The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-07 00:00:00

Mr. 1V EWDEGATE thought the bid contained a most
extraordinary principle. He objected to the compulsory
powers of the measure, but should, nevertheless, vote for
the secod reading. Several gentlemen had left the House
on the understanding that the promoters of the bill would
abandon the compulsory principle. (Cries of " no," " no."
If they did not he should vote against the second reading.
'With regard to the rights of property, he considered that
they were the foundation of our freedom. The House
for some time past had been proceeding on the assumption
that property was an invasion rather than the
foundation of freedom. He objected entirely to such a
course of procedure. He conteded that the fifty persons
mentioned in the bill as constituting a sufficient number
to ask a landowner for a site, were not the public. They
might require two acres in the very heart of a town, and
only pay £l5O. He never heard of such extraordinary
compulsory powers. He regretted that the House by a
kindly feeling had been led to overlook the great constitu-
tional principle, which was the basis of freedom ; and that
they were gradually copying the systems of foreign

countries, which, like France, for the want of that basis
had become despotic. The great difficulty which the
Emperor of the French had to contend with in his con-
stitutional efforts was the absence of a proprietary class
of sufficient magnitude upon which to found an organi-
sation.

Mr. PEASE thought a prima fade case had been made
out for legislation, but he did not think there ought to be
such legislation as was proposed by the bill. He dis-
trusted the Enclosure Commissioners in the exercise of
such great powers as it was sought to invest them with.
Mr. BERESFORD HOPE trusted that the second reading of
the bill would be agreed to without a division, and that
the aggressive character of the measure would afterwards
be removed. He wished to see Dissenters placed upon
the same footing as Churchmen, but they reached an im-
possible point in that respect when a congregation,, repre-
sented by any fifty persons, could make an absolute claim
for a site.

Mr. CANDLISH said that the bill was intended to remedy
an acknowledged evil, and further it gave no power to
take private houses, so that the objection that had been
raised to it on that account was not well founded. He
denied that the bill was an interference with
the rights of property ; it only enacted that
every man should have the right by the
law of the land to worship his Maker as he
pleased, and if the owners of land prevented his
doing so, then, hi thought, the Legislature should step in
and say it was not right he should be so interfered with.
Mr. MOWBRAY hoped that no division would be taken
on the second reading, because he anticipated that in
committee the promoters of the bill would not insist on
the retention of the compulsory principle.
Mr. G. GREGORY then withdrew his motion.

Mr. NEWDEG ATE said that when the motion for going
into committee of the bill was made he should move the
House do so that day six months.
The bill was then read a second time, and the committee
fixed for the 15th of June.
•
JURIES BILL.

Viscount ENFIELD moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to amend the law relating to the
duties, qualifications, and remuneration of special and
common jurymen. The bill carried into effect the recom-
mendation of the select committee which had sat on the
subject, and he might say the purposes of those recommen-
datiOns were that some alterations should be made
in selecting special jurors, that the remuneration
given to special jurymen should be one guinea, and to
common jurors ten shillings a day, to be paid out of a
special suitors' fund, and that where exemptions existed
in certain parts of the country from serving on juries,
either by charter or prescription, those exemptions should
cease. In the event of the bill being read a second time
he should not object to its being referred to a select com-
mittee.

Mr. YOUNG said the bill was 's, good one, but he thought
some provision ought to be made to take the verdict of
three-fourths of a jury.
Mr. G. DENMAN approved of the bill, and said he
thought if any attempt were made to deal with the subject
of unanimity of jurors by the present bill, that matter
would very seriously endanger its passing.
Dr. DALRYMPLE thought the provisions of the bill did
not go far enough.

Mr. HENLEY thought that such a bill ought to be in the
hands of the Government, and hoped it would never pass
except on their responsibility.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was quite ready to
agree to the principle .of the bill, but at the same time
he did not go the length of saying that he approved of the
whole of its details. He thought it was a very wise pro-
ceeding on the part of the noble lord to refer the bill to
a select committee.
The bill was then read a second time.

The Evidence Further Amendment Act (1.869) Amend-
ment Bill passed through committee ; the object of the
bill was to make the act of last session applicable to the
examination of witnesses before an arbitrator or an ex-
aminer of the Court of Chancery.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS BILL.
Mr. DESMAN moved the second reading of the bill, and
explained that it was proposed by the bill to enable magis-
trates on a first summary conviction for trivial offences to
discharge the offender from the conviction 5n his making
satisfaction to the party aggrieved. If a boy stole an egg
or an apple, the magistrates would be bound to convict
him, and send him to prison, and he wished to relieve
them from the objectionable duty in cases of larceny under
the value of ss. in the way he had indicated.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the bill, as it ap-
peared to him a very objectionable and dangerous prin-
ciple, and therefore he could not vote for the motion for
its second reading. It appeared to him to be a bill to
enable magistrates to commit a crime by compounding a
felony.

After a few observations from Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. DENUAN withdrew the motion for the second read-
ing of the bill.
GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The motion for the second reading of this bill was post-
poned until the 11th April.

ATTORNEYS' AND SOLICITORS' REMUNERA,

TION BILL.

The House went into committee on this Bill, but, aftei
a short conversation, at a quarter to six, the chairman
reported progress,
LODGERS' GOODS PROTECTION BILL.
Mr. SHERIDAN brought in a bill, which was read a first
time, to protect the goods of lodgers against executions
upon the property of the landlord.
The House then adjourned, at ten minutes to six,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—(This DAY.)

TIIE MANSLAUGHTER. AT KENSAL-GREEN.

James Campken, 22, was charged with the man-
slaughter of Philip Rolph. The prisoner was the
stepson. of the deceased, and they were both em-
ployed at a gas works at Kensal-green. Deceased
and his wife, the mother of the prisoner, fre-
quently quarrelled, and acts of violence were com-
mitted by the deceased upon his wife. The prisoner
pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. Mr.
Warner Sleigh urged his lordship to pass a lenient
sentence upon the prisoner, who, he said, had no in-
tention to destroy the life of the deceased. Mr.
Justice Lush said he would consider what sentence
should be pronounced upon the prisoner.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).
•
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A BETTING SQUABBLE. —Mr. Henry Ryder, surgeon,
of Paulton-square, Chelsea, was charged before Mr.
Knox with assaulting Mr. Horatio Lawson, No. 20,
Bread-street, Cheapside, laceman. The complainant
said that on the previous night, about ten o'clock, he
was at the Argyle Restaurant, Argyle- street, having
supper, when the defendant, whom he had seen once
or twice before, and some friends came in, and asked
him to join them in tossing for some drink. He did
so, and while tossing a discussion arose as to a bet
they wanted to force on him, and in the course of it
the defendant said he would knock him down. He
told the defendant he had better not, upon which he
rushed at him and struck him in the eye. In answer
to Mr. Knox the complainant said that in
the course of the discussion about the bet he
never spoke to the defendant, who was in liqu, r.
The defendant said he had been to the boat race with
some friends, and on going into the house the com-
plainant pressed them to toss, and they did so. The
complainant had the previous day lost a bet of £O,
and refused to pay it, pooh-poohing it—in face, what
was ordinarily called wanting to "welch." It was
not his (defendant's) bet that was in question. The
complainant struck at him, tut did not hit bun, and
having heard that the complainant bad offered to
tight a man for £lOO, he expected he should have got
the worst of it. A witness was called by the defen-
dant,,
who said it was a publichouse " scrimmage,"
and that he could not say who struck the first blow.
Mr. Knox said he had no doubt the affair was what
the witness had described it, and fined the defendant
20s. or 14 days.