The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-14 00:00:00

ALE HOUSES LICENSING BILL.

Lord RAVENS WORTH moved the second reading
of this ball, which was to alter the present mode of
granting licenses to housea for the sale of ale and beer.
Lord WENSLEYDALE objected to the bill,and moved
that it be read a second time that day six months. He
thought the tribunal it proposed to establish, for the
granting and supervision of licenses, would not be as
efficient as that already in existence.

The bill was understood to be read a second time.
IRISH REPRESENTATIVE PEERS BILL.

Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading
of this bill, which was to place Irish peers upon the same
footingasScotch peers.

Tue bill was read a second time.
CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second
reading of this bill, which was to give the creditors
of an insolvent joint-stock company power to
take proper steps against those who were liable
to pay for the purpose of creating a common fund out of
which the creditors might be paid in full, provided there
was a sum raised sufficitnt to do so. If not, then the
debts were to be paid off proportionably.
[LEFT BITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This Day.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented by Mr. Gladstone and
other hon. members against the Marriage and Divorce
; against the Paper Duty ; against the proposed
Toll on Chelsea new Bridge.
GRAND JURIES (METROPOLITAN POLICE
DISTRICT) BILL.

The house went into committee on this Lill.
Mr. BOWYER moved that the chairman do leave the
chair. He made the motion because the bill proposed to
abrogate a part of the British constitution. Any defects in
the working of the present system should be remedied and
not destroyed, as was proposed by this bill. He was
surprised to find a bill of this kind emanating from the
quarter it had, and ho expressed an opinion that the
hon. and Lamed gentleman now regretted what he had
done. Of all places London was the 1 tst where the
provisions of such a bid should be applied, from the pro-
bability of political oases arising inwhich the intervention of
juries was valuable with reference to the rig htsani liberties
of the people. The hon. and learnedgentleman referred to
Blackstone, relative to juries, and said that if he were
alive, and in that house, there is very little doubt what
course he would take with reference to this bill. This
inconvenience, which individuals suffered in serving on
grand juries, or in having to go before them, ought not
us be considered in a case of this kind, and made
an excuse for introducing the thin edge of the
wedge (if not the thick end alie) for the destrue-
tiou of this valuable inetitutioa. The hon. and leaved
gentleman then referred to many of the provisions of the
bill, and said that much inconvenience would arise under
it as at present exieted, and he contended that the present
grand jury syStem could be improved so as to meet the
requirements of the age. He considered it was import.
ant, especially in London, that the grand jury system
should be continued, because it familiarised and identi-
fied the trading classes with the administration of the
ceiminal law of the country, and it also protected the
liberties of the subject, especially in political charges
fie considered the bill fraught with so much danger to
society and the con‘titution of the country, that he
could not coneent to its proceeding further this session.
Sir F. THESIGER, complained of the course now
taken, because when he introduced the bill on a fresh
explanation of its details no objections were raised to it.
It also passed a eecond reading without opposition to its
pi4eaciple, and the first time he received any intimation
of opposition to its details was on the night when the
committee was named. The hon. and learned gentle-
man stated that he did not regret the introduction of
the bill, and he assured the house that he had intro-
duced it from a belief that the change he
proposed was necessary. Evidence of the greatest im-
portance was given on the subject before the Statute
Law Commission, and before a committee of that house,
relative to the abolition of grand juries in the metro-
polit police district, and it was on the recommenda-
tion of the commission and the committee that he had
biped this measure, which bad received the sanction of
the Government. The hon. and learned gentleman
then entered into the constitution of grand juries, and
the necessity that now dieted for their abolition, in the
course of which he used the same arguments he did on
the introduction of the bill, and also oa its second
reading.

AYRTON supported the motion. He com-
plained of the second reading of the bill coming on so
late on a former night as to preclude discussion, and he
claimed the right of considering and commenting on the
principle and details of the bill at any stage. He re-
ferred to the house going into committee on the bill,
and passing the first and most important clause.on a
former night, at a time when hon. members ought to
have been in their beds. The hon. and learned member
contended that the continuance of the present system
was essential for the maintenance of the rights
and liberties of the people, especially in politi-
cal cases. The people ought not to be at the
absolute discretion of the stipendiary magis-
trates and the police, who might readily be made
tools of oppression. He complained of the reckless and
insulting nature of this bill towards the inhabitants of
the metropolis, and he quoted, in illustration, the clause
giving power to the Attorney-General to indict a person
for an indictable offence on information filed under the
act without previous inquiry or an oath or affidavit, and
to keep a man in prix, n at his pleasure by depriving
him of the right of applying for a writ of habeas corpus.
It was dangerous to trifle with 2.1 millions of people in
this manner, and be called on the house to peremptorily
refuse its assent to the measure. He called on the house
to amend the defects of the present system, and not de-
stroy it.
Mr. M'MAHON said that the bill was based upon the
supposition that there were stipendiary magistrates—
men of legal attainments—within the Central Criminal
Coot t district, whose duty it was to investigate criminal
cases, and who might safely be lelt to discharge thefunc-
tions of grand jurors, but hon. members appeared to
forget that in the City of London there were no stipen-
diary magistrates, lint men connected with business who
discharged magisterial functions ; and he asked wby the
aldermen of London should possess greater magiste-
rial powers than the county gentlemen outside the
Central Criminal Court district. He condemned the
principle of the bill, as dangerous to public liberty,
and said that the present system in England wAs
as near to perfection as it could well be, and
he called on the house to preserve it. He sug-
gested that the bill should be postponed till next session.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS suppurted the continuance of
the grand jury system. He considered that a bill of this
kind should be brought in under tne responsibility of
Government, and not that of a private member. He
should oppose the bill.
Mr. COBBETr opposed the bill from its mischievous
tendency. Tne objections to the grand jury system in
the metropolitan district applied with greater force to
the country districts, and he looked upon this bill as in-
troducing the thin end of the wedge to destroy an insti-
tion that had been found to protect the rights and liber-
ties of the people. He objected to the power proposed
by the bill to be given to stipendiary magistrates, whom
Mr. Arnold had described in a pamphlet as a " depend-
ent body," in connection with the Home Secretary.
The hon. gentleman defended the present grand jury
system, and said that he cordially agreed with Mr. Jus-
tice WTes's recent remarks, from the bench, in faveur
of its continuance.
Mr. 31. T. 13AINES said that he thought the bill a
very good one in principle, and many of the objections
raised against it might be remedied by the committee.
Ile did not believe it would have the effect of subvert,

ing the grand jury system throughout the country. He
hoped the consideration of the cruses would be. allowed
to be proceeded %ith.

Mr; J. LOCK E (Southvrark), opposed the bill.
Mr. BRISCOE considered the arguments against the
hi!! irrepistible.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that the object
of the bill was to provide that where a case had under-
gone the most perfect preliminary investigation, there
should be no further delay by referring it to a grand
jury, and he thought that that principle would be pro-
ductive of great advantage.
Mr. HENLEY disliked the measure, and he had
heard nothing tl disabuse his mind that if it were
adopted for the metropolitan district it would not be ex-
tended to the whole of the country. He was unwilling
to see the grand jury system abolished.
The nornmit'ee then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion...
Against it
Majority

On the mntion that clause I stand part of the bill,
Mr. M‘MAHON said that by the clause as it stood
no grand jury could hereafter be assembled in the Cen-
tral Criminal Court.

A lengthened discussion ensued, which lasted till 10
minutes to 4 o'clock, when, by the forms of the house,
the Chairman reported progress.
APPREHENSION OF TREDRE—LAMBETH