The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-20 00:00:00

On the motion that clause 3 stand part of the Bill,

Mr. WM. MILES said the clause, as it at present
stood, gave the magistrates a power of distress either
upon the owner or the occupier. He would suggest
words to the effect, that should the owner not possess
tangible property in the parish, then a power of distress
should be given upon the occupier.
After some further conversation,

Mr. MILES agreed to withdraw his amendment.
On the motion of Mr. HALSEY, the following
proviso was added to clause 3:—Provided always, that
such owners paying such rates iu respect of tenements
continuing_ to be held by occupiers under now existing
tenancies for a greater term than from year to year,
shall be entitled to add what they shall so pay to the rent
payable in respect of such tenements, and have the same
remedies for recovering the same as fir rent in arrear,
and provided farther that occupiers others than such as
shall continue to hold under now existing tenancies for a
greater term than from year to year, may (whether dis-
trained upon or paying such rates to prevent distress)
deduct the respective amount so to be answered by them
as aforesaid, together with all costs and charges they
may have incurred on account thereof, from the rent
payable in respect of such tenements, and such amounts
shall be deemed debts duo from such owners to such oc-
cupiers, and he recoverable by action.
Clause 3, as amended, was then agreed to, and made
part of the Bill, as was also clause 4.
Mr. BAINES proposed to substitute the following
For clause 5 :—And be it enacted, that the word " tene-
ment" in this Act shall be construed to include any land,
house, cottage, apartment, or corporeal hereditament ;
the word" owner" shill be construed to include any per-
son receiving or claiming the rent of such tenement for
his own use, or receiving the same for the use of any
corporation aggregate, or of any public company, or of
any landlord or lessor who shall be a minor, under cover-
ture, or insane, or for the use of any person who shall not
be usually resident within 20 miles from the parish in
which such tenement shall be situated; the word ",person"
shall be construed to include any corporation or public
company, as well as any individual; the word " parish"
shall be construed to include any parish, township, vill,
or place, maintaining its own poor separately; the word
"vestry" shall be construed to include any meeting of the
inhabitants of any such parish, township, vill, or place,
to be held after due notice for carrying into execution
the laws for the relief of the poor; and wherever in
this Act, in describing any person, matter, or thing, the
word importing the singular number or the masculine
gender only is used, the same shall be understood to in-
clude and be applied to several persons as well as one
parson, and females as well as males, and several matters
or things as well as one matter or thing respectively,
unless there be something in the subject or context re-
pugnant to such construction.
Agreed to without a division.
On the motion that clause 6 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. BAINES proposed to add the following words:—
" And shall not apply to any place where owners are
made liable to be rated to the relief of the poor under the
provisions of any local Act."—Agreed to.
Clause I as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 7 was also agreed to.
The following new clause was then brought up, and
read a first and second time, and agreed to, after somo
discussion :—And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful
for the vestry of the said parish, by a majority of two-
thirds at least of the votes of the persons present at a
meeting duly called for that purpose, and competent to
vote thereat, at any time after the expiration of one year
from the time when any such order shall have been so
made, to order that from and after a day to be fixed by
such vestry, being not less than two years after, such
order shall cease and be rescinded, in which ease, from
and atter such last-mentioned day, the said order shall
be rescinded and no longer in force. Provided never-
theless, that the provisions in this Act contained shall
remain and continue in force for the purpose of collect-
ing and recovering any rate which may have been pre-
viously made in pursuance of such order.
Another new clause was then moved relative to the
compounding of rates for tenements whether occapied
or net whereof the yearly value does not exceed 61.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved as an amendment

that the words" occupied or not" be struck out. which
amendment he concealed would nullify the clause alto-
gether.
After a few words from Mr. Halsey, Mr. B. Denison,
and Mr. Slaney,
Mr. SPOONER said that there were two points for
the consideration of the House ; first, whether or no an
allowance should be made to an owner for compounding
for rates ; and, secondly, whether or no an allowance
should be mado on the ground of non-occupation.—
(Hear.) He thought the allowance of one-third would be
too small—taking both considerations together, O. al-
lowance ought to be one-half.
Mr. RICE thought it much better to have a fixed
sum, and compel the landlord to compound the whole
rate.
__ _

Mr. HAWES said, there ought to be an allowance of
a fixed per-centage.
Mr. SPOONER hoped it would not be less than one-
half. _ _

Mr. P. MILES said the object could be attained by
inserting a few words in the clause, and he would sug-
gest that the division should be taken upon the retention
of the words " whether occupied or not."
Mr. BAINES said the present system of compounding
had very much facilitated the collection of the rates,
and he therefore submitted to his Honourable
Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, that it should
be continued in force by this Bill.
,„ After some further discussion the clause was with-
drawn.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
House resumed. _ _

Mr. WALTER said, when the report was brought up,
he should take an opportunity to move an amendment,
with the view of giving power to magistrates to grant
exemptions from the payment of rates on the ground of
poverty.
LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into
Committee on this Bill,
Mr. LAW characterised the object of the Bill, in
seeking to give magistrates a summary jurisdiction
over adults in cases of petty larceny, as de-
structive of the first birthright of an Englishman—
the trial by jury. He was satisfied such a tribunal
would load with odium the magistrates, who were now
looked up to with respect by the poor, and it would be
a fatal blow to the best franchise which an English-
man could enjoy, namely, his right of being
tried by a jury of his countrymen. He (Mr. Law)
declared he would not hold such an office. If a jury-
man was withdrawn, and: he was called on to perform
the duty of a jury as well as of a judge, upon the possi-
bility of forming an erroneous judgment upon facts, all
that could tend to enable him to discharge a
public duty would be removed from his mind,
and he should have nothing but misery and anxiety.
This would be nothing less than a private tribunal, for
although it was not intended to shut the doors on the
public, still no gentlemen of the profession would be
present, and few persons besides those interested in the
matter. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded
by moving that this Bill be divided into two Bills, one
as relating to juveniles, and the other to adults.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON protested against the
course of opposition which had been taken against this
Bill by the Hon. Member for Dundalk, and the Hon. and
Learned Recorder. He could assure his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Recorder that there was no greater
friend to trial by jury than he (Sir John Paking•
ton) was—(Bear, hear)—still he thought that it was
desirable to remove from the cognizance of a jury petty
offences which were not of sufficient importance for
their cognizance. It was on his (Sir J. Pakington's)
experience, to which that Learned Gentleman had
alluded, that he had determined to bring forward this
Bill. Grand juries and quarter ressious in all parts of
the kingdom were in favour of some measure
of the sort. The Honourable Gentleman alluded
to a pamphlet letely published, called "Is Trial by
Jury worth Keeping?" which he said had no doubt in-
fluenced the opinion of many persons on this point, but
which he contended made some very important omis-
sions in the subject. He was sure that the portion of
the Bill to which his Learned Friend objected would not
be rejected by the House.
Mr. M4CULL AG El supported the motion of the Hon.
and Learned, Gentleman opposite. He complained that
the•Hon.Baronet the Member for Droitwich had not fairly
stated the course of opposition which had been taken to
this Bill of his. If he (Mr. M'Cullagh) had only ten
minutes to move his amendment in, he should be able to
show such a weight of opinion against the principle of
the Bill as would fairly stagger any man. The next step
would be, if they passed this Bill, to extend the principle
of no trial by jury to adults.
Sir G. GREY suggested that the view of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Law) would be best served by withdrawing
his amendment, and allowing the House to go into Com-
mittee, when he could move the omission of the 28th
clause respecting male adults.
Mr. LAW thought it necessary to take the sense
of the House upon his amendment. The Bill involved
two distinct principles, which ought to be separately
considered, and it would be very inconvenient to do this
in Committee.

Mr. B. DENISON decidedly objected to going on
with the Bill, because he thought it involved very
serious questions, and ought, for that reason, to
have been introduced not by a private Member,
but by the Government. It proposed to confer larger
powers upon the magistrates than they possessed at pre-
sent respecting the trial of adults—powers which, as a
magistrate, he declared it would be injudicious to give.
Mr. EW ART also objected to the principle of the
Bill. Ile could not give his assent to the new doctrine
of defining crime by the amount of money involved in it,
and the ago of the criminal.
Mr. BERNAL said the point for the decision of the
House was whether the Bill should be considered as a
whole, or divided into two parts. The Bill involved two
very important principles—first, the extension of the
Juvenile Offenders' Act ; and, secondly, to abolish trial
by jury where the amount of larceny was ls.—and he
was very much inclined to agree with his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Recorder. The Bill would extend to
Great Britain and Ireland, and he knew enough of Ire-
land to believe that it would be exceedingly dangerous
and indiscreet to apply the provisions of the Bill to that
part of the kingdom, where political feeling ran so high.
—(Hear, hear.) He should, therefore, support the
amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PACKE approved of the first, but was opposed to
the second principle involved in the Bill, and as the two
principles had nothing to do with each other, he was
decidedly of opinion that the measure ought to be
divided into two.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM was not friendly to either of the
two portions of the Bill, and he confessed it would have
been more convenient had the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Dundalk been taken first.—(Hear, bear.)
He was really at loss to know how to vote
on the present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) The first part
of the Bill proposed to extend the operation of the Juve-
nile Offenders' Act from 14 to 16, but he agreed with
the law as expounded by Sir Matthew Hale, and which
had prevailed since the reign of Elizabeth, that 14 was
the age at which a distinction oughttol be drawn between a
juvenile and an adult offender. The second part of the Bill
proposed to give the magistracy summary power to deal
with cases of theft where the value of the stolen property
was only is. Now, if he had hesitated before about op-
posing the Bill, this portion of it would have entirely
put his doubts at rest.—(Hear, hear.) He could not
give his assent to any such proposal, and he should
therefore give his support to the amendment.—(Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said the House had already de-
cided upon the principle of the Bill.—(No, no.) Why
it had passed the second reading, and in his view of the
matter that wits tantamount to approving of the mea-
sure,—(Hear, hear.) But he was quite at a loss to
know why this Bill could be objected to. The
principle of it was already in force, with this simple
contingency, that the accused must consent to his case
being summarily disposed of ; and he should be glad to
know what objection there could be to making that
alternative rest with the discretion of the magistrate.
—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion this .Bill would
serve to perpetuate instead of to destroy the privilege
of trial by jury, and he should certainly give it his most
cordial support.—(Hear, hear.) If deterring from crime
was the object of legislation, then he thougkt his Hon.
Friend's Bill was eminently calculated to carry out that
object.
Mr. HUME was much of the same opinion as the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) with respect to this Bill; and he wanted to
know how they could take the sense of the House at the
present moment upon the principle of the Bill?
Mr. W. MILES held that trial by jury was the
palladium of liberty to the subject; at the same time if a
person was brought before the magistrates he should
have the option of demanding to be tried by a jury, in
which case a culprit could never say that the right to a
trial by jury had been wrested from him.
Mr. AGLIONBY characterised the motion of the
Hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Law) as very unnecessary, and as only calculated
to trifle with the time of the House. The protection
of trial by jury was not taken away from adults
by this Bill, seeing that a prisoner had the option of
electing whether he would be tried summarily or by a
jury. For that reason he should support the principle of
the Bill.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. HENLEY said the case of those who supported
the Bill was that a party charged with larceny could go
to a jury if he liked, but what chance would
he have when the jury were told that he
objected to summary jurisdiction ?—(Hear, hear.)
The case was fraught with difficulties. For in-
stance, a poor man might bring a number
of witnesses from distant parts of the country,
and then might be told that the magistrates intended to
deal with him summarily. This was a matter of detail,
but he objected also to the principle of the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON said he had the least possible
confidence in what had been styled the " concurrence of
the criminal," and thought that was a subject with
which the magistrates ought not to embarrass themselves.
He was opposed to the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD, amidst
loud cries of " Divide,"
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Law's amendment . . 104
Against it 54
Majority „„ _7O
The further consideration of the Bill was postponed
until Wednesday next.
A discussion followed upon the constitution of the
committee on: the county rates expenditure, which was
abruptly terminated on the arrival of six o'clock, when
the Speaker left the Chair and the House adjourned.

WATERFORD, MARCH 18.—S1d. Auto Alessandro,
Rio Janeiro.
WARRENPOINT, MARCH 18.—Wind N.N.W.—SId.
Neptunus, New York; Marchioness of Bute, ditto.
SHIELDS, MARCH 19.—Wind Martin-
haul, Philadelphia.

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS.

NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM ALL CAUSES REGISTERED IN
THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1850.
Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases ... *149
Diseases of Uncertain Seat ... 43
Tubercular Diseases ... ... 198

Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses... ... 126
Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels 42
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of

Respiration ... ••• ... 182
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs _ _

_
of Digestion... ... ... —• ... _
... 52
Diseases of the Kidneys, &e. .. 1 ... ... 13
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &e. ... ... 9
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles ... 6
Diseases of the Skin, &e. ... ... ... ... 2

Malformations... ••• ... ... ... ... 3
Premature Birth ... ... •• ... ... 16
Atrophy ... ... ... ... ... ... 23
Old Age ... ... ... ... ... ... 43
Sudden ... ... ... ... ... - _

... ... 19

Violence. Privation, Cold, and Intemperance :.. 38
Causes no; speeified ••• ... ... ... 3

DEATHS FROIII ALL CAUSES ... 967
Populatien Deaths in sorra- Deaths
Enumerated, spondLug week in the
1841. of 1849. Week.
West Districts... 301,189 . . 184 ... 139
North Districts.. 376,568 .. 65 ... 179
Central Districts 374,199 ... 177 ... 187
East Districts ... 393,067 ... 215 ... 198
South Districts.. 503,346 ... 322 ... 264

Totals... ..... 1,948,369 ... 1,083 ... 967
Males ... ... ... ... ... S 0 0
Females ... ... ... ... ... 467