The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-03 00:00:00

TIIE SUN,

ping into Committee of Supply. Now, he thought
it would be much better if Government would con-
sent to name a day when they would be prepared to
j go into the question.
- ,Sir GEORGE GREY said he was not prepared
to do so then, but he would consult his Noble Friend
at the head of the Government on the subject, and
if possible a day should be set apart for discussing
the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
POOR REMOVAL BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. BAINES explained that the object of the Bill
was to remove the anomalies and difficulties which
existed under the present law. At present, before a
pauper could be removed to his parish's good deal of
expense had to be gone into in prosecuting legal pro-
ceeding, and one of the objects of this Bill was to do
away with the necessity for resorting to these expen-
sive proceedings.
After some further discussion, clauses up to 4 were
agreed to, with some verbal amendments.
The remaining clauses were agreed to with some
verbal amendments, and the report was ordered to be
read to-morrow.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

Mr. B. COCHRANE moved the second reading of
the Small Debts Bill, the object of which was to
amend the defects at present existing in the law with
respect to the recovery of small debts, the provisions
of which were of a most tyrannical description.
In the law, as it formerly existed, parties were
only sent for 'debt to the debtors' side of
the prison, Cut, under the existing law,
the judges of the County Courts could send debtors
guilty of contempt to the felons' side of a prison for
forty days.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not con-
sent to the second reading of the Bill. The matter
complained of in the present Bill was not of
modern date, and it would be better to repeal the
law as it at present stood with respect to the recovery
of small debts altogether, than adopt the sug-
gestions contained in the Bill of the Honourable
Member opposite. He had been informed
by the judges of the County Courts, that if the
punishment for fraudulent debtors sought to be re-
moved by the Bill was abolished, the whole virtue
of the present law would be taken away, and
the measure rendered useless. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving as
an amendment that the Bill be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. H. BERKELEYnrsudmos
tnaetlhdl
todhtuheegabhtt
Bill
as most
the present
tihwllewH
which
hs
t h e excel-
leMembernow
lf wnr t
Bfaornri
ddtpheoeffr
etrcewtcuooauvl el,
would
aynadobfat.
eS,oTfaOntbPdeHßiEtsilßl would not o p e the
sought to have read a second time.
is
ne Enrcd reading Committee,
,dientaoi
lrsd e
br
yi tpinoisght
discussed.go
In the county he had the honour to represent the
greatest inconvenience was occasioned by sending
debtors to the felons' side of the prison.
Mr. HENLEY thought that it was a very doubt-
ful proceeding to subject a man to prison discipline,
because the judge thought, from the evidence brought
before him, that he was able to pay such instalments
of the debt as he thought proper.
Mr. CAtDWELL thought that the power to
punish fraud, when proved to the satisfaction of the
judge, ought to be retained. It was his opinion
that the Attorney-General had acted in a perfectly
proper manner in opposing any alteration of the law
in this respect.
Mr. NEWDEGATE felt convinced that the effect
of the existing law was to treat poverty as a crime :
he would give his 1-upport to the second reading of the
Bill.

Sir G. GREY said that the operation of the Act
would only be felt in cases where persons were guilty
of the fraud of refusing to pay when they had the
means to do so, and he thought that it was most pro•
per that the power to punish such frauds should re-
main in the hands of the judge for the protection of
the interests of the creditor.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said that he still felt that it
was a most monstrous power to confer upon an indivi-
dual, to allow the poorer classes of this country to be
treated as felons; and so long as it remained on the
statute-bouk the opinion would still prevail that
there was one law for the rich and another for the
poor. He should not, however, after having heard
the opinion of the House 'upon the subject, put Hon.
Members to the trouble of dividing.
The motion fur the second reading was therefore
decided in the negative.
GREAT YAIDIOUTH FREEMEN DISFRAN-
CHISEMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for going into Committee
on this Bill,
Sir G. GREY suggested that it should be post-
poned until after the measure which now stood upon
the paper—the Borough Elections Bill, which in-
cluded, among others, the Borough of Great Yar-
mouth—should be disposed of, a 3 upon the result of
that Bill might depend the course which many Hon.
Member might take with respect to the Bill now
before the House.
Mr. SEYMER said, that if it was the general
wish of the House, he would consent to post-
pone the measure. In bringing forward the Bill he
was acting only as the organ of the Committee, who
came to the unanimous decision that the freemen 01
the borough of Great Yarmouth ought to be dis-
franchised.
Mr. STAFFORD said that he disapproved of the
Bill for disfranchising the freemen of Great Yarmouth.
The effect of that Bill would be to punish the innocent
with the guilty, and also to let off those who were
more guilty in their conduct than the poor freemen
who had been found guilty. If the Bill were pro-
ceeded with, be must certainlyi move that the house
should go into Committee on the Bill this day six
months.
Lord AIAHON expressed himself favourable to
the postponement of the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the Committee, having
evidence of the best nature brought before it, had
unanimously decided that the freemen ought to be
disfranchised If that recommendation were car-
ried out he believed that the infliction of that sum-
mary justice would have a most salutary warning
upon the freemen of other boroughs. Such being his
opinion, he should most certainly support the motion
for proceeding with the Bill.
Mr. STEWART thought that as a clear case had
been made out against the freemen of Yarmouth, the
case ought to be proceeded with immediately.
Sir G. GREY said that he had suggested the
postponement of the Bill not with a view to oppose
i its progress. He was decidedly n favour of the
Bill, and if the Hon. Member should persist in
dividing the House, he should most certainly vote
with him.
Mr. R. YORKE and Mr. MILES were opposed to
the postponement of the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No
into
Committee however took place, and the House went
Committee on the Bill.
After a lew words from Mr. STAFFORD and Mr
HvuE,

Sir J. HANMER, said that, in bringing forward
;he Borough Elections Bill, he was actuated with the
most sincere feelings.
A somewhat desultory discussion then took place,
which ended in Mr. STAFFORD moving that the
Chairman do now report progress.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion l6
Against it
Upon ourMa
rejtourrint3' against
tnE,
gallery —
vi e found
Sir J. NVILLOUGHBY stating that be would
oppose the Bill.' He did not believe that
of Great Yarmouth ought to be - •
Mr. A. S TAFFORD . disfranchised.
maintained that no sufficient
grounds had been made
orough. There was
n
out for disfranchising the
there had been any extensive evidence to prove that
adopted ; it had been Proved i
° or systematic briber.
Committee that the total nnuevidence before the
not exceeded fourteen or fiftnieebner bTribed hadh
just,course, therefore, to adopt would be to d. fe most
those who were bribed, and not punish
the innocent
!anchise
with the guilty. BesideS, this Bill only
prupsed
punish those who were bribed, but the persnonw hto
tempted these poor persons by holding out the
brines to them, came off clear of all punishment. The
Honourable Member then proceeded to read
various extracts at great length from the evidence
' given
before the Committee, showing that a Mr.
Coble and two other gentlemen had been most
actively engaged in bribing the people, and giving
the money to the voters. The Hon. Member then
proceeded to state that to select a particular
class in a particular borough, and visit them
I extinction, because, being poor,
with political
they had yielded to crime, was most unjust, and the
more so, because
the instrument for punishing those
parties did not in .
n the least degree reach those
t
who had brought about this bribery by their
temptation. The Bill proposed to disfran-
chisem
~
the poor people only but 'hv was
;
it, in common fairness, that they left the
.
agents of these nefarious p deal with
to ruceedgs at large, ind
un-
touched and unpunished ? The waY
the subject cf bribery was not in this piece-
meal manner, but to make it net only a penalty
to receive a bribe, but also to fix a penalty upon
all persons who offered bribes making such
parties liable to be informed against by
y common informer, and giving such informer half
the amount of the
penalty. If such a course were to
be adopted, the
they would hear vil °use
might depend upon it that
e
of whom they rnya-(little of such persons as those
The poor people of ad heard in this Committee
any confidence in that As Country would never have
bribed were allowed to reuse so long as those who
sole punishment fell upoonithain unpunished, while the
poverty, received the tribe. T enho, oppressed with
to divide the House on the • did not wish again
Subject, but must, how-