The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-18 00:00:00

thrown the trussel over. On the way to the station-house
one of the policemen said that " it was a pity they did not
throw one of the - women over."

Mr. JARDINE said he would not decide the case at present,
as he was not sure under what Act he would adjudicate.
Under one clause of the Waterloo-bridge Act he could fine
them for the injury done to the trussel, but he would prefer
to treat it in another way. He must refer to the Thames
River Acts, in order to ascertain how it came under his juris-
diction as an offence against the safety of the public. I❑
order to refer to these Acts, he would remand the prisoners
till Tuesday next; but, in the meantime, he would admit
them to bail, in two sureties of 201. each, and their own re-
cognisances for 41.

The prisoner Ball inquired whether one surety would be
sufficient for him?

Mr. JA RD LN B —Yes ; if you can get one person t• be bound
for 50/.

We believe the necessary bail was obtained.
MAuLBOROUGII-STREET.

John Long, son of a former proprietor of Long's Hotel,
Bond-street, was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged
by Lord Lisburne with having annoyed him in the fol-
lowing manner

Lord Lisburne said he was at present residing at No.
30, :,cuto-o-street, and he had to complain of the de-
fendant, who brought a note to him, which he begged
to hand to the Bench.

The note appeared to contain a demand on Lord Lis-
burne for the payment of tavern hills, amounting to 621.
103., incurred by the late Lord Lisburne, at Long's; and
the note ended by the writer offering to get a person to
discount a bill for 2001. or 3001. at three months' date
for good interest. The note was signed, " Juhn Long,
No. 66, New Compton-street."
Mr. HARDWICK inquired if his Lordship knew any-
thing of the prisoner?
Lord Lisburne replied he had known the prisoner
some years ago as a waiter at Long's. The practice of
the defendant was to annoy him with applications when-
ever he came to town. The defendant would send him
a note, and continue to walk before the house or hotel at
which he was staying until his object was accomplished.
He (Lord Lisburne) had written to the defendant, say-
ing that the defendant had no claim on him; that it was
his father who had kept the hotel, and if his father had
any bill against the late Lord Lisburne he ought to have
proved his claim against the late Lord Lisburne's estate,
and shared the fate of the other creditors. The de-
fendant, however, would tot cease his importunities for
payment, and as this conduct has lasted for three years,
it had been found necessary to take the present step
against the defendant.
Mr. HARDWICK inquired if his Lordship had cautioned
the defendant against annoying him ? Lord Lisburne
said he had repeatedly received begging letters from the
defendant, and had often warned him to cease his system
of annoyance.
The defendant, when called upon to explain ids con-
duct, said—" With due submission to your Worship, I
only applied to his Lordship for payment of the balance
of tavern bills owing to my father by his Lordship's
father, principally for dinners of which his Lordship
there was in the habit of partaking. Lord Lisburne has
given me at times 11. and 21. in part payment of the
balance of 651. 10s., and has promised to pay the rest."
Lord Lisburne—l gave you the money, not as pay-
ment of the alleged debt, but as charity.
Defendant—Your Lordship stated, when I saw you
last, that you were very short of cash, but as soon
as you returned to the country you would send me
some money. Here are my sister and myself in a
state of great destitution, while there are noblemen
at this moment owing us thousands for bilis run up
at my father's hotel. I have never annoyed Lord
Lisburne in any way. I only asked him to pay for
dinners which he had a share of. I appeal to him as a
man, as a peer of the realm, as a man of honour, to say
whether he did not promise to send me some money
when he got into the country. There are thousands and
thousands of pounds owing to me and my sister, and yet
we are in a state of great privation.
Lord Lisburne—l do not owe you anything. You have
no claim on me; otherwise I would discharge it.
Mr. HARDWICK told the defendant if he had any legal
claim he must pursue it in a legal way. Unless the
defendant promised to cease his system of annoyance it
would be necessary to attend to the application of the
complainant.
The defendant said he would not apply to his Lord-
ship any more, he would trust to his Lordship's sense of
honour to pay him.
Lord Lisburne was satisfied with this promise, and the
defendant was liberated.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
(From the Times.)
We have now arrived at that period of the session
from which custom and opinion have hitherto dated the
commencement of real business. Up to this time of the
year it was formerly usual to indulge Hon. Members
with the prescriptive license of legislative idleness.
After Easter came the tussle and contest of the session.
Before this the light skirmishings of awkward questions,
and the showy feints of threatened motions, amused the
public and animated the House ; but the real conflict
did not begin till after the holidays. This practice has
been modified within the last few years. Last year, in-
deed, the principal measures of Government were as
good as settled before Easter. This year the most im-
portant commercial scheme of modern times has been
already twice fully and stoutly contested in the Lower
House; and another proposition of great moment has
received the sanction of the Lords. But here we stick.
Parliament re-assemblbs, and finds itself in the predi-
cament of the family coach in the Journey to London.
It is just passing the corner of Cut-throat-lane,
which typifies the Assassination Bill • the more
generous steeds, emblematical of the "Whigs, who
have been yoked with the heavier cattle, begin to turn
restiff ; the insides feel an unusual oscillation ; the par-
rot screams, the monkey scratches, and the flunkies
faint. How to get out and how to get on become ques-
tions of equal gravity. The leaders will shy at that
lane ; the wheelers can't drag the carriage without them.
If the coachman lashes the Flemish horses, the thorough-
breds rear ; if he coaxes the thoroughbreds, the heavy
cattle stand still. Meanwhile, night is coming on, and
the footman tells the coachman in confidence that there
is a fatality about that place, that the last man that got
fast there was stripped and turned loose, and that unless
they can get off before nightfal, they will be lost men.
Lash goes the whip, up rear the horses, down tumbles
the coach, and out fly monkey, parrot, and maid,
all jabbering, scratching, and screaming together. We
do not wish to institute a comparison between the
fate of the coach and that of the Ministry. At
the same time it will be within the recollection of
the world that less formidable matters than an Irish
Bill have upset a Cabinet before this. But unquestion-
ably there is a fatality about all Irish Bills, especially
those savouring of coercion. Our wonder is that any
Ministry has the courage to meddle with them. Where
a Government cannot import food without the imputa-
tion of importing poison, it seems unaccountable how it
should venture on the introduction of martial law ; but
perhaps it originally presumed upon the illogical cha-
racter of the people with whom it had to deal. But
whatever its designs or its notions may have been, the
consequences of them are serious enough. We are in for
a long debate on a Coercion Bill. Anybody who re-
members the debate on the Arms Bill knows what this
means. It means that, if it so please Messrs. O'Connell
and O'Brien, nothing whatever shall be done, spoken, or
thought of, from this time to the end of the session, ex-
cept the Coercion Bill—that corn, tariffs, church, edu-
cation, law, Oregon, India, shall all be in abeyance till
the end of August, if the Irish Bill is pressed by Minis-
ters. Now this is no joke. It is a serious calamity.
It affects every class, every interest, every trade,
every business. It condemns the life of the country
to a temporary paralysis. It disjoints and dis-
organises the whole mechanism of commerce ; it
blights speculation, cramps industry, destroys the hopes
and occupation of thousands. And all for what ? Who
are to blame for a threatened delay which, to our sor-
row and disgust, may be realised to-morrow ? The
Minister has, it is said, acted only according to prece-
dent in introducing the obnoxious measure. Whether
according to precedent or not, there are many who
affirm that the condition of Ireland left him no option
but that of taking the sense of the House on this ques-
tion. He could not, it is argued in justice to his own
character and the feelings of the country, have refused
or delayed to consult the House of Commons. If this
be so, the blame does not rest with the Cabinet or its
chief. But, if not there, where then ? There is but one
other party to the question—that is the Repeal party
in the House. Are its members answerable for the
perplexity and dismay which the postponement of the
commercial questions has produced and is producing ?
Clearly they are, if their opposition is irregular, un-
usual, and unnecessary. We do not of course call in
question the constitutional right to resist to the utter-
most any Bill on its first reading. But the exercise of a
constitutional privilege may degenerate into a most un-
constitutional tyranny. And the fact of its doing so
must be determined by the custom and law of Perlis.
mentary discussion. Now, we believe that it has always
been the admitted and undoubted rule to allow every
Bill of importance to pass through its first reading. This
stage is considered merely, a formal introduction to the
debate on the merits, which is reserved for the second
and third readings. This has been the case with, we
believe, every Bill of any consequence which has been
brought forward within the last ten years. Occiiio"ne
ally, indeed, individual Members have carried their ade
heion to a principle so far as to oppose a first reading
but there has not been an example of a party—except,
indeed, an Irish party—carrying their resistance so far.
And when we recollect how long debates on second and
third readings hare been, and how obstinately clauses
are generally and with perfect propriety contested in Com -
mittee, it seems but reasonable that no time should be
unnecessarily wasted on proceedings purely preliminary.
Moreover, every inducement to prompt and vigorous
action is now ten times increased by events, which one
would think can hardly be lost on the minds of the most
pertinacious in the minority. Already the distress be-
gins to be more severely felt, and the crimes which we
prophesies would accompany distress are committed;
Every day which is now frittered WI the hide stubborn
ness of discohtent is not only retarding the settlement of
this Irish question, but that still more momentous ques-
tion which affects the future supply of food to both
countries. As long as trade remains in an uneasy state,
and the admission of grain is only proportioned to a
temporary emergency, so long will the towns and dis-
tricts of Ireland be disgraced by the scenes which have
occurred in Tipperary and Clonmel. Whatever
good and solid objections Irish Members may bring
forward against the Coercion Bill, they may rest
assured of this, that they will not carry the
sympathy of this country with them, if their
opposition assume a character of factious fretfulness.
The English people and the English Legislature will be
alike disposed to give their most serious and attentive
reflection to any proposal which so intimately affects
the interests of their Irish fellow-subjects. A Coercion
Bill even for six counties only, as this is: intended to be,
will, in their minds involve all the princirdes which
would 1).1, ng to au enactment of a more comprehensive
kind; and will, therefore, not be hurried through the