The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-24 00:00:00

WAYS AND MEANS.

Mr. GREENE brought up the report of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
LABOURING POOR (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. LABOUCHERE moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN wished to know whether there were not
some districts in Ireland in which the people were receiving
only Bd. per day from the Board of Public Works in that
country ?
Sir H. INGLIS wished to ask the Right Hon. the Se-
cretary for Ireland whether it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to press any temporary Bills for Ireland before the
whole of the Government measures were brought under the
consideration of the House ?

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that it was the intention of the
Government to proceed with the Indemnity Bill and Labour-
ing Poor Bill as quickly as possible. In answer to the Hon.
Member for Limerick, he begged to say that he did not
.
think there was any foundation for the rumour, and he would
add that in no instance had the cost of the management of
the Board of Works exceeded ten per cent on the whole
outlay of the Government, inclusive of the.
implements of
labour provided for the people.
Mr. SHAW said, that it was understood that the two
Bills referred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary
for Ireland should be proceeded with first. He believed that
a great deal of unjust obloquy had been cast upon the Board
of Works. He would suggest to the Government the im-
propriety of throwing at once out of employment all those
persons who had been employed on public works.
Sir G. GREY said, that precautions had been taken to
avoid the evil consequences alluded to by the Hon. Member
for the University of, Dublin (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. HENLEY thought it would be satisfactory to the
House if it were furnished with a monthly statementof the
expenditure in Ireland and the expenses of the supervision.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would not, on the part of the Go-
vernment, object to furnish such returns.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD hoped the Right Hon. the Secretary
for Ireland would undertake to see that sufficient wages were
given to the people employed on the public works.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the chief portion of the
work was done by what was called task work, and the money
paid to the people so employed was nearer 14d. per day than
Bd. per day, as stated by the Hon. Member for Limerick.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that the present system of
task work was inapplicable to the people of Ireland, in con-
sequenceof their having become so weak fronilyant of noyrish-
ing food. He thought that day work would be bet ter
torthe
people.
The Bill was then read a third time.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) ADVANCES BILL.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on this Bill.
TREATMENT OF CONVICTS (nsOLIVICH):
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for copies of the correspond-
ence between the Government and the officers in charge of
the convicts at Woolwich respecting the charges he had
made against the conduct of that establishment. He begged
to call the attention of the
.House to the proceedings which had
taken ['lace at a coroners ulut-st recently held at Woolwich,
on the bodies Of two - ts. The proceedings•were most
singular. The coroner bud departed from his proper duties,
and the accused (Dr. 13Dssey) had been the only witness in

:.11r. WATSON presented a petition, signed by several
thousands of Catholics in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in
favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
IVlr. SPOONER presented a petition from the Birming-
ham Church of England Lay Association againat the Bill;
also a petition from the Churchwardens of St. James's
Church, Birmingham, to the same effect. They believed the
Bill totally uncalled for, and of a highly dangerous cha-
racter.

Mr. WATSON said he had introduced the Bill without
explaining its provisions, and he would therefore wish to
give an outline of the objects of the Bill on the present occa-
sion. The principle on which he sought to support the Bill
was, that no man should be liable to penal laws for the pro-
fession of his religious faith. - The history of penal enact-
ments was exceedingly curious, when they considered
the circumstances under which they had origi-
nated. They had had their commencement with the
Reformation of Henry VIII. A few were passed in
the reign of Edward VI.; but the reign of Queen Eliza-
beth s‘ as the most prolific of those laws. A great
number were also passed in the reigns of James, 11.
and Charles 11. Up to the Revolution of 1688, not
a reign passed without witnessing the enadtment
of penal laws to protect what was called the Protestant
faith. In 1829 a great improvement, however, took place in
the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act; still even
that measure did not repeal many of the penal statutes
which were left as protective measures for the Estab-
lished Church. In 1844 the subject was further
considered, and about one hundred different penal
enactments, principally against Roman Catholics, were
repealed. That was a great step in the right direction, and
he felt much indebted to the Right Hon. Baronet, the late
Prime Minister, for the assistance which he rendered on
that occasion in the abrogation of those laws. With-
out further preface, he (Mr. Watson) would now
proceed to explain the provisions of the present
Bill. Not long ago a fill inquiry was made into all the penal
statutes relating to Roman Catholics which then existed.
The inquiry was conducted by Mr. Edward Ryan and several
other eminent lawyers, unconnected with politics, and in the
report which they had made to the House, they recom-
mended the repeal of all these penal enactments.—(Hear.)
The first Act he wished to repeal by the present Bill was the
Ist Elizabeth, cap. 1, which provided for the supremacy of
the King, and contained clauses ordering severe punishment
to all those who did not recognise his authority. The first
offence, was fine and imprisonment; the second offence banish-
ment; and the third offence death. The penal pro-
visions of this law were repealed in 1844, but
the power remained to punish the offence as a misdemeanour,
and rendering the party offending liable to be proceeded
against by information. But it was said this law was neces-
sary for the ma utenance of the supremacy of the Crown.
This subject, however, was fully discussed in 1844, when
Lord Lyndhurst completely established thefact that the su-
premacy of the Crown depended on the common law aline. The
most eminent law authorities corroborated this view of the
matter. Sir Matthew bale and other great judges had so
laid it down, that the supremacy of the King was the corn-
mon law of the realm. It so, what was the object in passing
the law now under consideration? It-was passed in order to
operate against the Roman Catholics, and was directed against
the recognition of the authority of the Pope; for any
Roman Catholic who admitted the authority of the Pope
was guilty of an infraction of this Act of Parliament. The
Commissioners who had made the inquiry into these penal
laws had unanimously decided that this state ought to be
repealed. Tne next law to which he would refer
was that regarding bulls. He proposed that this
Act should be repealed, as he could not see what
danger there could arise from the importation of these bulls.
He also proposed to repeal the Uniformity Ac,, and several
other Acts of a similar character, that bad relation to reli-
gious worship. These Acts were the 25th Charles 11., 30th
Charles 11., 7th and Bth William 111., 31st George 111., and
the two first clauses of 10th George IV. The latter
had relation to religious processions, and while he had
objections to great religious processions, like those on the
Continent, taking place, he could not see why any proces-
sional ceremony of the Roman Cat holies, respecting burial
or any such rite, should be disallowed.
(LEFT SITTING.)

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court in the Old Hall,
Lincoln's Inn to-day.
THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. NOTT AND GAMBLE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, in which the arguments were concluded on Friday last.
Our readers will recollect that the case came before his
Lordship upon an appeal motion from the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, directing the plaintiffs, the
Electric Telegraph Company, to bring an action to try the
validity of their patents, and ordering a motion which they
had made for an injunction to restrain the defendants from
pirating their patents, to stand over until the action had
been tried. His Lordship, in giving judgment, said that
the great importance of the matter to the parties concerned,
and the interesting nature of the invention to the public, had
led him to pause before he pronounced his judgment. lie
had frequently hal occasion to express his opinion as to the
course the Court ought to pursue in cases in which applica-
tions were made to its equitable jurisdiction, by way of in-
junction, where that injunction was in aid and protection of
a legal right. Upon those occasions his Lordship had said
that where the Court was applied to to protect a legal right,
if there was a doubt as to the validity of that right, it be-
came the Court to be extremely cautious in administering
its equitable jurisdiction; because if an injunction was
improperly granted, more mischief would be effected than by
delaying to grant it. It had been said that in stating this
he had carried the principles of the Court much further than
they had ever been carried before. Looking to the autho-
rities, the contrary was the fact; and it would be found that
he had not carried them so far as Lord Eldon and other Chan-
cellors had done. The question with his Lordship was, were
the rights of the plaintiff so free from all legal doubt as to
justify him in interfering, by way of injunction, without the
legal right being tried at law ? Looking at the
facts that had been brought before him, and look-
ing also to the affidavits that had been made by
various scientific persons, his Lordship was of opinion that
the Vice Chancellor of England had come to a right judg-
ment in ordering the plaintiffs to bring an action at law to
try the legal validity of their patent. His Lordship, there-
fore, ordered the judgment of the Court below to be affirmed
with coats. .
THE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY V. THE CHARING-CROSS.
BRIDGE COMPANY.
This case came before his Lordship upon appeal from the
decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England,
directing a motion which the plaintiff had made for an in-
junction to stand over, and ordering them to bring an action at
law upon a covenant in a lease granted of-the Hangerford
Market Company to the Charing-cross Bridge Company for
certain property, formiug part of the market, for the pur-
pose of approaches to their bridge. By the covenant in
that lease the Hungerford Market Company contended they
were entitled, at all times, to have free access and egress
across the bridge for all steam-boat passengers to the float,
which the Hungerford Market Cotnpany had erected in the
River, at the east side if the first tower of the bridge from
the market. The Charing-cross Bridge Company de-
nied the indiscriminate right of ingress and egress
claimed by the plaintiffs, contending that the Market
Company were bound to show clearly to them,
by the adoption of some course or other, that
the persons who desired to cross the bridge were, in reality,
steam-boat passengers. The market company asserted that
it was impossible fur them to adopt any such course, and
under these circumstances the bridge company refused to
allow parties to cross the bridge without the usual payment,.
and stopped up all access to the stairs below the bridge to
the float erected by the plaintiffs. The adoption of this
course being considered by the Hungerford Market Com-
pany to be utterly unwarrantable, and calculated to injure
their receipts from steam-boat proprietors, they filed their
Bill, and applied to his Honour the Vice-Chancellor
of England, for an injunction to restrain the Charing-
cross Bridge from hindering persons from cross-
ing the bridge to the float. On the motion coming
on before the Vice-Chancellor of England, his Honour, with
out hearing the counsel for the Charing-cross Bridge Com-
pany, ordered the motion to stand over, and directed the
Hungerford Market Company to bring an action upon the
covenant in the lease, which they contended gave them, and
all steam-boat passengers, free ingress and egree across the
bridge to the float. From that order the present appeal was
brought, by which it was sought to discharge that order
and obtain an injunction to prevent any further obstruction
across the bridge to steam-boat passengers by the bridge
company.
Mr. BETnELL, with whom was Mr. Giffard, on behalf of
the appellants, the Hungerford Market Company, after stat-
ing at some length the facts of the case, contended that his
clients were entitled to the interference of the Court by way
of injunction, to prevent the defendants, by their unwarrant-
able course of conduct, from injuring the property of the
Market Company. T. e bringing of an action at lawwu d
be productive of vexatious delay and expense, which was
the object of the Charing-cross Bridge Company, who had
their
just kept the plaintiffs for nearly tw
just rights. The Learned Counsel also oyears out of h
submitted,
that even if
his Lordship agreed with the Vice-Chancellor of England,
that the matter ought to be tried at law, the proper course
would be not to proceed by action, but by the sending of a
case for the opinion of a court of law. The Learned Counsel
here stated, that it had been his intention to have gone, at
considerable further length into the affidavits, but since he
had commenced his motion, an affidavit had been put into
his hand, made that day by Mr. Lawreuce, one of the officers
of the Bridge Company, in which he stated that the Board,
on 'Thursday the 11th of February, had come to a resolution,
in the hopes that the Hungerford Market Company would
adopt some course to identity all persons embarking on board
the steam-boats, that the hoards should be removed, and free
access given from the float across the bridge to the market,
for persons disembarking from steam-boats, without the pay-
ment of tolls. The affidavit of Mr. Lawrence further stated,
that the hoards would be removed immediately that gates had
been erected. His Lordship would, therefore see that the ques-
tion between them had been of late considerably curtailed.
The question now was, whether the Hungerford Market
Company were bound to identify persons going from the
market to be steamboat passengers. That would be the
only issue to be tried.
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested whether, that as both
parties seemed to have come so near to an agreement with
each other, it would riot be better to let the motion stand over
for a week, in order to see if some arrangement could not be
come to.

Mr. BETHELL said he should be happy to adopt any sug-
gestion of the Court.
Mr. BOLT considered the question now to be, whether the
Bridge-Company having agreed to give a right of passage to
certain individuals, were bound to give the same right to the
whole of the public; he thought the Bridge Company ought
to adopt some course by which parties embarking on board
steam boats could be identified.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not see how it was possible for
the Market Company to do so.
Mr. ROLT considered it easy enough by parties taking
tickets for the steam boat before; they went on the bridge. It

Wt!tquitt IRlp

comi

to tall OW 3 pas-
,- of 6 feet. but. they

- -
had •. ~r.. 11,0“.• A rach side of the
• .
bridge of the width of 3 feet, one for passengers embarking,
and the other for those who wqre disembarking. Ho

the cause. He wished also to know why the annual report thought it would be extremely bard upon the Bridge Com•
ofthe establishment at Woolwich was not laid upon the table pany if, as bad been suggested before the Vice-Chan-
of the House prior to this time. cellor, they were to put back their toll-gates one-
Sir G. GREY had not yet received the annual report , third of the bridge, especially when it was recollected
from Woolwich. The day after the discussion on the subject that the bridge company had paid to the market company
of the treatment of the convicts at Woolwich, he sent a letter i no less a sam than 6,000/. for the right to place the toll-bars
to Mr. -Capper, and also a copy of one of the morning where they now were.
journalscontaining an account of the statements made by the The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the matter was now re-
Hon. Member for Finsbury, and had received a report from duced to a very small compass, and such being the case, he
that gentleman in reply to his letter, which was then on the would ask whether it would not be better for all parties that
table of the House. As to t. .e remarks which the Hon. the matter should stand over for a few days, to see if 801310
Member had made upon the proceedings at the late inqty:st, arrangement could not be come to, instead of calling upon
held by Mr. Carter, the coroner for Kent, he was not in pos- the Court for an adVerse judinelat.
session of any of the facts of the case, the only information he After some further discussion, the motion was ordered to
had received being from the ordinary channels of information. stand over to Wednesday next.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
In answer to a question put by Lord J. MANNERS,
Mr. CHRISTIE said it was his intention to postpone his
motion relative to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
until after Easter.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
On the order of the day being moved for the second read-
ing of this Bill,

ROLLS! COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LANDON V. PARR.

This was a motion OTtiTp;it;;Ftle defendants in the
suit to stay all further proCeedings. It appeared that Eli-
zabeth Landon was a' married woman, and the mother of
the other plaintiff. By a deed dated 1810, some property
was settled in trust for the wife, husband, and children of
the plaintiff . The defendant Parr was the derivative heir of
one of the trustees to the settlement. In 1846 a mortgage
was mains to Mr. Gedye, the solicitor of the plaintiffs, whose
took, liarriet Waller, had, at his suggestion, consented to
become the next friend of the plaintiffs, who resided abroad.
and were without the jurisdiction of the court, and filed A
bill. . _

His LORDSIKP said he had refused similar applicatio',
but thee were cases where bona fide parties had con-
sented to assume the position of the plaintiffs and bear
their nobilities. There was no such case here, and he would
grant the order.