The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-11 00:00:00

LEGACY DUTY.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from Forres,
praying that the inventory duty (a species of legacy duty) be
repealed.

CORN-LAWS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from the
counties of Antrim and Londonderry, in favour of protection
to agriculture.
REMITTED DUTY ON HOPS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
landowners, tenant-farmers, labourers, and others interested in
the cultivation of hops in the county of Sussex. They complained
that by the remitted duty on foreign hops the Excise duties
would only leave them some 255. of protection ; and they stated
that the effect of an importation of foreign hops would be to
throw the land out of cultivation as regarded this particular
plant, and great numbers of persons who were at present en-
gaged in the cultivation of it would be reduced to idleness; and
not only would they be injured, but the clergymen of the
county also would find their livings seriously affected ; and it
was notorious that, even at present, they were the worst paid
of any clergy in England.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a large number of
petitions in favour of protection to agriculture.
DIRECT NORTHERN RAILWAY.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition from
Hawick in favour of the Direct Northern. Railway.
THE MARQUIS OF WETNIEATH AND HIS
TENANTRY.

Lord BROUGHAM presented it petition, to which he
wished to call the attention of their Lorr'ships, as it came
from a Member of their House. The petitioner, however,
who was the Marquis of Westmeath, petitioned them not
as a Peer, but as a landed proprietor of Ireland. He
(Lord Brougham) knew nothing of the facts of the petition,
but as the} were given in the statement made in it, but if they
were on examination found to be correctly stated, they
showed a state of things that never existed in any
civilized country. The petition had reference to the Noble
Marquis's property in the Barony of Ballincleugher, in the
county of Roscommon, and complained, that though
the petitioner, as well as his father before him,
had done their best to "improve the condition bf the tenantry,
and to introduce better modes of agriculture, but that all their
attempts had been frustrated and opposed ; that insubordina-
tion prevailed to a most alarming extent; that the con-acre
system, and the minute sub-division of land consequent
thereon, was causing over-cropping, and the ruining of the
soil ; and that the petitioner was defeated in every move-
ment he made, either for improvement or redress, by
chicanery and intimidation of the worst description. The
Noble Lord also considered that the distress in the country
could not be so great as was supposed when the people were able
to contribute such a large sum towards the O'Connell tribute.
His Lordship concluded by praying for protection from the
system of perjury, which at present so greatly prevailed, and
trusted that a law would be enacted by which intimidation of
witnesses would he put an end to.
Lord CLARE presented a petition from the grand jury of
the county of Limerick against the abolition of protective
duties on agriculture.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Cloth-
workers' Company of the city of London, the prayer of which
we could not catch.
Lord STOURTON gave notice that he should move for a
return of the quantities of wheat imported into Great Britain
from abroad, and also whatever returns might be in the
possession of Government with regard to the quantity of wheat
raised in Poland.
IRISH PACIFICATION BILL.

The Lord CHANCELLOR read the amendment which

had been agteed to by the House in Committee, which it
was arranged should be proposed on bringing up the report.
Earl CLANCA RTY said, that the observations of the
Noble Lord were, no doubt, worthy of at.on'ion, but he (Lord
Clancarty) coceived that the measure would have contained a
clause giving the Lord Lieutenant power to proclaim a dis-
trict, with a vie:v to the prevention, of crime, by proclaiming a
district in which he had reason to apprehended that crime was
about to be committed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not consider it would be
judicious to give the Lord Lieutenant the power to proclaim
district merely upon an apprehension or anticipation of crime
because representations of apprehended crime might be made
by persona without Lundation. The safest. course therefore
to pursue would be to proclaim only districts in which crime
had been committed.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he held in his hand
a threatening notice, the contents of which would show the it
Lordship; that the cause of outrage in Ireland was not so much
to be attributed to the fact of the eviction of old tenants by
landlords, as to the fact of other parties being desirous to keep
those tenants in.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he conceived it would be
very dangerous to insert any clause in the Bill referring to
threatening notices, because any evil-disposed persons might
write those notices with a view to geitir g a district pro-
claimed.

The amendments in clause 7, providing compensation, were
agreed to.
On the question that the words " under suspicious circum-
stances" be introduced into the 15th clause, which referred to
the offence of being out after sunset and before sunrise,

Lord STOURTON asked whether it would br considered,
that in the present prospects of the country, when famine and
pestilence was fuil in their view, a person who might be pro-
ceeding to claim the aid of his priest to administer the sacra-
ment to his family, and who might be found out of his own
house after sunset, should be laid hold on by the executive.
Earl St. GERNIANS rendered full justice to the motive
which had induced the Noble Lord to. ask the question. A
policeman arristing a person under the circumstances, stated
by the Noble Lord. would do so on his own responsibility.
Lord STOURTON—Uut suppose a man that is a criminal
is going tax his priest, is he not to be protected for the time
from arrest ?

Earl ST. GERMANS—Certainly net.
Lord BROUGHAM--Why, what a monstrous absurdity to
think that a man who has committed a crime is to be pro-
tected from arrest under any circumstances. If a man com-
mits murder, surely he is not to be protected from arrest upon
the pretence that he is going to his priest, or upon the reality
even.—The amendment was then agreed to.
The Earl of WICKLOW complained that the amendments
of the Noble Earl did not meet the objection he had stated
last night. Unless power was given to the constable to take a
person before the nearest magistrate, and enable the latter to
take bail, the practical effect would often be for a person taken
up to lie in prison for seven nights and six days before a petty
session was 1161.
Earl St. GERAIANS considered that the real difficulty was
met in the manner he proposed. They had the power of se.
curing a stipendiary magistrate's attendance, and at least once
a week a sessions would be held, which being an open court,
any person brought before it would have their conduct fairly
discussed and investigated.
Lord DENMAN agreed with his Noble Friend (the Earl of
Wicklow) that a great hardship world be imposed on those
persons who would be taken up under the Bill, unless a pro-
vision was made. If a sessions was only to be held once a
week, accused parties, besides being confined for three or four
days in miserable and badly-ventilated cells, would often have
to wilt twenty miles, in order to be examined. He would
wish the Noble Earl (the Earl St. Germans) to state what
he intended to do respecting gaol accommodation, which at
present was so very bad.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that difficulty could be
overcome by making temporary accommodation at the police
stations, for parties that might be waiting for examination.
The expense of this could not be very great.
Lord DENMAN remarked that there was no such place
adopted at present.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said the difficulty stated fre-
quently existed under the present administration of the law, but
it could be met by attaching accommodation to the police stations.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that the question of commitment
in the present case was totally different from that of any other.
In case the party who was apprehended had an opportunity of
defending himself, and had the power of exonerating him-
self, he, in common with his Noble Friends, objected to
his being confined for seven days and seven nights
in the police station before he could prove his inno-
cence. Let them not deal too harshly. Let them
not add any unnecessary severity to this severe enactment.
He would suggest that no unnecessary harshness should be em-
ployed to increase the difficulties attendant on the measure, and
be believed that this could be done without impeding the prac-
tical operation of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he should be very
sorry that this Bill should go to the other House of Parliament
under such circumstances, to create an impression that it had
not received the general assent of all the Members of that
House. He would, therefore, propose to the Noble Lord, that
the consideration of the question should stand over until Thurs-
day, and he would endeavour by that time to see if a clause
could he passed so as to remove the difficulty.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said that he cordially
agreed with the Noble Lord who had spoken on his side of the
House. He believed that it was important that one magistrate
should have the power of discharging any man, who might have
been arrested by the stupidity'or partiality of the police. He
did not attach one single particle of evil to such a power, for
if a. magistrate were afraid to do. his duty by discharging or
committing a prisoner, as occasion required, he ought to be
discharged from the commission of the peace, and the country
would be benefited by his removal. Great and serious mis-
chief had been done by the timidity of magistrates on the one
hand, and the oppression of magistrates on the other. The
magistrate need not make it a matter of necessity to con mit
the man on his own authority, he might wait for the decision
of other magistrates • by such a course he would
not render himself Obnoxious. The magistrate might
hold the prisoner to bail, if he did not think proper to dismiss
him.—( Hear, hear.) He for one hoped that, if the law was
to be altered, the alteration might be printed by Thursday, so
as to be easily attainable by their Lordships.
Earl ST. GERMANS said that he did not consider that
the clause, as new proposed, would be any hardship upon indi-
viduals. If the alteration proposed were carried into effect, it
would be difficult to get magistrates to act together. It was
quite
w that this
bailed
course
were
would e
really
cbee
eei
e n s judicious,ef his becausegei
it, ifh
he
man he
should be
would certainly make his escape. The proposition now before
the' House was, that the power shall be given to one magis-
trate to admit to bail, or to discharge, or to commit ; which
would, in fact, be making that magistrate the sole judge of the
man's guilt or innocence, and this result might be that a most
dangerous character might be let loose upon society.
theTNheehDleukLe9orfdßonlCthHeAWlooNelDeurs. opposed to
It
tpowseeld really
eellsyughgeetselion ehaodf
to have a man taken twenty miles to the county gaol,
and twenty miles back again, and then have
his innocence proved. He was, therefore, in
favour of a prisoner, eing taken before a magistrate imme-
diately, and to take bail for him, or discharge him, if he had a
prima facia case, or to convict him if there should be a clear
case against him. If there was an objection to one magistrate
acting in this capacity, it would amount to saying that the Irish
magistrates were •of fit for the discharge of their duty. If the
Noble Lord should press his motion to a division, he would cer-
tainly support him.
The Earl of DEVON hoped that the Lord Chancellor wou'Al
postpone his motion.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON thouzht that if they
wished the law to be respected in Ireland they would not add
any unnecessarily severe clauses to the measure under consi-
deration. He did not agree with the remark that the magis •
trates would by the amendment of the Noble Lord (Earl of
Wicklow) be constituted the judges of the crime,; he would only,
after all, be required to judge whether the individual taken be-
fore him should be bailed or not.
Earl ST. GERMANS said he did not wish to press the
clause against the wishes of N,,ble Lords. He should there-
fore withdraw it for the purpose of its being re-considered.
The Earl of WICKLOW was perfectly convinced, from the
discussion that had taken place that night, that the clause in
its present state would never have been carried. He was,
however, satisfied with the admission made by the Noble Earl,
and would not press it to a division. He trusted that they would
send the measure to the other House in a better state than
many of the Bills emanating there came up to them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that by the Bill, as it at
present stood, parties were to be brought up before the petty
sessions, who were to decide upon the evidences of their crime? '
The difileulty was that the petty sessions might not sit for a

week, and, therefore, the Noble Earl suggested that they shotid
be c•rri.d at once t?fore two magi-triter, who would decide
whether they should go before the petty sessions or not. By
the present amendment, it was desired that the magistrate
should at once either discharge, or send them for trial, without
the intervention of the petty sessions. He confessed that, of
the two, he preferred the course which had been usually fol-
lowed in similar Bills.

After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
Earl GREY suggested that if the Bill was read a third
time, it should be reprinted as it had been amended.
The Earl of St. GERM ANS said that he had proposed at
first to bring up the report on Thursday evening, when the
amendments could have been printed, and had only consented
to bring it up to-night at the strong suggestion of their Lord-
ships, so that no time might be lost. He would take care that
the Bill should be printed before the third reading.
The amendments under consideration were then agreed to.
The Earl of St. GERMANS then proposed that the 16th
clause, respecting the "arrestment of persons," should be
amended with the addition of the words " under suspicious cir-
cumstances,' when, after a few words from

Lord CAMPBELL against the severity of the clause,
Lard COTTING HAM thought that there was no analogy
whatever between this Act and the Whiteboy Act. This was
much more severe and oppressive, and applied a more stringent
punishment to offences of a less venial kind.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the operation of the
Act referred to by the Noble Lard applied to the country
generally, but this Act would only affect disturbed districts, and
consequently ought to be more severe
Lord CAMPBELL said that the offence which was
punished by this Act with transportation, was, by the White-
boy Act only treated as a misdemeanour, and punished as ith
fine and imprisonment.
After a desultory conversati"n between the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Cottingham, the Earl of St. Germans, and the Earl of
Wicklow, the clause was agreed to.

The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to ; the
Bill, as amended, was ordered to be reprinted, and the report
on the amended Bill to be brought •&p on Thursday,
The third reading was Sxed for Friday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Marsh 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE, who was introduced by Lord
Jermyn and Mr. Smythe, took the oaths and his seat for the
borough of Bridport.
The Sheriffs of London (Messrs. Laurie and Chaplin)
appeared at the bar, attirell in their official costume, and pre-
sented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Common Coun-
cil of the city of London against the North Kent Railway,
Air. MILES proposed that it be an instruction to the Com-
mittee of Selection to refer the Bristol Waterworks Bill and
the Bristol Waterworks and Sewerage Bill to the same Com-
mittee.

Mr. GREENE recommended that the two schemes should
be heard before the Committee at the same time, as the Com-
mittee would then have the merits of the case fully before them.
Mr. H. BERKELEY was of opinion that it was a monstrous
proposition for the Bristol Waterworks Bill to be delayed in its
progress, in order to wait for another scheme which had not a
focus standi, and which had not even been read a first time.

Mr. LA IiOUCHERE thought it highly desirable that the
terms of the motion should be acceded to.

Mr. MILES then withdrew his motion, and gave notice
that he would make another on the subject on Thursday
next.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. HUME moved, that in case of Bills for the formation
or improvement of harbours, docks, piers, railways, bridges,
weirs, and for all works and inclosures on tidal lands within
the ordinary spring tides ; and also of Bills for bridges over or
tunnels under navigable rivers, a copy of all plans, sections,
and books of reference, required by the orders of the
House to be deposed in the office of any clerk of
the peace, or sheriff's clerk, on or before the 30th
day of November immediately preceding the session of
Parliament in which application for the Bill shall be made,
together with a published map, to a scale of not less than half
an inch to a mile, with the lines of such docks, piers, and other
works, intended to be executed under the Bill, delineated
thereon, so as to show the general situation and extent of such
intended works. or alterations therein, shall, on or before the
same day, be deposited in the Office of the Board of Admiralty.
He did so, because, under the old system, whenever parties
proposed to obstruct navigable rivers in any way whatever, by
the erection of public works, the fact seldom or never came to
the knowledge of the Boa:d of Admiralty until after the Bill
authorising the construction of suet works had been read a
second time.

Mr. B. HAWES considered that it would be a very useful
addition to their standing orders, and he therefore fully con-
curred in the observations which had fallen from Mr.
Hume.

Mr. GREENE had often complained of the course adopted
by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; they never sent
in the amended clauses until the la,t."-nom,nt, and parties who
had Bills requiring their assent, consequently experienced the
greatest delay and inconvenience.
After a few worth from Admiral DUNDAS,

Mr. H E said that this motion was only to carry out in
fact th provisions of the Act of last session. That Act crave
the Admiralty the power of interfering with any railway
works within the range of the spring tides All that he required
was that notice of such interference should be given before the
30,h of November.
Mr. R HODG-sON" made a few observations which were
inaudible in the gallery. _ _

After a few words from Mr. PA RKER and Mr. LABOUC HERE,
desiring the Hon. Member to delay his motion for a day or
two, in order to allow time for inquiry,

Mr. III:ME consented to wi,hdraw his motion till Thurs.
day nest.— l'he motion was accordingly withdrawn.
THE CHARTIST CONVICTS.

Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, sign.d by 530 persons, praying her Ma-
jesty would be pleased to grant a free pardon to the convicts
Frost, William-, and Jones.
The lion. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented a petition
with a similar prayer, and hoped it would be done in the same
way that Dan it 1 O'Connell and others were liberated in Ireland.
—( A laugh. )
PROTECTION.

Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from Dorsetshire,
signed by a number of farmers, agricultural labourers, and
others, in favour of the Government propositions, and ex-
pressing their belief that protective duties tended to limit our
commerce to the injury of the country at large.
THE CHARTIST CONVICTS.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition from South-
wark in favour (as we understood) of the remission of the
Sentence on Frost, Williams, and Jones. He regretted that
he could not support the prayer of the petition.
Petitions o the same effect were presented by Mr. CoupErt
and Mr. AINSWORTH signed by 1,600 persons.
POOR-LAWS.

Mr. BANKES wished to ad:. the Right Hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary on what day it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to lay on the table of the House the Bill relative to
the settlement of the poor, and fur the other matters relative t
the alteration of the poor-laws, as embodied in the Ministerial
propositions ?
Sir R. PEEL— On Monday next.
THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Mr. AGLIONBY said he was sorry he did not see
the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary-at-War
in his place, because he had intended asking him a
question with respect to a paragraph which had ap-
peared in the United Service Gazette of the Sth instant,
to the effect that the 7th Dragoons had been ordered for Ire-
land. He had, however, seen the Right Hon. Gentleman on
the previous day, when he informed him (Mr. Aglionby)
that there was no truth in the paragraph in question. The
reason, therefore, why he spoke of the subject now, was to give
the public the earliest information of the inaccuracy of the
statement.