The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 14.
PREVENTION OF OFFENCES BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of the
Prevention of Offences Bill, called the attention of their
Lordships to the many cases of burglary, accompanied with
acts of violence. which had taken place in various parts of
the country. There was a class of delinquents who were in
the habit of breaking into dwelling houses during the night,
especially into those situated in lonely places, using all kinds
of violence to effect their purpose, and plundering them of
money, plate, and such other articles as it was found most
convenient to carry away. Some of the band engaged in
such outrages were then sent to dispose of the plate and
other articles stolen, and on a subsequent day they met and
divided the proceeds of the booty. These persons, he might
also observe, had hiding places, where they thought they
were secure in setting the law at defiance. Now, it was in-
dispensably necessary for the security of her Majesty's sub-
jects that some measure should be taken to prevent the oc-
currence of such outrages. Prevention was better than cure.
As the law now stood, if a man was taken up with picklocks
and other instruments of housebreaking, he could not be
punished, but he proposed to enact that in cases where such
articles were found on a auspicious person, and where
there was reasonable ground to believe that they were in-
tended to be used for purposes of housebreaking, such per-
son should be liable to be punished, and on a second convic-
tion to be transported beyond seas. He believed that such
an enactment would have a most material effect in preventing
the use of such articles IT this class of persons. The
most material clause in the Bill, however related to ths nee
of chloroform for the purposes of robbery. A most respect-
able physician had done him (Lord Campbell) the honour to
write him a letter, which he had printed, and there he stated
that the fear arising from the use of chloroform in this way
was altogether imaginary—that no strong man who made re-
sistanca could possibly be chloroformed. He believed that
was true; but in the case of those who were not strong, and
un .ble to resist, it might happen to many of that class that
chloroform would be employed most effectively for facilitat•
ing robbery. The gentleman to waose letter he had referred
stated that a person thus attacked might refuse to breathe,
and that he might turn away his head. But, suppose a wet
handkerchief was put to his nostrils, and held there, the man
must breathe, and thus inhale the par. icular gas that came
from the chloroform. It stood, indeed, on record that since
the discoverylf chloroform persons had been convicted be-
fore the competent courts of using that article for the pur-
pose of robbery.—(Hear, hear,) He hoped, therefore, their
Lordships would be of opinion that those who made such
an attempt should not be guilty of a misdemeanour only,
as was at present the case; but that any pers ,n who tried
to commit a robbery by means of cholorform, or such like
substances, though ti s did not succeed, should, if c nvicted,
be held guilty of felony, and liable ti be transported beyond
the seas. Hear, hear. ) The Noble an 1 Learned Lord then
moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The Bill was read a second time a' cordingly.
PASSE GERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Cs the question that the repot on this Bill be received,
The Earl • f MOUNTCASHELL p oposed a clause to the
effect that a return should be made annually to Parliament
of the name, &c., of every person convicted under the Pas-
sengecrAs
Such a returnandandoft
wouldhec have re uhinsetatuh ee effesaetett ofendinge
such ainducingach
greater care and caution on the part of the masters of emi-
s
g ant-ves els, while it would act as a stimulus to agent
and others to employ gre der precautions ag-dast losses at
sea before vessels lett the h,rbour.
Earl GREY opposed the clause. The Noble Earl pro-
poseiL that returns should be ma le annually to that House
of the name and all the circumstances connected with eve y
conviction, n t only in the Un•ted King& in, but throughout
the colonies. Nothing could be more inconvenient than to
requ ra by Act of • ornament a return of this kind. He
might not «bject to such a return for a single year in o• der
to show the working of the measure, but such a return
would, he ventured to say, be not only useless but an abuse
of the powers of legislation.
The Earl of MOUNTCASUELL, notwithstanding what
had fallen from the noble Earl, was satisfied that the
clause which he proposed would be one of the most eflica-
ciou, in the Bill.
The gallery was then cleared for a division but none took
place.
The clause proposed by the Earl of Mountcashell was ne-
gatived, and the Bill reported.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 14.
NEW MINISTERIAL DIFFICULTIES.

Mr. PLUMPTRE wished to know whether it was
the intention of the Governznont to proceed with the
estimates on Monday?

Loid JOHN RUSSELL replied that if the debate
on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was not concluded this
evening, he would propose to go on with it on Monday
next, He would take this opportunity of making a state-
ment to the House with regard to the notice which had
been given, that on Friday next his Right Hon. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exch( quer would state what altera-
tions he would make in his proposed financial arrange-
ments for the year. Since then, namely on Tuesday
last, the Honourable Member for Inverness-shire gave
notice of a vote of censure on the Government
with regard to their administration of the affairs
of Ceylon, and, therefore, he proposed to postpone that
financial statement until Monday week. Ile wished to
state to the House, that as a vote of censure against the
Government was now pending, he hoped Hon. Members
who had notices of motion for that day, viz , the 25th,
would give way in order that a question so directly af-
fecting the fate of the Government should bed rought to
as speedy an issue as possible.—(Hear,ar.) He
would likewise say that he did not think it was right
while a vote of censure was hanging over ,the heads of
the Government to propose the financial arrangements of
the year—(Laughter and cheers)—and, therefore, he
certainly proposed to wait until it was decided whether
they, or any future Government, should bring forward the
financial arrangements of the year; and he trusted his
Noble Friend opposite, the Member for Bath, whose
motion stood first on the paper of that day, and the
Hon. Member for Montrose, who also had a motion,
would give way, in order to allow the motion for a vote
of censure to come on on the day fixed for it.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHLEY was understood to give his assent.
In reply to Sir R. H. INGLIS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would proceed with the
Jewish lli.mbilitEies Bill on the earliest day possible.
Mr. MOOR deprecated the course suggested by the
Noble Lord, of postponing so many measures of finance,
taxation, and other measures of great public importance;
which ought to be considered with great deliberation,