The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

labour and persevering exertion which their aro-
cations required.—( Hear, hear.) Ile was sure no Member
could deny that their constituents had not a right to. know
what passed in that House. The Noble and Learned -if ember
for London proposed bringing forward a motion regarding the
state of Ireland to-morrow night, which was of the awry first
importance, and which would be regarded with the grrsatest in-
terest by the country at large. Suppose when the Noble
Lord stood up, another Honourable Member stood up
also and moved the exclusion of strangers, and that
those columns in the newspapers usually occupied bg Parlia-
mentary debates were on the following morning blatuks, would
rot Hon. Members cut a pretty figure before the c.ssintry
( Laughter.) He repeated that it was absurd and inconsistent
that, at the caprice of any Hon. Member, the country might be
deprived of that information which they so eagerly expected,
and to which they had a just right. Ho entirely agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman, and only regretted that a motion had not
been made for directly rescinding so absurd a rule.—(Rear. )
If any Hon. Member exercised the privilege of expelling
strangers from the House for a few nights in succession, he felt
sure the Right Hon. Bart. would be the first to move for the
rescinding of the order.
Sir GEORGE CLERK did not at all agree with tshe Hon.
Member who had just sat down, and thought no inconve-
nience ressulted from the present rules. The only occasion
on which the suppression of the debates occurred, 24 re.
porters and others being ordered to leave the gallery, was on
thr motion of Sir Charles Yorke on moving for an
for
into the Walcheren expedition, and the reason given for that
was the legitimate one, that many parties would probably he
implicated in the statements that would be made in the course
of the debate. As to the proposition for the House to author-
ise the publication of its reports by its own reporters, instead
of quietly conniving at the way in' which they now
reached the public, he could not see the vali-
dity of it. The reports were now given with
extraordinary rapidity and great accuracy, and were thf y to
follow the suggestion, and have their own reporters, he was
satisfied it would tend most materially to cripple the freedom
of debate in that House, and give no advantage either to them-
selves or to the public.

Dr. BOWRING said he should vote for the motion simply
on the ground that it was absurd, and indeed indecent, t• keep
constantly before their eyes a law which the Speaker himself,
and every Member of the House, was daily in the habit of vio-
lating.
The SPEAKER stated to the House that the rule which
empowered any Member to notice the presence of strangers
ia the House, and enforce their removal by the Serjeant-at-
Arms, was not dependent on the sessional orders. The fact
was, it was a right inherent in the House. The sessional order
was applicable only to those galleries and parts of the House
used by Members of it.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHRISTIE would, therefore, on the intimation of the
Speaker, beg leave of the House to amend his motion by leav-
ing out the words affecting the right to exclude strangers
from the gallery, and confine his motion to an authorised publi•
cation by the House of reports of its debates.
The House then divided—

For the motion
Against it
Majority
CUSTOMS' FRAUDS.

-47

Mr. WALLACE moved that the evidence taken in the
last session of Parliament, respecting the frauds which had
taken place in the Custom-house department in London, be laid
on the table of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
intended to move for a Select Committee, with a view to the
examinaticn of the evidence, in order to ste what ought to be
published, and what ought not.
Mr. BARING wished to know when information would
be laid before the House with respect to the charges of a grave
nature that had been brought against the Commissioners of
Customs.

Lord G. SOMERSET said the Members of the Com-
mission appointed to inquire into the Customs' frauds were
preparing their opinions on the subject, and as coon as these
were laid before the Treasury, the information wou'd be laid
before the House.—The motion was then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. TIIORNELY, the following !Stem-
ben were appointed as a Select Committee on Public Peti-
tion3:—Mr. Thornely, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Earl of
Arundel and Surrey, Lord Courtenay, Viscount Duncan,
Captain Jones, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Pusey, Mr. Edward Buller,
Mr. Buckley, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr.
Owen Stanley, Mr. Cripps, and Mr. Villiers Stuart.
Mr. PAKINGTON postponed his Bill to define and re-
gulate the periods of holding Quarter Sessions in Cities and
Boroughs, till Feb. 2!.
The House having disposed of the other Orders of the Day,
adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock.

CENTRAL CRI %lINAL COURT.
OLD COURT. •
Thomas Frost, 31, a person in the employment of the Post-
office, was indicted for stealing a sovereign, the moneys of the
Postmaster-General, Lord Lowther.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Adolphus,
appeared for the Crown ; Mr. Wilkins was instructed for the
defence of the prisoner.
The circumstances under which the charge was made
against the prisoner have been very recently laid before the
public. In consequence of some suspicion that was enter-
tained of the prisoner, a-marked sovereign was placed in a
letter, which was addressed to some person-in the City-road,
and this letter was given to the prisoner among higletters for
delivery. It never came to hand; and upon an officer going
to the prisoner's lodging, he found the marked sovereign in
the possession of the prisoner's wife, who, it appeared, had
received it from her husband.
Mr. WILKINS took some technical objection to the indict-
ment, which being over-ruled by the Court, he said it would
be useless for him to attempt to struggle against the facts as
proved, and he must, therefore, leave the prisoner to the mer-

ciful consideration of the Court.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was
ordered to be transported for seven years.
Tto:nas Dunnett surrendered to take his trial upon an in-

dictment for misdemeanour.
Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Adolphus conducted the prose-
cution, which was framed in accordance with the provisions
of the Merchant Seamen's Act, and Messrs. Clarkson and
Ballantine appeared for the defendant.
The offence with which he was charged was that, being
the master of a merchant-vessel, called the Sarah Charlotte,
he had unlawfully left three seamen, named Wilkinson,
Gilds, and Clive in a foreign country, without the consent
of the- Consul, these seamen having been shipped on board
his vessel, under an engagement that he should bring them
to England. It appeared that the three men were shipped
at Guayaquil, to go to Bahia, and from thence to some port
in England. The men were very ill, and one of them was in
a mast filthy state, and they were, in fact, unable to do any
duty on board; and, on the arrival orthe vessel at Bahia,
they all went ashore, and were anxious to remain there,
on the plea that they were too ill to do duty, but the
surgeon refused to give a certificate to that effect, and, upon
this the Consul declined to grant the certificate required to
justify the captain in leaving the men ashore, but he did sign
a certificate to enable him to take three fresh men on board
his ship in their place.
For the defence it was urged that these men had, in point
of fact, deserted the ship, and that it was not the captain's
fault that they. were left behind. It was- also argued that
the Consul's giving permission to the captain to take three
fresh men on board was tantamount to 'a permission to
leave the others behind.
Witnesses were called, who proved that the men were in
the state described. and also that one of them was unable to
do the least work on board the vessel.
The defendant also received an excellent character.
Mr. SHEPHERD, in reply, said that there was no intention
to impute any moral culpability to the defendant, but, at
the same time, the Statute in question was one of very con-
siderable importance, and tended to the protection of seamen
engaged in the mercantile marine of the country. He sub-
mitted that the evidence showed that the Statute had been
infringed, and that the defendant must be convicted upon
the present indictment.
Mr. Justice CRESSWEEL having summed up, the jury-e-
-turned a verdict of Guilty, but at the same time strongly re-
commended the defendant to mercy.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in passing sentence, said that
offences of this description involved very different degrees of
guilt. In some cases very great cruelty and injustice might
be perpetrated towards seamen, by leaving them in a foreign
country without any resource, and in others the offence
might be of a very venial character. The present case, he
thought, came within the latter class, and although the jury
had found him guilty and the Court would have to pass
judgment upon that verdict., yet the defendant would leave
the Court without any stain upon his character. The de-
fendant was then ordered to pay a line of 5/. to the Queen.
The fine was immediately paid, and the defendant was then
discharged from custody.