The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-16 00:00:00

NORFOLK ASSIZES BILL.

This Rill went through a Committee, and the third read-
ing was ordered on Monday next.
EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On its being moved that the House resolve itself into
Committee on this Bill,
The Duke of BUCCLEU CH opposed the motion, and
deprecated the abolition of the Court.

The Earl of CANIPERDOWN declared his intention
to support the original motion, on the ground that the
want of business in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland
was quite notorious to every resident in that country.
The Eirl of HADDINGTON supported the amendment
of the Noble Duke, on the ground that further inquiry was
necessary. No judge of the Court of Session had been
called in, to state whether the business of the Court of
Session was such as to allow one of its judges to be de-
tached to perform the duties of another court.
The Earl of ROSEBERY supported the original mo-
tion, on the ground that public economy constituted the
principle of the bill. He thought the measure urgently
called for by the circumstances of the case, and con-
ceived that it had undergone sufficient preparatory inns.
tig ation.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the inquiry, as
far as it went, led him to believe that the Court of Exche-
quer ought not to be abolished. The authority of the
late Chief Baron Shepherd was positively in favour of its
being maintained. It was true that the respectable per-
son who now presided in the court held that it might with
propriety be abolished ; but it appeared to him that greater
weight should be attached to the judgment of one who bad
occupied the highest station in the court for 11 years, and
who could have no interest in the question. He denied
that there was any public principle involged in the Bill ;
and were they, he asked, to deprive his Majesty of the
power of trying his causes in Scotland, because it might
suit the convenience of the present Chief Baron to retire
on a pension ? There should, he maintained, be full and
fair inquiry ; and if it were found that it was not a fit
court to maintain, then let it be abolished at once.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would offer one or two
remarks as to what had fallen from the Noble Duke who
had just sat down. He begged to state that there was
nothing peculiar in the Bill, as regarded the discretion of
the members of the Court. The Noble Duke had him-
self brought in a Bill for reducing the number of Judges
in the Court of Exchequer, which measure was salutary
as far as it went. The principle of the present Bill
was, that whatever might be the number of Judges, they
were wholly unnecessary for the exercise of any functions
that appertained to them, whether ministerial or judicial.
How, then, were they to get rid of a sinecure court, ex-
cept by discontinuing appointments when the Judges died
or resigned ? It was, he conceived, better to settle the
matter by legislation, than leave it to the chance of that
importunity on the score of faithful services to which
every Government was subjected by its adherents. The
bill made provision for doing the business of the court,
such as it was. The present Chief Baron could have no
interest in the measure; and if he retired on its being
passed, he (the Lord Chancellor) should look upon it as
the greatest possible proof of the irksomeness of the situa-
tion in which be felt himself placed, when receiving a large
salary for a high office to which there belonged little or no
official business. With regard to the opinion of Sir
Samuel Shepherd, he entertained great respect for it ; but
it had been committed upon this question,—the late Chief
Baron having, some years ago, expressed himself as
strongly against any reduction in the number of judges, as
he did against the measure now before their Lordships.
After a few words in explanation from the Duke of
WELLINGTON,
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.
The clauses were agreed to, the House resumed, and the
Report was received.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH gave notice that he would
move an amendment on the third reading.
On the motion of the same Noble Duke, various re-
turns connected with the Court of Exchequer, were or-
dered to be produced.
The Earl of GUSFORD presented a petition praying
for the abolition of the punishment of death in the case of
forgery. —Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 15.
aThe Bill fQr establishiug a WO Duck ea the porth lido

of the 'Wear, in the port of Sunderland, was read a third
time and passed.
Mr. HODGSON brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Denbans Church Bill.

Lord CLIVE presented_ a petition from the Countess of
B: idgeweer.
Lord Bitowtanav and the Earl of SOUTHAMPTON com-
plained of the decisian of the Committee on some
parts of the Birmingham and London Railway Bill, and
presented a petition raying for the appointment of a com-
mittee of appeal.

The petition was ordered to be printed and to he taken
into consideration en Monday next.
On the motion of Lord STAN LEY, the amendments of
the Lords on the Chorlton-row Improvement Bill were
read a resod time.

Mr. PORTMAN brettgla up the report of the Select
Committee on the general Highway Hill, which was or-
dered ro, be printed and to be taken into consideration (,n
Monday next,

Mr. WRANGHAM presented a petition from
the Ear! of Stirling, who set forth certain charters
ftia favour, and prayed to be heard against the forma-
tion of the Canada Company, which would be an en-
croachment neon his private rights.
After a few observations from Mr. HuNT and the
SPEAKER, the petitio❑ was ordered to be printed.
Lord OXMANTOWN presented a petition from the
High Sheriff and Grand Jury of King's County, praying
the House to adopt some extraordinary measure to meet
the alarming increase of crime. He also presented two
petitions from parishes in Wexford and the King's County,
praying that the punishment of death in cases of forgery
might be abolished.

Mr. WYSE presented several petitions from Tipperary,
Clonmel and Galway, in favour of a more extended mea-
ettre than that now before the House ; also several peti-
tions praying for the abolition of tithes.

The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from
a town in Tipperary, against the punishment of death in
cases of forgery.
Mr. BRISCOE hoped the day was not far distant when
the law for the punishment of death in cases of forgery
would be blotted out of the Statute-book.
Sir H. BUNBURY presented a petition from Bury St.
Edmunds for a modification of the Penal Code.

Lord INIORPETH presented a petition from Knares.
borough, praying that that place might be substituted
for Ripley, in taking the poll at elections.
Mr. KENNEDY presented two petitions from the
Provost and Magistrates of Ayr, in favour of Reform.
Also, a petition from Kilmarnock, praying that no al-
teration might be made in the Scotch Reform Bill, as far
as regarded their interests.

Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the clergy
and presbytery of Dalkeith against the ministerial plan of
education in Ireland. Also, a petition from the free-
holders of Linlithgow, praying for compensation for the
loss of their elective franchise.

Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from a person in
Shrewsbury, praying for the consolidation of the Assessed
Taxes. The Hon. Member also gave notice of a motion
for the 16th of June for the improvement of the condition
of the working classes in large towns.
Mr. HUNT gave notice of his intention to present a
petition from Nottingham, complaining of the conduct of
the gaoler, on Monday next.
_ _

Sir CHARLES *ETHERELL moved for certain re-
turns relative to fire insurances.—Ordered.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to present two petitions from
the Councils of Political Unions,—but, being only signed
by the Chairman and Secretary, they were objected to by
the Speaker, and the Learned Gentleman withdrew them.
Mr. HUNT gild, that in consequence of what had
taken place while he was in tile country, he would renew
his motion for the 26th June, for the abolition of the Corn
Laws, He saw by the papers that the Noble Lord (Milton)
11 ad come to some arrangement with the House, by which his
motion was postponed. He expected something of that
sort would take place, and therefore he had given his
notice, which, through some mistake, had been taken out
of the book ; he begged that it might be replaced in its
original position.

Mr. O'CONNELL, seeing the Hon. Member the Un-
der-Secretary for the Home Department in his place, begged
to draw his attention to a statement contained in the
Morning Herald. It purported to be a report of proceed-
ings that took place at Hatton-garden Police Office, and he
would say that, if true, it was a most gross piece of bar-
barity, both on the part of the police and the Magistrate.
It was the case of a poor woman who was selling
a few nuts on the street, when she was attacked by a
policeman—her basket and goods thrown about on the
street, and herself struck and abused, and afterwards
taken before a Magistrate, who fined her—a poor
woman who was only endeavouring to maintain her
sick husband and four children in an honest manner. It
further appeared, that when before the Magistrate, a wit-
ness came forward in her behalf, who was grossly insulted by
him. He did not see that it was proper for any Magistrate
so to act. He wished to bring the case under the notice
of the Government, and if he did not receive some satis-
factory explanation he would feel it his duty to bring it
formally before the House.
Mr. LAMB had seen the statement alluded to by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but it was very much
exaggerated in the papers, and he was sorry to see that
many of the newspapers lent themselves to make gross
charges against the police force. The facts of the
case, as reported to him were these :—Hatton-garden
was very peculiarly situated, being the boundary between
the City and Westminster, and there a great many persons
of the same class as this woman were in the
habit of vending their fruit, &c. which was much
complained of by the inhabitants ; and it was
not till after repeated complaints were made, that the
Magistrates gave orders that the police should put a stop
to them, and clear the place. He was quite ready to
admit that this was a law which ought not to
be enforced with rigour, but the complaints were so nu-
merous that it was absolutely necessary that the police should
interfere in this instance. The woman. with many other
persons of her sort, was selling her nuts there that day.
It was said by Mr. Lewin, who had come forward
in her behalf, that the policeman ought to have
told her to go away; but the fact was, that on
two different occasions on that same day, he had done so,
and on returning a third time, in place of going away
peaceably, she struck the policeman before he in-
terfered at all. The Newspapers omitted one very
important fact, namely, that a very respectable work-
ing man came forward, quite unsolicited, and on
his oath stated that the policeman bad acted
with the greatest propriety. The language put into the
Magistrate's mouth was much exaggerated, but he (Mr.
L.) had no hesitation in saying that he had used words
which he would much rather he had not used, and which
were disgraceful from the Bench. He had fined the woman,
but, on a little reflection, had discharged her.
Mr. O'CONNELL was glad to hear the latter words of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, and hoped they would be con-
veyed to the Magistrate.
Sir E. SUGDEN regretted the harshness of the law,
but Magistrates and the police were obliged to do their
duty. It was very advisable however that that duty
should be performed in as mild a manner as possible.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it a great protection to the
poor and to the public generally, that the newspapers gave
such reports.
Mr. HUNT complained that such reports were very
partial, and much to be blamed.
Lord ALTHORP moved the Order of the Day for the
House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Scotch
Reform Bill.
Before the question was put,

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET inquired what had
become of the Bill which several months ago had passed
that House, and which, referring to the supervision of
Asylums, had been sent to the other House of Parliament?
Mr. LAMB would be sorry if the Bill referred to fell
through ; but although it was not a Government Bill, be
would make inquiry after it.
The SPEAKER then put the motion, and
Mr. PRINGLE rose to bring forward his proposition,
that the classification of the Scotch Burghs be referred to
a Select Committee.
Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that the question
would be much better settled by a Committee of the whole
House than by a Select Committee. The main principle
had been to disturb the present distribution of Scotch
burghs as little as possible; and it would be far better for
those Hon. Members who had any objections to the mode
of distribution proposed to be adopted, to make those ob-
jections when the question came regularly before the
House.
The motion was then negatived without a division ; and
the House resolved itself into Committee on the