The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-09 00:00:00

DISEASED SHEEP.

The NOBLE DUKE wished to draw the atten-
tion of the Government bo the fact that certain
foreign sheep affected with small-pox had been
seized ; some had been killed and others sold
to defray the expenses. The case was reported in
the newspapers as having been brought under the
attention of the City authorities at the Mansion-house.
Ile should after Easter move for the appointment of a
Select Committee to consider the operation of the law
permitting the importation of sheep and cattle.
BANKRUPTCY CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM postponed the second reading of
this Bill for six weeks, as he intended to introduce some
alterations in it.

EDUCATION.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE drew the atten-
tion of the House to a letter which he had received from
the Hon.. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Talbot) in rela-
tion to the charges of misstatement which he had
brought against the speakers at the meeting. One of
those misstatements was that not a shilling of the public
money was given to any school unless it adopted the
clauses imposed by the Privy Council. As an answer to
the misstatement he now laid on the table returns which
would prove that misstatement. He did not impute to the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he bad wilfully mis-
represented, but that he had been misinformed; and in
reply he laid on the table a list of between 400 and 500
Church of England schools which had received assist-
ance without subscribing to these clauses.
Lord STANLEY regretted that the Noble Marquis
bad not communicated to his Hon. and Learned Friend
his intention of placing these papers on the table. lle
nnderstod that the cause of complaint on the part of
the clergy of the Church of England was, that at pre-
sent no schools could receive assistance without accept-
ing those clauses. Possibly that was what his Hon.
and Learned Friend had stated, and he might have been
misreported.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that those
schools were receiving, and would continue to receive,
assistance for any purpose except for building, but the
statement was that it had not received a shilling
of public money fur any purpose whatever, and that
statement he denied, and the returns proved that those
statements were.unfouuded. With regard to misreport-
ing, all the reports in all the papers ascribed the same
language to the lion. and Learned Gentleman.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (rRELAND) BILL.
_ _ _ . _ _ _

On the order of the day for the third mailing of this
Bill beim.. moved,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII moved certain verbal
amendments in various clauses, for the purpose of leav-
ing it optional with the magistrate to declare meetings
and processions unlawful, as it was already left optional
to him to interfere by force to disperse the meeting.
The LORD , CHANCELLOR objected to the pro-
posed alteration. It was lett optional to the magis-
trate whether or not he should interfere by force to dis-
perse the meeting, because perhaps he might not have
the means; but when once the meeting was declared
unlar.ful those present were under an obligation to dis-
perse, and if they refused they might afterwards be pro-
secuted and punished.
Lord STANLEY objected to the wording of the Bill
as most ambiguous and calculated to mislead the magis-
t rates.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the Bill was verbatim et
hteratim the same as the Bill Ns hich had been introduced
by the Noble Lord himself when he was Secretary for
Ireland, and which had been the law of the land for
many a long year.
After a short conversation some of the amendments

were agreed to.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that he had come down to
support the Duke of Wellington's amendment with re-
gard to the prohibition of carrying arms, but as he had
been given to understand that the introduction of such
an amendment would delej the passing of the measure
until after the 17th of March, the great Ribbon anniver-
sary, he begged to suggest to the Noble Duke that he
should withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that on the
motion for the second reading of the Bill, he had thought
it his duty to suggest a provision, with a view to pre-
vent the evils which not unfrequently arise from the
sommon practice of one party burying their dead with
certain ceremonies, and ano'her party endeavouring by
violence, and with arms, to interrupt those ceremonies.
He had wished to enable the rnagiatrates of Ireland to
take measures to effectually prevent the collisions likely
to take place on such occasions, but if the clause was
likely to risk the rejection of the Bill, he was not the
person to press it.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH objected to the with-
drawal of the amendment, as he thought it essential to
render the measure a perfect one, but if the amendment
was withdrawn, would the Government pledge itself to
bring in an Arms Bill?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE refused to give such
a pledge, and said the subject would he brought before
the House on the renewal of the Act enabling the Lord-
Lieutenant to proclaim disaffected districts.
After a short conversation the clause was withdrawn.
Lord MONTEAGLE said the clause of which he had
given notice did not go beyond the principle or scope of
the Bill. The object of the clause which,he proposed to
introduce, was to render arms borne at any of these meet-
ings subject to forfeiture. He could not see what objec-
tion could be made to the clause, as it was calculated to
carry out the object of the Government. In the present
Bill the arms were forfeited, if the meeting refused to
disperse, and this only extended the penalty when arms
were borne at all, and would effect what all were de-
sirous to effect—that the appearing in arms in Ireland
should be pat an end to. He would not, however,
wish to do anything that might delay or. endanger
the passage of the Bill through the other House of Par-
liament.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE objected to have the
power of seizing the arms placed at the discretion of a
peace-officer.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought it would be de-
sirable to prevent persons going to these meetings with
arms. The parties who appeared in arms could not
take them for any good purpose.
Earl GREY said the penalty of forfeiting the arms,
on refusing to disperse, was sufficient.
Lord STANLEY said the question really was, wile-
the penalty of forfeiture should not be extended to
groups of twenty or thirty men parading with arms in
the evening of the day of meeting, and who would con-
sider themselves free to do so, the meeting having dis-
persed upon the request provided by the Bill. If the
other House of Parliament were desirous to put down
these processions, he could see no reason why they
should refuse to extend the penalty of forfeiture as pro-
posed by this clause. The Bill would be sent down to
the other House that evening, and therefore there would
be ample time to pass it suf►ciently early to prevent any
unpleasant consequences.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he had no ob-
jection, but he doubted the expediency of endangering
the passing of the Bill by introducing it.
The Duke of RICHMOND suggested that the clause
should be amended so as to confine the seizing of the
arms to the magistrate present at the meeting.
After some further conversation the clause. amended

rproposed, was agreed to.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said there was a
doubt with regard to the fourth clause, whether the in-
curring a penalty tinder this Bill would not take the
offence lout of the remedy or penalties of the common
law, and he thought that point should be set at rest and
made clear.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the words of
the first clause of the Bill would prevent the necessity
.f the Noble Earl's amendment, by effecting what he
desired,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he was satis-
fied with such a declaration from the Noble Lord, and
withdrewhis amendment.

The Bill wits read a third time, and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March a.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock,
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. MAcs.Ar took the oaths and his seat for Kirk.
cadbrigh t.