The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woo
sack at Fire o'clock.
FREE CHURCH SITES BILL

Price

Pric•,

The Constabulary (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The Money Order Department (Post-office) Bill was
read a second time.

The other Bills on the table were advanced a stage,
and their _Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 17.
NEW WRIT.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Mr. BRIGHT felt disposed to vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Warwickshire; but, as the prepo-
sition for an adjournment was only for a week, he
thought it would not make much matter, and he would,
therefore, advise him to agree. to the proposition of the
Noble Lord. But, while he was prepared to do that, he
should certainly insist on the writ being issued during
the present session, and if that were not done he should
support the motion.
Mr. HENLEY contended that in the case of Derby
there was no ground for its disfranchisement, and he
had always voted for the issuing of the writ. The
reason assigned for the postponement was to him a most
unsatisfactory one, and be should therefore support the
motion.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said that his Noble
Friend, when he moved a postponement, did so to see
whether the Bill should pass through that House, and
not until it had passed in the House of Lords. When
that House came to a determination as to what it
should do, and the Bill passed, then the writ should
issue.
Sir R. H. INGLIS observed that, if the Bill passed
through that House, how could that effect the decision of
the House of Lords. In his opinion, the Bill was a
mere piece of waste pnper, for it would never pass the
House of Lords, at least in the present session; and,
therefore, it was unjust to deprive their fellow-subjects
of their constitutional right. There was no case shown
that Derby should be disfranchised, and the writ
ought, therefore, to be issued without delay. It was,
then, more than three months since the Members for
Derby were unseated, during which the town was kept
in a continual state of excitement, and consequent de-
moralisation. He, therefore, pressed the House to come
to a decision on the subject.
Mr. R. PALMER was most anxious to check bribery
in every instance, but he saw no connexion whatever be-

tween the passing of the Bill to prevent corruption at
elections, and the motion then before the House. There
were eight or nine boroughs included in that Bill, and
yet writs were issued for all, except Derby, which he
believed was the least criminal among them.
Mr. P. WOOD contended that the passing of the Bill
before the House with reference to elections had a great
deal to do with the present motion. Derby was placed
in the schedule, and if the Bill passed through the House,
the freemen of Derby would know, that if the practice of
head-money were continued, their conduct would be
rigidly investigated.
Lord G. BEN TINCK reminded the House that in the
case of Great Yarifnouth, a Bill was actually before the
House, and yet a writ was issued for that borough.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority in favour of postponing the writ —42
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The order of the day having been read for bringing
up the report on this Bill,
Sir H. HALFORD again brought forward the case of
a person, named Leehy, who was appointed postman
in the borough of Leicester, and complained that the
appointment had been placed in the hands of Mr. Gar.
diner, who had been unseated for the borough on the
ground of bribery. It was said that the appoint-
ment
of Leehy had nothing to do with the late election
for Leicester, but it was a fact that Leehy's brother was
a freeman of Leicester, and voted for Mr. Gardiner.
Now, this appointment ought to belong to the Members
for the county, instead of which it had been placed in the
hands of a gentleman who had been unseated on the
ground of bribery. He thought i,. right to bring the
subject tind.er the consideration of the House, it the
hone that such an occurrence might not take place in
future.

Lord J. RU6SELL .laid be knew nothing as to the
circumstances under which the recommendation of Mr.
Leehy to the Postmaster-General bad taken place ;
but he had no hesitation in mnying that, under the
circumstances of Mr. Gardiner's position at the time
he made the recommendation, it was one which ought

Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions signed by
7,718 persons belonging to the Free Church of Scotland,
in favour of the Free Church Sites Bill.
POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second
reading of this Bill, and also the second reading of the Bill
for the better education of the poor. These Bills had come
up from the other House, where they had already been
fully debated. The Noble Marquis then proceeded to de-
scribe the nature of the two Bills.

After a short conversation the motion was agreed to,
and the Bills read a second time.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in moving the
second reading of this Bill, said that, this was a subject
which had for a long time occupied the attention of the
people of Ireland. Ho thought that this Bill treated the
question in the only manner in which it could be suc-
cessfully treated, and he hoped that it would be unani-
mously agreed to. The fisheries in Ireland were of con-
siderable value, and furnished employment to several
thousands. The increased value that would be given to
them under an improved system of management would
be immense. The fisheries in Ireland did not belong to
individuals, hut for the most part to the public. The
proposition of voluntary assessment had been tested, but
had failed, and it therefore became necessary for the
Government to take up the subject. The fisheries were
to be placed under the guardianship of a board of con-
servators, to be elected by such persons possessing the
qualifications set forth in the measure.

Lord MONTEAGLE was sorry to be obliged to op-
pose the motion of the Noble Marquis. He believed
that if this Bill bad been proposed for any other part of
the empire but Ireland, it would not for one instant be
entertained. He concurred with his Noble Friend that it
was of the greatest importance to preserve this great na•
tional interest. Considering the advanced period of the
session, and the important interests involved, he thought
the measure proposed a most unjust one. Heretofore,
when dealing with property, property was considered to
be the first qualification. In the Bill proposed the qua,
lification was simply the possession of a single fishing-
rod. Any person choosing to register a fishing-rod and
to take out a license for 11., became qualified to vote at
the election of conservators. Although a man possessed,
the right of fishery under a grant from the Crown he
might be subject to a tax of 151., under this Bill, for
every weir he used. It was true that that sum was
only mentioned as the maximum, but by this Bill
they would be leaving to the representatives of fish-
ing rods the great power of declaring what the
sum to be paid ought to be. He objected to
the power proposed to he given to the conserva-
tors over the weirs and the rivers, the beds of which
might be altered in any way they might think fit to
order. Ile would abandon his opposition to this Bill if
it were shown that it was authorized by the Commis-
sioners. He asked their Lordships to suspend their de-
cision upon it until early next session, for the purpose
of procuring the opinion Of the Commissioners upon it.
This delay could cause no inconvenience, inasmuch as
the first meeting of conservators was appointed for the
Ist of July, 1849.
The Earl of GLENGALL believed that there was not
a single proprietor of a fishery nor lessee who did not
give his cordial assent to the Bill. A deputation com-
posed of Members of Parliament, had waited some time
ago on the Prime Minister upon this subject, entreating
him to introduce this Bill, into Parliament, however late
the session might be. He (Lord Glengall) thought the
measure a most valuable one, and hoped his Noble Friend
would not persevere in his opposition to it.
The B;11 was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.