The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-09 00:00:00

ITtlithl

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1844.

In the House of Lords, in the absence of the
Duke of RICHMOND, Lord BROUGHAM moved the
second reading of a Bill, with the following long
title :—" The Actions for Penalties on Gaming Dis-
continuance Bill." The object of the Bill is to put a
stop to a number of qui tam actions, brought by
ruined gamblers, or persons who will not pay their
bets, against several gentlemen on the turf, the pe-
nalties for which, if enforced, would amount to
300,0001. The law has been obsolete for the last
fifty years, and the Duke of RICHMOND proposes,
not the repeal of the old Act, but some of its
enactments, and also an application to the Judges in
Chambers, to stop the pending actions, on payment of
costs out of the pockets of the parties bringing- the
actions, and to add a clause, on the third reading,
suspending future actions. Lord CAMPBELL concurred
in the provisions of the Bill. The Bishop of LONDON
and the Bishop of EXETER made brief speeches on the
occasion, but we cannot discover their object. The
first Bishop could not see anything bad in betting,
provided a man had plenty of money, but he would
allow no betting among the poor, because he
wished to protect them. Is his Lordship not aware
that more rich men than poor men have been
ruined by betting, and that the poor have as much
right as the rich to do what they like with their own?
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
read a third time this day. This was the only busi-
ness of the evening, and the House adjourned at an
early hour.
In the Commons, after the presentation of peti-
tions, Sir IL. HARDINGE gave notice that he would
bring forward the Army Estimates on Friday, the
16th of February.
Mr. LABQUCHERE gave notice that, on the 22d
of the same month, he would bring for ward a motion
respecting the relations between this country and the
Brazils.

Mr. WALLACE, on the same evening, will move
for a Select Committee on the criminal law of
Scotland.

Lord PALMERSTON postponed his motion on the
slave trade for a fortnight.
Lord ASHLEY then brought forward his motion
for an address to the Crown, praying that her MA-
JESTY will take into her consideration the situation
and treatment of the Ameers of Sinde, and direct
their immediate restoration to liberty and the en-
joyment of their estates. It would be difficult to
give an outline of his Lordship's speech. He
described the Ameers as almost perfect beings,
anxious to co-operate with the British Government,
affording a free transit to the British troops on their
march to Caubul, and in every respect fulfilling
their engagements. Any one acquainted with the
history of that country, for the last five years,
knows that his Lordship has not read history care-
fully, or that he has been imposed upon by interested
parties, as Mr. ROEBUCK afterwards told him. Could
any man wlvo knew anything of the question before
the House say, as Lord ASHLEY did, that detach-
ments of our army were marched through their
country, not only without opposition, but with their
free concur rence and cordial co-operation ? All
writers, agi ee in stating that the Ameers did nothing
except"on weompulsion, and that every obstacle was
thrown in t he way of the British troops.
Mr. Ravalucir. followed ; and, according to his
notice of motion, imputed all the blame, which
Lord ASK LEY would throw on Lord ELLEN..