The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OP LORDS, August B.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the
Woolsack at Five o'clock.
THE CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND)
BILL.

This Bill passed through Committee.
PABLIANIENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.

On the motion of Lord BEAUMONT, this Bill went
through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third
time on Thursday.

SUNDAY TRADING.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions from St.
Luke's, Middlesex, and several other parishes in the
metropolis, against trading on Sunday.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL moved the consideration of the
Lords' amendments of the Public Health Bill; and after
stating the amendments made by the Commons to their
Lordships' amendments, the Noble Lord said that it
was for their Lordships to choose whether they would
waive their amendments or throw out this Bill. There was
no alternative : it was hopeless to insist on their Lord-
ships' amendments. He trusted that their Lordships
would show an example of moderation and forbearance;
and, for the sake of the safety of the Bill, that they
would agree to what the Commons had proposed, and
would be satisfied with the amendments which they had
given, waiving those which they had rejected.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that after what
had taken place in this House, their Lordships had a
right to expect that their amendments would have re-
ceived the support of a united Government in the other
House. He supported the propriety of the amendments,
which, he said, had been adopted with the best inten-
tions. He objected to the amendments of the Commons,
as they might lead to jobbing in the local boards. He
deeply regretted what had passed as to this Bill, but at
the same time he would not, on his part, even if he had
the hope of inducing their Lordships to agree with him
in rejecting any of these amendments give the House
of Commons an excuse for rejecting this Bill. The Bill
was not what it ought to be ; it was not what he trusted
it would be, but it was still a great public good, and they
should not have, through him, the excuse of depriving
the public of it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who was indis-
tinctly heard, agreed that it was necessary to waive their
Lordships' amendments, at the same time regretting that
the Commons had not acceded to them. He and his
Noble and Learned Friend had entertained a strong hope
that the House of Commons would have waived, as re-
garded this Bill, that portion of their privileges which,
although sacred in many eonstitutions.l respects, were
impediments in matters of this kind.

Lord REDESDALE thought that great ground of
complaint rested on her Majesty's Government in
striking out what was called the " smoke clause." This
clause had received the unanimous support of the Com-
mittee of that House. The excuse for striking out the
clause was groundless. It was alleged that this was a
matter for general legislation, and should not
have been introduced in it as a distinct clause.
Now clauses for such a purpose had been intro-
duced into Liverpool, Derby, and other large towns
improvement Bills. The suppression of smoke would
bo of material benefit to the poorer classes. For in-
stance, weavers in some towns were obliged to shut up
their houses, so as to prevent the entrance of smut, which
would spoil the fabrics they were manufacturing.
He trusted that her Majesty's Government would
consent to the re-insertion of the clause, as the ground
for its rejection by the Commons was directly the re-
verse of the fact. He did not believe that there would
be the slightest risk to this measure if their Lordships
sent this clause back to the House of Commons. If the
Commons should again reject it, he certainly would not
press it, so as to endanger the success of this Bill.
Lord PORTMAN regretted, as much as his Noble
Friend, that these clauses had been rejected by the
Commons. lie thought, however, that it would be un-
wise to risk such a Bill, by pressing this clause at such
a late period of the session. Ile trusted that at an.
early
.period of the next session a Bill would be intro-
duced to remedy this evil, and which he hoped would
prove successful.
The Duke of ARGYLL entirely concurred in the
feelings of regret which had been expressed, that the
Commons had rejected the amendments introduced by
their Lordships.
Lord CAMPBELL, in reply, said that he could as-
sure the House that the Government had used every
exertion to carry these amendments, but they had
been unsuccessful, kin consequence of the irregular
combination of parties against them. It was not until
the Government saw that there was no chance of suc-
cess that they were' induced to abandon all hope of car-
rying these amendments. tie trusted, however, that they
would be carried into effect at some future period. He
was glad to find the unanimity which prevailed as to the
course to be pursued by their Lordships; and he trusted
that the Noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) would not per-
sist in his preposal; but take the judicious advice of the
Noble Earl (Lord'Ellenborough). This Bill was not so
perfect or beneficial as it might be, still it contained
many beneficial enactments.
The Earl of DESART expressed a hope that some
arrangement would take place so as to put the privi-
leges of both Houses on a better footing than they now
were, as many of them were at present productive of
great inconvenience.
The Commons' amendments were then agreed to.

UNLAWFUL OATHS ACTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, that
this Bill be read a third time,
The Earl of RODEN said that he rose to suggest an
amendment, in the second clause, after the words " it
shall be lawful to seize all papers and writings, and all
arms," that the words " and ull communication of every
description whatever."
The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter past
Seven o'clock, till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 15.
RENEWABLE
(IRELAND) LEASEHOLD CONVERSION
BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. LAW trusted the House would not trifle with
the charter by which the Irish Society was established,
and deprive the society of the only character by which
it could do any good, namely, that of landlord in Ire-
land. The Hon. and Learned Member, not perse-
vering in his amendment, the House resolved itself
into Committee on the Bill.
The preamble was postponed.
Clauses 1 up to 3 were agreed to after a short dis-
cussion and with a few verbal amendments.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Thursday, at twelve o'clock.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS BILL.
The second reading of this Bill was postponed until
Thursday, at twelve oclock.
LOCAL ACTS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
referred to the Select Committee on Private Bills.
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.
The second reading of this Bill was postponed until
Thursday, at twelve o'clock.
SHEEP, 84c. IMPORTATION PROHIBITION BILL.
The report upon this Bill was brought up, and the
Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
DUBLIN POLICE BILL.

The Committee upon this Bill was postponed until
Thursday, at twelve o'clock.
The House adjourned at a Quarter after Three
o'clock until Five.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.

An HoN. MEMBER moved that the House b© counted,

Strangers were accordingly ordered to withdraw, and
there being only thirty: Members present, the SPEAKER
adjourned the House till to-morrow at Twelve o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, August 15.
CIVIL SIDE.--(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and
a Common Jury.)
_ COX 11. HOW.

This action was brought -by Elizabeth Cox against
George How, to recover compensation in damages from
him, in consequence of the loss of the services of her
daughter, by reason of his having seduc©d her.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Charnock were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bagley for the
defendant. _ _ . . . .

Sergeant SHEE said that the plaintiff in this action
was the widow of a draper who formerly carried on bu-
siness at Newport PagneL, in Buckinghamshire, and who
died in 1837, leaving his widow and a daughtor, Mary
Anne, the subject of the present inquiry, in straitened
circumstances. Her daughter carried on the business
of a dressmaker, and by her exertions she contributed
materially to the support of her mother, and by their
united efforts they were enabled to maintain a position
of respectability, and, as he was instructed, the family
were respected and esteemed by their neighbours and
all who were acquainted with them. It was while
they were in this position that the daughter of the
plaintiff, in the year 1846, became acquainted,
or rather renewed an acquaintance, with the
defendant. She had, it appeared, met him some few
years before at a country ball, when he paid her some
attention, and accompanied her to her mother's house,
but no further intimacy took place at that time, and the
parties lost sight of each other until August, 1846, when
the defendant, as he had stated, met accidentally with
the plaintiff's daughter in the town of Newport Pagnel.
He dismounted, expressed his delight at seeing her, and
stated that ho had frequently thought of her, and re-
quested that he might be allowed to renew the acquaint-
ance, and to visit her at her mother's house. The
young woman did not consent to allow him to visit her
as he requested, and he believed that the mother had
never encouraged the connexion between the parties.
The defendant was about the same age as the plaintiff's
daughter; ho was, at that time, engaged as a cattle.
dealer, and he also managed a large farm for his mo-
ther; but although the connexion might, perhaps, have
been considered an eligible one, it would seem that
the plaintiff did not approve of it, and he should show
that the defendant, in point of fact, never did visit at
the mother's house, and that she discouraged his at-
tentions. The defendant, however, did prevail on the
his
omon
plaintiff's daughter, by the assurance of honourable
intentions, to meet him and to walkout with him, and
she continued to do so dulrBi4ns, a
the periodofg four
woman wthas
s,
awnads, unfortunately,thstinl ebruar3, upon. one occasion, an improper in-
timacy commenced between them, the result of which
delivered of a child. He would not weary—indeed he
would not disgust them by detailing the conduct of the
defendant after this period. He would rather they
should hear from the girl herself the history of her fall,
and the heartlessness and cruelty of the conduct of the
defendant, when he had obtained his object. The conse-
quences were most disastrous to the poor girl herself;
she was ill for a considerable period, and those who had
treated her before with liiaduess ceased to do so, in .