The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

iIvIPER/AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 7.
Their Lordships met at Half-past Four o'clock.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that ho would to-mor- ,
row call the attention of their Lordships to a point of
difference which had arisen between the two Houses of
Parliament—one of which was, an amendment in-
serted in the Common Law Process Bill, and
the other was in the Common Law Courts of Ire-
land Bill, by which the appointment of the prothona-
tories and other officers of the Courts were to be vested
in the Lord Lieutenant, instead of in the Judges. He
would advise their Lordships not to agree to those amend-
ments of the other House.
The Merchant Seamen's Bill was read a third time;
and on the question that the Bill do pass,
The Earl of HADDINGTON moved an amendment,
which he said should have been made before, but that,
as it involved a question of money, it was thought that
there would be an objection to it elsewhere. He now
found that the objection would not be raised, and he,
therefore, moved the addition of the clause by way of
amendment.
After a few words from Lord COLCHESTER and Lord
CoLvILLE, the amendment was agreed to, and the Bill
was passed.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up
several Bills.

OTAHEITE.
The Marquis of NOR NIANBY gave notice that he
would to-morrow present a petition from Leeds on the
subject of Otaheite, but he did not wish to raise any
discussion upon the subject.
THE CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND
BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the amendments
of the Commons be agreed :o.
Lord HATHERTON highly approved of the Bill.
But he was not disposed to go with the House of Com-
mons the whole length of their amendments.
After some conversation the amendments were
agreed to.
A message from the Commons informed their Lord-
ships that the House had given permission to the Earl
of Lincoln to attend and give evidence befure the Com-
mittee of Post-office Inquiry.
Mr. Greene and others brought up from the Commons
several Bills.
A conference was appointed between the two Houses
on the subject of the Commons' amendments on the Com-
mon Law Courts (Ireland) Bill.
The report upon the Poor-law Amendment Act was
brought up and the amendments were agreed to.
The Lords appointed to confer with the Commons on
the Common Law Courts (Ireland) Bill, reported to the
House that the Commons disagreed with their Lordships'
amendments, and gave the reasons assigned in writing.
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL the Commons'
reasons were ordered to be printed.
The Arms Bill (Ireland) went through Committee.
IRISH FISHERIES BILL

On the order of the day for the Committee upon the
Irish Fisheries Bill being read,
The Earl of WICKLOW moved the rejection of the
clause which takes away the power of appeal to the
magistrates at quarter sessions.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the Bill.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said that if this Bill
had not been introduced by the Irish Secretary it would
never have reached their Lordships' House. The Bill
introduced three important innovations. The first was
the employment of the constabulary in the prevention
of poor fishermen from exercising their calling. The
second innovation was the proposed mode of appeal,
which would place justice almost out of the reach of
the poorer class of fishermen. He objected, thirdly,
to the circumstance that a Bill of that importance was
introduced to that House without their Lordships being
informed as to whether or not it was to be dealt with as a
Government measure. —(Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said that the Bill inflicted a
great wound upon the character of the magistrates of
Ireland, especially in the clause which took away the
power of appeal to the quarter sessions. If the legisla-
ture showed a distrust of the magistrates in that respect,
the people would distrust them in other matters. If this
Bill were passed it was so imperfect that there would be
a necessity for a new Bill next year.
The Marquis of NORMANBY thought it would be
better to postpone the Bill to next session. _

. -
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW reserved his amendment un-
til the bringing up of the report.
The Bill went through Committee, and the report
brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

The Arms (Ireland) Bill also passed through Com-
mittee.

The House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve o'clock.

POST-OFFICE:

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that a message should be sent 1
to the Lords, requesting a copy of the report of the Secret
Committee on the Post-office.--Agreed to.
The lION. MIL3III/M, on presenting a petition from the
colliers of Durham complaining of the sending of paupers to
distant parts of the country, wished to ask the Secretary of
State for the Home Department, whether it was true,.
as had been stated in one of the public papers,
th o c,l;s waisnam had intertere(l between,
the 'ilitsters and men in the mining districts to sup-
ply labourers for the mines in Northumberland and Durham,
and whether it was his opinion that it was part of the duty
of the Poor-law Commissioners, or Assistant Commissioners,•
to interfere in such cases?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the Honourable Member had been
good enough yesterday to intimate to him his intention of
putting the question he had now asked. He had, how.:
ever, had no opportunity in the interim of conferring
with the Poor-law Commissioners on the subject. He could
state positively, however, that according to his understand-
ing of the poor-law, there was nothing in the provisions of
that Act which would justify any interference on the part of
the Poor-law Commissioners in matters of this kind. Sir
John Walsham, he was aware, had for some time resided in
the northern districts, and possessed landed property in Here-
fordshire and South Wales, and might have interfered in his
private capacity, but as an Assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioner, he was quite sure he had not in any way inter-
fered.—(Hear.)
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Sir R. PEEL gave notice that he should, to-morrow,
move that the House, at its rising, should adjourn to Satur-
day, as there were some communications which he under-
stood it was necessary to make between this House arl,d the
House of Lords respecting some amendments to Bills ; and
on Saturday he should propose that the House should ad-
journ to some distant day, of which he would give notice on
Saturday.
THE FRENCH IN AFRICA.

The RIGHT Hoax. BARONET, in answer to a question from
Viscount Ebrington, respecting the conduct of the French on
the coast of Africa and the ,Gaboon River, said that a me-
morial had been received by her Majesty's Government On'
the subject, which had been referred to the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs; but he did not feel at liberty to go fur-
ther into the matter at resent.
Lord PALMERSTON complained of the policy of the
Government in giving way to other countries on several oc-
casions. They had begun by a great concession to the
United States, which they had been told would produce the
best effects and the most permanent good-will on the part
of the Americans, and would perpetuate harmony and good
understanding between the two Governments of England and
America. What had been the result ? Why, after the
cession of a great part of the disputed territory, other ques-
tions with respect to the Oregon territory, the right of visit,
and ether subjects of serious moment were raised. The
Government had also, in deference to the French
Government, counselled the Regent of Spain to
submit to great indignities and attacks upon his
authority in the case of Saivandi and M. Lesseps at Bar-
celona, the consequence of which was that the Spaniards,
seeing that the Regency was not supported by the moral aid
of the English Government, the Regent fell, and important
English interests were sacrificed. The Noble Lord then pro-
ceeded to contend that that policy which sought temporary
peace at the sacrifice of the rights of the country must tend to
difficulties of a more set ious nature than those which it was
intended to put an end to.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Government appeared to be shaping its policy not for
the interest of the country, but for the purpose of ascertain-
ing how far things done by them might bear upon the in-
terests of the government of foreign countries. Such policy
might be founded on good intentions; but any system of
purchasing momentary tranquility at the sacrifice of future
interests could not work out the advantage of the country
that should adopt it. With regard to the treatment of Mr.
Pritchard by the French, be thought the right of sovereignty
could not justify it.—(Hear, hear.) When it was said he was
not the consul of this country, that was a statement totally
without foundation. What, he would ask, made a man a
consul? A commission from his Sovereign, and that commis-
sion Mr. Pritchard held at Otabeite ; and when the Govern-
ment of the island was arbitrarily deposed by a foreign
Power, Mr. Pritchard, though he refused to interfere, still
was consul, and the treatment he had received was most
unjustifiable.
Sir R. PEEL denied that the present Government had
made any concessions that were injurious to this country or
ite honour. He thought, and had always done so, that the
policy of the Government ought not to be the maintenance
of any foreign Government. The leading principle of a
British Administration was to support British interests and
British honour. Nothing was so inconsistent as making com-
promises to any Government. The invariable result of such
proceedings would be no satisfaction, but fresh demands on
the part of other countries. The Noble Lord had began by
adverting to the Boundary question. Had he done anything,
he would ask, to settle that question? Certainly not. The
present Government undertook to di so, and they had accom-
plished their task in so efficient a manner, that the thanks of
the House had been given to Lord Ashburton, who
had so ably effected so desirable an arrangement.
The resolution was carried with the concurrence of many of
the Noble Lord's friends. The Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London had also distinctly stated that be did not
blame the Government for the course which they had pur-
sued with regard to France. He was not surprised that the
Noble Lord was smarting under a sense of the indignity which
had been offered to him. Then again, with respect to Texas,
nothing could be more unjust than to attempt to
make her Majesty's Government responsible for the
course pursued by the United States towards Texas. As re-
garded Algiers, the Noble Lord had himself acquiesced in its
occupation by the French, provided they did not attempt to
extend their power on the side of Tunis or Morocco. Con-
siderations of wise policy had induced him not to demand
the evacuation of Algiers. With respect to Spain, he did
not apprehend that Espartero entertained the same
opinion as the Noble Lord. But if Espartero had the
hold upon Spain which he supposed, how did it come
to pass that no effort had been made by any party in Spain
to restore him to his position. It was easy for the Noble
• Lord to say that he fell in consequence of advice given him
by the Government. He believed his fall was attributable
to the notion that he was a firm friend of the British Go-
vernment,
and wee receiving support from it. He
perfectly admitted that the Government had not acted
in every respect on the principles of the Noble Lord ; but, as
regarded every object of importance to this country, he con-
tended that there never was a period when the name and •
honour of the British Government stood higher than they
did at that moment.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON explained.
Mr. FORSTER could not but express his regret at the
unsatisfactory nature of the answer given by the Government
to the question of the Noble Lord. If the French were
allowed to proceed in this course on the coast of Africa, this
country would not have an inch of ground left ezcept that

which was occupied by its forts. The Gaboon River had
I e a very important station for British trade.
Sir R. PEEL said he had stated that the Gaboon River
was not within several hunched miles of any part of the Bri-
tish territory.
Captain PECHELL wished to call the attention of the ,
Right Hon. Baronet to the fishery vestion. They were at
present uninformed what steps the I rench Government had
taken to carry out the views of the convention. He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet would have no objection to state
what was the present state of French legislation in reference
to the articles of the convention.
Sir R. PEEL was not able to give any precise information
on that subject.
On the order of the day for reading the report on the
Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill,
Col. VERNER said he had to complain of the precipi-
tancy with which this measure had been hurried through
the House. A measure of such importance ought not to
have been brought forward only three or four days before the
termination of the session, and in the absence of the Hon.
Member for the University of Oxford.
Mr. MACAULAY said—Would any Gentleman get up
and say that there was a single enactment repealed by this
Bill which was not a disgrace to a civilised and Christian
country ?—(Hear, hear.) If any Gentleman would rise up
and affirm that, there might be some force in the Hon. Mem-
ber's objection.—(Hear, hear.) He was quite satisfied from
his personal knowledge of the Hon. Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford, that he would not have opposed this Bill.
Colonel VERNER said his objection applied to the period
at which the Bill had been introduced.
Mr. SPOON ER complained that he had been misrepre-
sented in what he had said with respect to a petition against
I this Bill. lie appealed to the House whether he had treated
the petition, as had been stated, with disrespect or levity.
Sir R. PEEL could bear testimony to the fact, that the
Hon. Member had not treated the petition with levity, though
he had the manliness to say that, after learning the object
of the Bill, he felt bound to give it his support. The
object of the Bill was to remove what was as in-
,'nimhrance to the statute-book.—(Hear, hear.) There
co.tld be no danger in passing it, because the laws repealed
were not, and could not be put in force.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAIVES hoped that the Government would, in the
next sess.4on, proceed still further.in this course.
Mr. MON'4,-;IiTON MILNES was sure the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet would fiCd full co operation in that House in any mea-
sure of that kind which he might introduce.(llear, hear.)
Every day there growing up in the country amongst
men who thought on :hese matters, a strong feeling that the
Church of England couli not receive legitimate, fair, or just
support from measures of a similar character to those which
were now being abolished.—(,'!eers.)
Colonel VERNER said he was ~fraid he had been misun-
derstood. He had not said one word in opposition to the
enactments of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. HARDY and Toff. WYSI the m-
ead a third
port was received, and the Bill was ordered to be
time at Three o'clock to-morrow.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.

-- -
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. KEMBLE presented a pk tition from Bermond-
sey against the measure. The petitioners prayed that
the operation of the Bill, if passed, might not be extended
to debts incurred before its enactment.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES proposed to insert the
following clause:—" And whereas, since the 11th day of
November, 1842, the duties of taxing master in the Court
of Bankruptcy have been performed by one of the
deputy-registrars of the said Court, and the duties of such
deputy-registt ar have been performed by Thomas
Acton Warburton, Esq., barrister-at-law; be it enacted,
that such person shall be paid by the Governor and
Company of the Bank of England, out of the fund placed
to th,: credit of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, intituled,
'The Secretary of Bankrupts' Account,' such remunera-
tion for his servic.3s, not exceeding eight hundred p.,unds,
as the Lord Chancellor shall think reasonable, and by his
order in writing shall direct." The facts of the case
were these :—Mr. Richardson, who had been registrar in
Mr. Commissioner Evans's Court, had since 1842 acted
as nixing master in ILnkruptcy, and Mr. Warburton
had performed the duties of deputy-registrar in Mr.
Commissioner Evans's Court without remuneration.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that under the pro-
visions of the Act of 1842 he had no power to award
Mr. Warburton compensation, but the present motion
was made with the concnrrence and approval of the Lord
Chancellor.
Mr. BICKI-lAM ESCOTT seconded the motion.

• Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Lord Chan-
cellor had had nothing to do with the original appoint-
ment of Mr. Warburton, who had been selected by Mr.
Commissioner Evans as deputy-registrar. It ap-
peared to him it was a speculation on the part
of Mr. Warburton, which had turned out a bad
one, and he had now abandoned it, not having performed
the duties for two months. It had appeared to him that
the best thing would be to confirm Mr. Richardson as
taxing master, and to appoint Mr. Warburton registrar;
but things had assumed, since he last addressed the
House, a different aspect. The Lord Chancellor had
promised the office to a gentleman whos.) case l.ad b3en
brought before the House by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard—a gentleman who had been deprived of his
office by the Act regulating the Court of Exchequer,
without compensation. He had at the time admitted
that the case was a hard one, and bad pledged himself
to consider it favourably. That gentleman was Mr.
Lee, and to him the Lord Chancellor had promised this
'office. Under these circumstances, although he did not
like the principle of barristers performing the duties of
public offices on speculation, yet he must admit that
Mr. Warburton had performed his duties most efficiently,
and he would leave the proposition in the hands of the
House.
Mr. C. BULLER expressed his approval of the kind
uud..,..oldcr.to wtAy in which both the Right Hon.
Gentleman and the Lord Cninn.o,l,n l,ad nt:tca in the
case of Mr. Lee. With regard to the case of Mr. War-
burton, it could hardly be called a speculation. It was
clear that the duties must be performed, and Mr. War-
burton had undertaken them under the express sanction
of the Lord Chancellor. Parliameut had sanctioned the
experiment, and having so sanctione,l it, was it fair to
take Mr. Warburton's services for a year and a half
without remuneration? If they could a.-range so as to
give Mr. Warburton the promise of an office it would be
the best arrangement, but they had no right to put such
conditions on the Lord Chancellor, and theyefore he
should support the motion.
Sir R. PEEL considered that Mr. Warburton had a
fair claim to remuneration. Under ordinary cirCum-
stances he would have most probably been appointed to
an office under the Act, but the House had heard how'
that office had been disposed of. He thought the claim
of Mr. Warburton to remuneration was clear, and he
should give the motion his cordial support.
Mr. HAWES said the arrangement was one which
had conduced to the public benefit, and he, therefore,
considered Mr. Warburton was fully entitled to compen-
sation.

Mr. R. YORKE considered Mr. Warburton had taken
up this office as a speculation, without proper authority,
and .he should certainly take the sense of the House
against the clause.
Mr. WAKLEY would support the Hon. Gentleman
if he divided against the clause. The principle was so
obnoxious, and it opened such a door to corruption that
he certainly thought they ought not to sanction it. This
gentleman had undertaken it as a speculation, for there
were no funds out of which he could be paid.
Mr. M. MILNES thought there were funds.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then he had made a mistake. As
a lawyer he ought to have known better, and he ought to
suffer for his ignorance. The principle sought to be es-
tablished was a most dangerous one.
Sir .T. GRAHAM explained.
Mr. B. ESCOTT did not vote for this motion as a
case of compensation ; he voted fur it as payment for la-
bour done.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that his first
impression had been adverse to the claim of Mr. War-
burton, but when he considered the case, he thought it
probable that Mr. Warburton might have been induced
to believe that the Lord Chancellor had power to award
him compensation, and he really thought that Mr. War-
burton was fairly entitled to compensation.
Mr. lIENLY thought the Lord Chancellor had just
as much power to give Mr. Warburton a berth now as
he eTer had. It struck him us a speculation, and if he
had any claim it ought to have been brought forward by
the Government oa their own responsibility.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided,. when there appeared—
For the clause 44
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause —39
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to be
added to the Bill.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL then moved certain
verbal alterations in various clauses.

Mr. SPOONER moved, as an amendment, that the
operation of the fifty.fourth and fifty-fifth clauses
should be postponed until the month of March.
He was aware that he was occupying a very un-
gracious position in appearing' there to advocate
the continued imprisonment of various poor debtors
now waiting for their liberation. Ile objected to
the clause because it would inflict a great injury on
industrious artisans in large towns. Ho admitted that
the state of discipline in small debt prisons was bad, but
they ought not to pass a measure of
this nature merely
rn
on account of local al-administration in prison discip-
line. He cautioned the House against attempting to
remedy one evil by calling a greater one into
existence. If this Bill came into operation at once
it would be impossible for the labouring man to get
credit, and credit was necessary to his subsistence.
and it would certainly greatly palliate the evil to which
the labouring classes would be exposed by this Bill to
defer its coming into operation until the month of
March, in order to give them time to prepare themselves
for the change which was about to come upon them. To
show the beneficial operation of the power of ordering
imprisonment being conferred on Courts of Requests,
and the small amount of imprisonment actually inflicted,
he would state to the House that since 1808 the number
of cases in Courts of Requests throughout England had
amounted to about 4,000 annually, the number of execu-
tions amounted to about from 1,000 to 1,200, and the num-
ber,of persons imprisoned amounted t 9 only 150 annually.
He had presented a petition from the Chamber of Com-
merce of Bristol, pressing the necessity of delay ; peti-
tions to the same effect bad been presented from Man-
chester, from the shopkeepers of Southwark, and other
places, and they all prayed for delay. If this Bill were
carried in its present shape, it would inflict a great in-
jury on the large body of tradesmen who had given
credit to the labouring classes on the faith of the law
continuing in its present state. He had received various
letters from different tradesmen, who complained that if
the power of imprisonment was taken away, they would
be deprived of the security on which they had given
persons credit. As they diminished the fear of im-
prisonment, they took away the stimulus to pay.
The House had had no opportunity of examining the
evidence upon which the House of Lords had decided in
favour of this Bill. He should have liked to have had
a Committee of Inquiry before the House decided in
favour of this Bill, for although those who had intro-
duced it were perfectly competent to decide upon general
principles, yet they did reit possess that practical know-
ledge of the subject which would enable them properly to
legislate upon it. It would be a dangerous experiment