The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-29 00:00:00

I_MPEIZIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE 07 LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at the usual hour.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH laid on the table the
report and evidence on the Church-rate Committee.
THE PLEA OF GUILTY.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Law
Amendment Society, praying their lordships to pass a
of
bill
he introduced a few nights ago for the purpose
abolishing the plea of guilty or not guilty, and
providing that the judge at a criminal trial
should ask the prisoner, " Do you dz..: ire to be tzied or not."
The noble and learned lord then explaind a miEimrehen-
sion that had arisen with reference to the annual aadress he
had made at Bradford on the subject of bribery. Hie de-
liberate opinion was the same that it had ever been, viz.,
that it would never do to punish bllbery merely as a misde-
meanour, but that it must be der :t with as a felony, and
until it was so treated it would never be finally suppressed.
COMPANIES (1860) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION (INDIA)
BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
This blli was read a third time and passed.
OFFENCES IN IRELAND.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for a series
of returns relating to offences against the person, and the
rewards that had been given by Government for the ap-
prehension of criminals, from 1850 to 1860. The noble
lord entered at some length into the subject of crime in
Ireland, and said he was utterly at a loss to understand
how it was that in Ireland, where there was a constabulary
amounting to 12,000 and 72 magistrates, crime was so pre •

valent. -
The Duke of SOMERSET said if the noble lord would
slightly alter the terms of his motion there would be no ob-
jection to the returns moved for.
The required alteration was made, and the returns were
ordered.
EMIGRATION OF LABOURERS FROM INDIA
TO THE FRENCH COLONIES.
Lord HARRIS asked whether a treaty had been signed,
authorising the French Government to appoint emigration
agents in India for the purpose of procuring a supply of
agricultural labourers for their colonies.
Lord WODEHOUSE said that the treaty was Rot yet
signed, but was under the consideration of the foreign and
Indian departments. The utmost care would be taken to
protect the immigrants.
The Earl of DERBY said his noble friend had very
clearly stated the case in relation to the conditions under
which the emigration was proposed to take place from
India to the French colonies; and he might say the pro-
visions of the treaty were almost entirely the same as those
which the late Government adopted. He admitted that
her Majesty's Government were perfectly justified in en-
tering into this treaty, but it must be more carefully
watched in its operation. The noble lord made an allusion
to one point on which he (the Earl of Derby) should like
to have some explanation. He wished to know whether
there was any provision in the treaty in relation to the
slave trade traffic.
Lord WODEHOUSE explained that there was no pro-
vision in the treaty on the question of slavery, but there
was a distinct understanding between the two Covernments
of France and England that there was to be no traffic in
the slave trade. That subject had been under and received
the most anxious consideration of her Majesty's Govern-
ment.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH_said he had no doubt
that the Indian Council would have sufficient independ-
ence to give our subjects in India a protection beyond
what they had yet received.
The subject was then dropped.
The Probate and Administration (India) Bill was read a
second time ; and
The Court of Chancery Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

At the time of private business,
Colonel W. PATTEN drew the attention of the house
to the inconvenience and expense occasioned by
the non-attendance of members on committees on
private bills. The plan adopted was to appoint
these committees for such times as hon. gentlemen
might select as being most convenient for them to serve.
The committee on Group No. 1 of Private Bills was to have
assembled that morning, but Mr. J . P. Hennessy, mem-
ber for King's County, was absent ; the consequence was
that the party interested in one of the bah, of the group was
put to the expense of £3OO, and would perhaps have to pay
even a larger amount.
Mr. RIDLEY, chairman of the committee in question,
also commented on the hardship inflicted by the non-at-
tendaace of the hon. member on the committee.

Mr. BOUVERIE moved that the hon. member in ques-
tion be ordered to attend in his place on the committee to-
morrow morning. He thought that the house was entitled
to an explanation of his conduct from the hon. member.
After some conversation, in the course of which
Colonel W. PATTEN stated that Mr. Hennessy had
gone that day to Ireland, an amendment was moved to
the effect, that "attend this house" should be substituted
for attending the committee, which was agreed to, the ori-
ginal motion having been previously negatived.