working clergy entirely in the power of the
Bishops. This was not the case in other professions.--
(Hear, hear.) In the army, for instance, a
Court-martial for the trial of an officer was

constituted partly of officers of his own grade, such was
not the case here, and he hoped the Bill would not be
proceeded with in such a House or at so late a period
of the session. He would move that the further con-
sideration of the Bill be postponed to that day three
months.

Mr. HAWES seconded the amendment, but upon
different grounds to those brought forward by his Hon.
Friend. It was stated by a Minister of the Crown
last session, on a motion which had been brought for-
ward, that a reform should take place in the Ecclesias-
tical Courts. Now, this Bill, instead of that reform,
created an irresponsible and secret tribunal. Since the
time of Thomas a' Becket there had never been such an
attempt on the part of the Bishops to acquire power.
A Bishop might drag any clergyman before this secret
tribunal on anv vague charge of heresy. He had had
a distinct pledge on a motion which he brought for-
ward relating to a case of subtraction of Church-rates,
that a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts should take
place, and this miserable Billwas the only attempt made.
Not one of the proposals of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners had been carried into effect. The Bishops
could only agree upon a measure conferring power upon
themselves. He hoped his Hon. Friend would perse-
vere in his opposition.
Mr. HODGES had submitted the Bill to various
clergymen, most of whom approved of it, although
some of them objected to its details ; be believed some
such Bill necessary.

Dr.NI C HOLE should certainly attempt to carry the
Bill this Session, and until some such measure as the
present was passed it would be impossible to king
forward any measure for the reform of the Ecclesiastical
Courts. The principle of the Bill was approved of by
the greater number of the clergy. The third clause
did not authorise the issuing a Commission for the
trial of a clergyman, but the Commission was in the
nature of a Grand Jury. It was he (Dr. Nichol!) who
had introduced the words, rendering it imperative on
the Bishop to issue the Commission on a complaint
being made. He was also responsible for not having
clergymen as members of the tribunal, as he thought
clergymen were no more entitled to be tried exclu-
sively by clergymen than surgeons by surgeons, or law-
yers by lawyers. A Bill of this nature had come down
twice from the House of Lords, and he trusted the
House would permit it now to go into Committee in or
der to discuss the various clauses.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divivided, when there appeared--
For going into Committee 27
Against it :5

Majority for going into the Committee --12
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the clause be-
cause it permitted any party to make an accusation,
and institute proceedings without giving any security
for costs, or the Bishop himself might institute them
without giving any security for costs. A Bishop might
institute the proceeding and ruin any clergyman by
the costs, and if the clergyman were acquitted, there
was no provision to enable him to recover his costs.
Was that fair ? Then with regard to the Court of In-
quiry, it consisted of five persons, and four out of the
five
,were appointed by the Bishop. Now, where he
was the accuser he ought not to have the appointment
of the Court. In eases where the Bishop was not the
accuser, the accuser ought to be brought forward, so
that it might be known who he was. It was impossible
to amend the clause, and therefore lie should move its
omission.

Mr. HODGES had not heard from any of the clergy
whom he had consulted, any objection to the clause, and
therefore he should support it.
Mr. G. VERNON supported the clause. Any
Bill was an improvement upon the present condition of
the law. He considered the objeetlons of the Hon,
Member for Bridport as quite untenable. Every
clergyman on his institution took an oath of canonical
obedience to the Bishop, and therefore it was neither
decent nor fit in him to object to the Episcopal juris-
diction.

Mr. BAINES was opposed to the clause. It would
lead to the establishment of a secret tribunal—of a tri-