The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

SCOTCH ENTAIL.

The Earl of ROSEBERY rose to call the attention
of the House to the law of Scotch Entail. The Com-
mittee upon the subject considered, and he concurred
with them, that some material alteration in the law of entail was
necessary ; he hoped means would be found to render the change
beneficial. He also concurred in the general opinion of the
Committee, that in any future measure for altering the law of
Entail, care should be taken to avoid those objections to which
the people of England considered the measure of last year
liable. He Would take notice of two points in the report of the
Committee, one of them of a legal description, and the other of a
general character. The point having reference to the legal part
of the subject was that to which the Lords of Session made
strong strictures on the operation of those Bills by
the endeavour to assimilate the law of Scotland to that
of England upon this subject. His next observation re-
ferred to a part of more general importance, and he there-
fore felt less diffidence in offering a few remarks upon it. The
last paragraph of the Report of the Lords of Sesssion stated
that besides the various objections to which the bills of last
session were liable in a legal point of view, they conceived
that if power was intended to be given for the sale of a certain
proportion of landed property, and such power were
passed into law, that the consequences would be ex-
tremely if not dangerously detrimental to the com-
munity, because it would occasion a glut in all the
markets, and would depreciate the value of all landed
property.—(Hear.) This involved a principle which was
never proposed to be acted upon in that House, and
which, he hoped, the Parliament would never think
it right to consider in the passing of any measure.—( Hear,
hear.) It appeared to be put forward as a reason for
restricting the sale of landed property, entailed for the
purpose of creating a monopoly of land in a few hands,
with the object of artificially raising the price of land, and
preventing the natural effect of circumstances in lowering it.
His hope all along had been that the question would have
been taken up by the Government, or some high ju-
dicial officer, for he could not possibly hope that it
could be successfully carried into effect by any one
in the private situation he held. The Government, however,
were so much pressed by other and more important business,
that they could not be expected to take it up during the present
session. The course, then, that he intended to take was,
if he was favoured with the counsel and aid of the judicial
authorities to whom he had alluded, he would, before the next
session of Parliament, attempt to remodify the Bill, in order to
avoid the objections made by the report of the Lords of
Session.—( Hear, hear.) Unless the Bill contained three
principles, to which he attached much importance, he
would be obliged to refrain from any connection with
it—those three were first—that after the bill had become
law, there should be an end put to the making of any
further perpetuities in Scotland; secondly, that the heirs
in possession should have enlarged powers given them, in
order to effect the exchange of lands ; and thirdly, that
the heirs in possession should have power to sell such
portion of their lands as might be fixed by Parliament. Those
principles were considered to be of so much importance to the
improvement of the law in Scotland, that unless he could see
there was a probability of their being carried into effect, he
trusted that the House would not charge him with any dereliction
of duty, if he abstained from introducing any measure upon
the subject. The Noble Lord concluded by thanking the
House for the attention with which they had heard him.
Lord BROUGHAM entirely approved of the state-
ments that had been made by his Noble Friend. The
question was certainly one of great difficulty, but he
thought that his Noble Friend would be able to effect
his way through it, and by that means considerably relax the
law of entail in Scotland, the rigour of which had reduced
many persons, who had hitherto moved in a high
sphere of life to comparative beggary. He trusted his Noble
Friend would not be discouraged. He could assure him he
should have his best assistance to perfect a measure that would
be productive of so much good.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Lord G. SOMERSET and others from the Commons, brought
up the Great Western Railway Bill.
LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY BILL.
Captain ALLSAGER brought up the London and Croydon
Railway Bill, with the Lords' amendments agreed to.
The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from Lau-
reneekirk for protection to the Scotch Church.
The House then adjourned to Monday at ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. MAY 2i'.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the unusually early hour
of two o'clock, for the purpose of getting through the great
mass of private business. The House having been counted
out last night, it was necessary that it should be counted, and
that 40 Members should be present to constitute a House ;
there were only about 30 Members present when the Speaker
commenced counting, and but for the sudden irruption of se-
veral Members from Committees, which excited some laugh-
ter, the House must again have stood adjourned.
COMMITTEES.
It was moved and agreed to, that notwithstanding the sitting
of the House at this early hour, the Committees should have
leave to sit till four o'clock.
DUTY UPON LIME.

Mr. NV. L. CHARLTON presented a petition from Lud-
low, in Salop, praying that when lime is carried for the pur-
poses of improving the cultivation of the land, it shall be con-
sidered as manure, and shall be exempt from toll, unless the
mortgagee or mortgagees of the tolls shall object to the same,
after having being first duly informed thereof by the Clerk to
the Commissioners, and tbat any evasion or fraud—that is by

the use of lime for any other purpose, after it has been so ex-
empted from toll—shall be punished by fine or imprisonment.
DORCHESTER UNIONS. ,

Mr. WA KLEY had to present sixteen petitions, praying
that the House would call upon the Throne to interfere on
behalf of the Dorchester labourers. Eight of these petitions were
from Dorchester, from the friends and neighbours of those men
who were transported, and the other eight were from Ipswich,
Rochester, Norwich, and one from Stoke-upon-Trent signed by
13,448 of the inhabitants. The petitioners considered in the first
place, that these men were improperly prosecuted, and in
the second place that if the prosecutions were just, the sen-
tence was most severe and uncalled for. Considering all the
circumstances of the case, the Hon. Member contended
that these unfortunate men had been convicted under a law of
which they were entirely ignorant, and that they merely fol-
lowed the example set in London and other places, viz., of
combining together for the purpose of obtaining such wages as
would enable them to support themselves, their wives and fa-
milies. The relatives of these men, thus, if not illegally,
certainly cruelly punished, had been pursued by the same
feelings of ill-will and oppression. One of them—a woman
who had amongst those who were transported, two brothers,
a husband, and a son—after these men left England, she ap-
plied to the overseers for relief. The overseers said "No ;
we will give you no relief. You have another son left, and
he has six shillings a week, which is quite sufficient for his
and your support." He hoped the House would interpose its
privilege of addressing the Crown upon this case. The pro-
ceedings against these men had caused the greatest uneasines
and agitation amongst the labouring classes. ;Ley lett that
if these persons were not protected by being brought back to
England, they could not expect protection under the existing
law—as they felt that they were not represented in that House,
the suffrages being confined to householders. He considered
it the duty of that House to interpose for the purpose of
bringing the men back to England—till then the working
classes would not be satisfied, nor could the law be vindicated
in the eyes of the people. He was sure that when he brought
the case fully before the House, he would be able to convince
them that the whole proceeding was illegal. He, however,
hoped that he would not be placed under the necessity of
bringing the subject before the House on the 25th of June, but
that his Majesty's Ministers would be induced to take the case
under consideration, as he was satisfied from their feelings
of justice and humanity, that they would not allow these un-
fortunate men to suffer the penalties of a crime, of which, if
guilty at all, they were unintentionally guilty.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, pre-
sented similar petitions from two places in the county of Dorset.
Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition from Ashton-under
Lyne to the same effect, signed by 3,209 persons, and another
from Warrington signed by 2,698 operatives.
Mr. HODGES presented a similar petition from the parish
of St. Andrew, Holborn, and its neighbourhood, very nume-
rously signed.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from the stone
masons of the metropolis, praying a remission of the sentence
passed upon the Dorchester labourers.