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

DISEASED SHEEP.

Th 9 NOBLE DUKE wished to draw the atten-
tion ( f the Government to the fast that certain
for.ign sheep affected with small-pox had been
!mix d ; some had been killed and others sold
to dt-f:ay the expenses. The case was reported in
• the newspapers as having been brought under the
attentiv of the City authorities at tho Mansion-house.
Ile shouki after Easter move for the appointment of a
Folect Committee to consider the operation of the law
permitting the importation of sheep and cattle.
13cINKRIll'I'CY CONSOLIDATION BILL.

131tOUGHAM postponed the second reading of
thiL: Bitl 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 cf 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
- lion. 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
had not communicated to his Hon. and Learned Friend
. his intention of placing these papers on the table.
understood 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 cf 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 unfounded. With regard to misreport-
ing, all the reports in all the papers ascribed the same
language to the Hor. and Learned Gentleman.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this
Bill bring moved,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH 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 hen to interfere by force to disperse the meeting.
The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the pro-
posed alteration. It was left optional to the magis-
trate whether or not he should interfere by force to dis-
peree the meeting, because perhaps he might not have
the me ms; but when once the meeting was declared
uulaeful those present were under an obligation to dis-
peree and if they refused they might afterevards be pro-
vented and punished.
Lord STANLEY objected to the wording of the Bill
es most ambiguous and calculated to mislead the magis-
trates.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the Bill was verbatim et
litcratim the same as the Bill which 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 delay 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 be
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
common practice of one party burying their dead with
certain ceremonies, and another party endeavouring by
' violence; and with arms, to interrupt those ceremonies.
He had wished to enable the magistrates 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 rej etion of the Bill, he was not the
pets ,n to press it.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH objected to the with-
draaei of the amendment. as he thought it essential to
render the measure a perfsct one, but if the amendment
was withdrawn, would the Government pledge itself to
bring in au Arms Bill?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE refused t) give such
a pledge, and said the subject would be brought before
the House on the renewal .1 the Act enabling the Lord-
Lieutenaat to proclaim disafftcted districts.
After a short conversation the clause was withdrawn.
Lord MONTEAGLE said the clause of which he had
given notice did not go t:eyond 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-
ines subject to forfeiture. He could not see what objec-
tion could be made to the clause, as it was calculated to
carre out the object of the Government. In the present
Bill the arms ware forfeited, if the meeting refused to
disperse, and this only extended the penalty when arms
• Is,n'e borne at all, and would effect what all were de-
tireue to effect—that the aepearing in arms in Ireland
eheuld be put an end to. He would not, however,
wish to do anything that might delay or erdanger
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
peacelefficer.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought it would be de-
sirable to prevent persons going to these meetings with
• arena. 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 wag, whe-
thnpenalty of forfeiture should not be extended to
groups ef twenty or thirty men parading with arms in
the evening of dee 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
b. 3 ample time to pass it sufficiently early to prevent any
111; pica-ion t consequences.
Toe 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.
• Ailey some further conversation the clause, amended
as pieipoied, was agreed to.
The Earl or ELLENBOROUGH said there was a
doubt with regard to the fourth clause, whether the in-
curring a penalty under this Bill would not take the
offence out of the remedy or penalties of the common
law, and he thought that point should be set at rest and
male clear.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the words of
th-.: first clause of the Bill would prevent the necessity
of 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
withdrew his amendment.
The Bill was read a third time, and Pulsed.
Their Lordships then adjourned. .

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 8,
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

--_____
NEW MEMBER.
. MACKAY took the oaths and his seat for Kirk.
badoright.

PETITIONS.
Mr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from New-
castle praying--that-the provisions in the Australian
Colonies Bill relating to publis worship might be ex-
punged..
Mr. MUNDY presented a petition from Derbyshire
in favour of agricultural protection.
Lord. ti. VANE prezented a petition from Staines in
favour of county financial boards.
Ztir, B. DENISON presented similar eitions from
West Itidirsg of Yorkshire. I
Corom;1 DONNE presented a petition from Westmeath
fraying for •an alterdtion in the mode of txc outing
public works in Ireland.
,7r. REYNOLDS presented several PA° r iti ns fcw
the county of Dublin praying for the total repeal of the
excise duty on rape,.
Mri tV ATK ENS. presented a petition from Woodstock
in lave or. of the l'ita.rriageßill.
A great nntabF r of smiilar petitions were presented.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition
by 17.08 journeymen teilors in London, pri)ing
that au 1101140 might appoint a Committee to inquire
-into the grievar.ces connected with their trade; also a
petiti,,n from n public; meeting of carvers and gilders,
praying for the repeal of, the duty on paper and ativer-
„iky as.d also the penny stamp on nevispapers•
d t the same effect' from printers• in the
an a petition.
Krao,l f Mr. Johu Cartwell, in Essex-.:met, Strand.
• -Mr. ELLIS,- presented a petition from Coventry in
• , •
favour of the Marriage Bill.
•Mr. ALBEII,MAN SIDNEY presented a petition
,• from Stafford to the Same effect.
Colonel LINDSAY presented petitions from several
pleas in Lanpashitejn favour of county 6nanciarbotrds.
- Mr. GROGAN presented. a petition from Dui')lin
apinst the Parliamentary Franchise Bill.

4'

~~.~+