The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL -P-AILTINIEt4"I".

HOUSE OF LORDS,- .raii 24.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock precisely, when- there was rather a
scanty attendance of Peers.
BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER (STONS.
HOUSE J UNCTION) RAILWAY.
Lord STRAFFORI) reported to the House that the
preamble of the Birmingham and Gloucester (Stone-
house Junction) Railway Bill had not been proved.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Messengers tram the House of Commons brou2;ht Pp
certain. Bills.

BANGOIi AND ST. ASA-PrIAND MANCLIESTEIC
DIOCESES BILL. .

The Earl of POWIS moved that the Bangor and St.
Asaph and Manchester Dioceses Bill should be passed.
Lord LANSDOWNE said, that on a former occasion
he was of opinion that the consent of the Crown was
not necessary to the passing of the Bill, but on speaking
to certain Noble Lords, he found them of opinion that it
would be more prudent to postpone the Bill till the per-
mission of her Majesty could be got, and he therefore
urged his Noble Friend to consent to the postponment
for this purpose.
SMALL DEBTS BILL

Lord CAMPBELL presented several petitions:from
the counties of Worcester and Stafford in favour of tilts
Bill.

MAGISTRATES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

Lord BROUGHAM said he had a petition to lay on
their Lordships' table complaining of one of the greatest
grievan-es to which the citizens of London could be
subjected, that the magistrates entertain questions
which by law they had no more right to entertain than
they had to enter their Lordships' houses and seize their
property. That practice had prevailed not only in
Londol, but in Westminster and the borough of South-
wark, till he, when he held the great seal, called the at-
tention of Lard Melbourne, then Secretary of State for the
Home Department, in whose department it properly
was, to the question. He (Lord Brougham) wrote a
letter to his Lordship recapitulating this gross
abuse, and called on him seriously to represent to
the magistrates of the city of Westminster in
this respect, for he had no jurisdiction over the
magistrates of the City of London.—(Hear, hear.,)
The magistrates permitted persons to come before
them and make their complaints in the absence of the
accused. lie would illustrate the evil which it was
the occasion of by the following fact :—A Noble
Friend of his, who at one time held a very high office
had made an unfortunate marriage, and his widow fell
into the greatest pecuniary distress. The Prince Regent
allowed her a sum of money, and she received in sums
of forty shillings a week. She had formed such associ-
ations after her husband's death as to entirely prevent
the whole sum of money being entrusted to her hands;
so the fund was placed in the hands of two of his Noble
Friends in that House, in order to secure its proper dis-
tribution, but whenever she wanted money she went be-
fore the sitting magistrates. He read the reports
in the newspapers himself, and stated that the two Noble
Lords had possession of a fund which was allowed to
her by the public, and that they refused to give it to
her, but kept it for their own purposes, and
the Lord Mayor of London, to whom she told
her tale, instead of sending her about her business, said,
" Is it to be believed, is it to be endured, that these two
Noble Lords should take this miserable opportunity of
benefiting themselves at the expense of an unfortunate
widow?"—(Hear.) He called the attention of his Noble
friends to the fact, but they considered it not worth their
while to contradict it, though it was very generally be-
' lieved elsewhere, and, in fact, he had heard it even lately
re-told. In the present instance the petitioner had been
illegally sentenced to pay 201., and to be imprisoned,
and kept to hard labour for two months. He appealed,
and was brought up on an habeas corpus, when it was
decided that he had been illegally imprisoned and fined.
The poor man had suffered the punishment, and there
would be no redress for him even if he brought his
action, it would be decided that he had only acted in his
judicial character. He (Lord Brougham) considered
that these corporation magistrates were most per-
nicious, and to say the least thing offensive, were moat
opposed to the first principles of justice.
LORD GOUGH AND 'VISCOUNT HARDINGE.
TheLORD. CHANCELLOR read letters from Lords
Gough' and 'Harding;' which stated that those Noble,
Lords bad communicated the votes passed by their LOrd-
ships' House to the officers and men under
their command, who were greatly gratified by
the honour conferred upon them. The letters were
respectfully dated the 10th and the 25th of May. They
were ordered to be entered on the journals of the House.
SUGAR QUESTION.
Lord BROUGHADI said that he would on Monday
night next present a petition against the proposed Sugar
Bill. The petition was from his venerable friend,
Thomas Clarkson, the president of the Anti-Slavery
Association.

Lord BROUGHAM begged to state that in conse-
quence of the postponement of the sugar duties from to-
day till Monday, in the House of Commons, ho should
plstpone his notice of his motion respecting the sugar
duties from Monday till Tuesday next.
BATHS AND WASHHOUSES.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from the mayor and burgesses of Cork, praying that any
measure on this subject which had reference to England
and Wales should be extended to Ireland.
RAILWAY BILLS NOT COMMITTED.

Lord STANLEY moved, in addition to the motion
which he had made the other evening, for a return of all
the Bills for railways which had not been committed on
the 20th of July.

The Earl of CLARENDON conceived that the agree-
ment entered into the other night would be sufficient to
furnish all the information which his Noble Friend
desired.