The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YEsTERDAT).

The Lorin CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented petitions from Derby
and other places praying that church-rates might not be
abolished without an equivalent..
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition praying that
Dissenters might not be excluded from the ad-
ministration of trust funds of grammar schools.
The noble and learned lord said
taken he hoped and trusted that
measures would speedily be to allay the uneasiness
caused by the decision of the Lords Justices on the subject.
A brief conversation ensued, in which Lord Campbell,
Lord 'Wensleydale, and Lord Cranworth took part ; the
latter noble lord said if the decision of the Lords Justices
was correct, then legislation was absolutely necessary on
the subject.
VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this
bill. The noble and learned lord having stated the pre-
sent state of the law on the subject, said he thought it ex-
ceedingly unjust that a warrant should be obtained upon
an ex parte statement upon which any person might be put
upon his trial without the slightest notice. Persons might
also be indicted for conspiracy on the most frivolous grounds.
By his bill it was enacted that no person could prefer
a bill of :indictment for either perjury, conspiracy, or
obtaining money by false pretences until an investigation
had taken place before a magistrate. In the event of the
magistrate refusing to commit, he proposed
that the person bringing the accusation
should be empowered, after having obtained
the sanction of the Attorney or Solicitor-General to apply
to one of the judges of the superior courts, who might
order an indictment to be presented before the grand jury.
Lord WENSLEYDALE opposed the bill. He con-
sidered it both highly objectionable and unconstitutional.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he differed entirely
with his noble friend who had just sat down. He ap-
proved in every respect of the bill, which he hardly
thought went far enough. The length to which vexa-
tious indictments had reached loudly called for a
strong remedy. He could mention various instances—one
was the case of Mr. Mellish, another that of a French Ca-
nadian, who was indicted for keeping a gaming house, and
on the strength of an indictment was kept in prison
six months, but was afterwards relieved by an
order from the Court of Queen's Bench, and on an
inquiry being made into the circumstances of the case,
it was discovered that the names of the parties
on the back of the bill were altogether unknown
to the unfortunate person, so he had no remedy for the
grievous injury he had suffered. If the bill of the noble
lord had been in force at the time no such unjust proceeding
would have been instituted.
Lord CRANWORTH concurred with his noble and
learned friend that the examination before the magistrate
was quite sufficient in the metropolitan districts without the
intervention of the grand jury , but he was not prepared to
say that the grand jury was not necessary in distant parts
of the country, where the magistrates were not always per-
sons of legal education and legal knowledge, and where the
examinations were not always carried on with the same
publicity as in the metropolis.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that if a public prosecu-
tor formed part of our criminal system, the grand jury
would not only be unnecessary but mischievous.
After a few words from Lord WENSLEYDALE and Lord
CAMPBELL, the bill was read a second time.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Sunderland Dock (No. 2) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.

LIVERPOOL DOCKS, &c., BILL.
Mr. HORSFALL moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HEADLAM said that the object of the bill was to
make the merchants and shipowners pay a tax for the bene-
fit of the rate-payers of Liverpool. He moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. EWART thought that the bill should be read a
second time, and that anyopposition to it should be reserved
until they were called on to decide on the details in com-
mittee.

Mr. SAMUELSON supported the second reading of the
bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that this subject had been in-
vestigated before a select committee, and it had been
decided by Lord Tenterden that the trustees of dock
property had no right to be rated, because they
had no beneficial occupation in property of this
description. It was proposed to introduce a bill to invert
the law on this subject, and he thought that until the gene-
ral question was decided they should not concede a special
exemption to these docks. He trusted, therefore, that the
bill would be withdrawn. •
Sir S. NORTHCOTE agreed with the right hon.
baronet (Sir J. Graham) and hoped that the bill would
not be pressed.
Mr. FENTON supported the second reading.
Mr. TURNER, in seconding the amendment, said the
object of the bill was to make shipowners pay one-third of
the rates of Liverpool, and that it should never have been
introduced.

After a few words from Mr. HORSFALL,
Mr. W. BROWN supported the amendment.
The motion for the second reading was negatived withoni
a division.