The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-06 00:00:00

TRIAL BY JURY IN IRELAND.

Lord CAMPBELL said he had a question to ask bis Noble
Friend the Lord Chancellor in reference to the present state of
trial by jury in Ireland. At present the state of the law in
that respect was this, that the process of challenge to the array
had been stopped, and no measure as a remedy had as yet been
proposed. Now, he (Lord Campbell) would like to know if
any such measure would be proposed before the close of the
session, which was now waning fast.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had more than once
stated that the defect, of which his Noble and Learned Friend
complained, should be rectified. In fact, he had a Bill pre-
pared, by which he proposed to supply the requisite remedy,
and with the assistance of his Noble and Learned Friend he
hoped to be able to introduce that Bill early in the next week.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONSOLIDATION
BILL.

Lord CO TTENHAM moved the order of the day that their
Lordships should go into Committee on the Ecclesiastical
Courts Consolidation Bill.

The Bishop of EXETER opposed the Bill. He denied
that the State had any jurisdiction whatever in civil things,
and therefore it could trot confer a power on any judge in
reference to ecclesiastical matters which it did not itself possess.
He therefore thought that if the Government valued the sup-
port of an important portion of her Majesty's subjects, they
would not lend their sanction to that Bill. He concluded by
moving that the Bill be committed that day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR knew that many changes
had been introduced in the Bill when it had been before the
Committee ; but he was not aware till that moment from what
source those alterations proceeded. As far as he was concerned
he approved of the Bill in its original form.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that there must have been
some mistake in reference to the Bill. He did not know what
the Judge Advocate had to do with the alterations that had
been referred to.

Lord COT TENHAM wondered that the Right Rev. Pre-
late should oppose a Bill which had been submitted to and sup-
ported by the Committee in 11336, of which he had been a
Member. It was a Bill sanctioned by the Members of her
Majesty's Government. It had been reported favourably of by
the Committee, and had passed the second reading.
The Bishop of EXETER explained, and said the Commit-
tee had been justified in all they had done. He was a member
of the Committee, but at the same time he should have no ob-
jection to have a Select Committee appointed for further in-
quiry.
The amendment was withdrawn.

Lord ABINGER hoped that the Bill would never be al-
lowed to pass by their Lordships.
The Bishop of SALISBURY thought that before such a
measure were introduced those who sat on the bench which he
occupied should have been consulted. He had been much sur-
prised, when down in the country, on reading an account of the
second reading of the Bill. Ile had come down to the House
prepared to suggestthe course which had been already proposed,
namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
He did not consider the change proposed respecting the Courts
involved any essential principle in the character of the Church;
it was merely a question of public convenience. Whether it
was advisable to make that change he was not prepared to con-
tend: only he thought the onus lay with those who proposed
the alteration. It was their duty to show that such a course
was desirable.

After a few words from Lords Brougham, Cottenham, and
Campbell, it was agreed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

CALICO PRINT WORKS.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH moved the third reading of
he Calico Print Works Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL suggested several alterations of a
verbal nature in reference to the employment of married
women in factories.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said the Bill had met not
only with the concurrence of Parliament, but with the sanc-
tion of the great manufacturers of the north, Mr. Cobden and
others.

The Bill was then read a third time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
_

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH moved the adjournment of the
House to Monday night.
Lord BROUGHAM would decidedly oppose the motion.
They could not afford to lose so much time, and the judicial
business would be completely retarded. They had bees
dancing attendance upon Mr. Barry, the architect, and now
they were going to lose more time. It was a most extravagant
proposition to move an adjournment of their Lordships' House
on account of a ball in another quarter of the town. Nothing
could be more absurd

Lord WHARNCLIFFE had no objection whatever to their
Lordships meeting to morrow.
Lord BROUGHAM said the House would not be detained
half an hour, and their Lordships might come down in full
dress. He would be very happy to see his Noble Friend the
President of the Council in the dress in which he understood
he must appear at the Queen's .Ball, that of Lord Burleigh.—
(Laughter. )
Their Lordships then adjourned till to-morrow, this day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. June 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
Leave was given to several Committees on Railway Bills to
sit until Five o'Clock.
ELY AND HUNTINGDON RAILWAY BILL.
The Ely and Huntingdon Railway Bill was read a third time
and passed.

GUILDFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
sYmA.

THE CHINESE RANSOM.
Captain BERKELEY w:shed to know whether it was the
intention of Government, after hoing rewarded the command-
ing officers for their services in China, still to withhold the
distribution of prize-money from the soldiers who had served in
the same war, contrary to the invariable practice where captures
had been made, and whether the same course would be pursued
with the soldiers who effected the capture of Sinde.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
the question of the Hon. and Gallant Member would lead the
House to believe that Government were withholding prize
money from those parties who were justly entitled to it, but in
reality the fact was not so. There was no declaration of war
made in China, and Government had therefore no prizes to
distribute. Government had only received a sufficient amount
of ransom as to indemnify her Majesty's subjects for the injury
they had received at the hands of the Chinese Government,
and reimburse the expense they had been put to in vindicating
the right of British subjects in China. When Sir Henry Pot-
tinger went out to China, he aminted a number of public
agents to take charge of all the property that fell into the
hands of the British forces, and at the termination of the war
Government thought it right that these parties should participate
in the distribution of theransom money. Accordingly there had
been two distributions, the first consisting of a sum of 160,0001.
and the second of 255,0001. With regard to the second ques-
tion relating fo the Sinde affair, the subject had only been re-
cently brought under the consideration of the Treasury, and he
was not in a position to give the Hon. Baronet an answer.
He might however state that a communication was going for-
ward between the Treasury and the Board of Controul on this
subject.

TIIE S ON, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 6, 1845.

Dr, BOWIII NG gave notice that he would, to-morrow,
ask a question from the Right Hon. Baronet relative to the
destruction of property in Syria.
In answer to a question from Mr. L ABOUCHERE, rela-
tive to the ma nufac:ure of spirits in the Channel islands,
The CHAN CELLOR`of the EXCHEQUER replied that a
practice had la.tely existed at the Custom-house of permitting
plain spirits, T rade from British produce, to be introduced into
this country ui ?on payment of the excise duty only, and with-
out being subj ect to the other Custom-house regulations. Now
the importers of these plain spirits had laboured under the im-
pression that British brandy, manufactured from British pro-
duce, was p'ai :ed upon a similar footing, and accordingly large
quantities of t hat article had been imported from Jereey, upon
payment, only )f the excise duties. Government had allowed
the spirits to pass into the hands of the retail d. aler, without
imposing any additional duty on it, but notice had been given
to the parties.. that this privilege could not be extended to any
future import ations. 1 hese parties had applied to the Court of
Queen a Ben ch for a mandamus to compel the Custom-house
to pass the It randy, upon payment only of the excise duties,
and the Court bait refused the application. It was, therefore,
a settled point of law, that Jet sey had no more right to intro-
duce British Lrandy, free of customs duties, than either Ireland
or Scotland.

THE CORN LAWS.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, seeing the lion. Member for
Galway in his place, wished to know whether it was his intention
to proceed with his motion relative to the conduct of Members
of the House on Tuesday next. The Hon. Member for Wol-
verhampton had a motion on the paper relating to the Corn
Laws for the same evening, and it was important that no
impediment should he thrown in its way.
Sir VALENTINE BLAKE was understood to reply that
he intended to withdraw his motion to enable that of the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton to come on.
DON CARLOS.
Lord JOHN MANNERS wished to know whether Govern.
rnent had received any intimation from the Government of
France of the abdication of Don Carlos, and whether they
had made any represiintation to that power for the release of
that illustrious prince.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, in answer to the question of the
Noble Lord, he had to state that since the Noble Lord had
intimated his intention to put this question, a communication
had been received from the French Government, announcing
the abdication of Dan Carlos in favour of his son. That
communication was accompanied by an application from
Don Carlos for passports to enable him to go to the Pyrennees
for his health, and Government had thought it advisable to
grant the request.