The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS,

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 (STONE-
HOUSE JUNCTION) RAILWAY.

Lord STRAFFORD reported to the House that the
preamble of the Birmingham and Gloucester (Stone-
house Junction) Railway had not been proved.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Messengers from the House of Commons brought up
certain Bills.
BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH AND MANCHESTER
DIOCESE BILL.

The Earl of POWIS moved that the Bangor and St.
Asaph and Manchester Diocese Bill should be passed.
Lord LANSDOWNE said, that on a former occasion
he was of opinion that the consent of the Crown Was
❑ot 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 postponement
fur this purpose.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL presented several petitions from
the counties of Worcester and Stafford in favour of this
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
grievances 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 Lordship's houses and seize their
property. That practice had prevailed not only in
London, but in Westminster and the borough of South-
wark, till he, when he held the great seals, called the
attention of Lord Melbourne, then Secretary of 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.)
Th 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 Noble Friend of his, who

at one time held one of the very highest offices in the
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 bad 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 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 a sum of 201., to be impri-oned,
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 charaeter. He (Lord Brougham) considered
that these corporation magistrates were most per-
nicious, and to say the least thing offensive, were most
opposed to the first principles of justice.
LORD GOUGH AND VISCOUNT HARDINGE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read letters from Lords
Gough anti Hardinge, which stated that those Noble
Lords bad communicated the votes passed the 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 BROUGHAM 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
I Association.