The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 12.

The SPEAKER, took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. H. HINDE brought up the Pontop and South Shields
Railway Bill, which was read a first time.
The Epsom and South Western Railway Bill, and the
Croydon and Epsom Railway Bill, were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Lambeth, complaining that the Lambeth Water-Works
Company had violated the terms of their Act of Parliament,
and praying the House to inquire into the subject.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from
Yorkshire against any alteration in the corn.laws.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition against the poor-
laws ; also a petition against the employment of young persons
in factories.

Mr. DRUMMOND presented a
.petition praying for the
establishment of local courts in certain parts of the country.
Mr. BECKETT presented a petition against the short-time
clause in the Factories Bill.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Colonel WOOD postponed till Tuesday, 26th inst., the mo-
tion which he had upon the paper relative to the exemption of
the carriage of lime from toll in Wales.
Mr. CURTEIS wished to give notice that, in the Committee
on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, he should move a resolu-
tion to the effect that boards of guardians be empowered to
permit paupers in workhouses to go outduring the day for air and
exercise ; and, in case of that resolution not being agreed to,
he should move another, to the effect that beards of guardians
be permitted to allow paupers in workhouses who were above
60 years of age, to go out during the day for the enjoyment of
air and exercise, subject to such regulations as the guardians
might think fit to impose.
Sir WALTER JAMES gave notice that, in Committee on
the Factories Bill, be should move that the word " child" in
the Bill mean a person under 15 years of age, and that the
words " young person" mean a person under years of age.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that to-morrow he would ask
for a statement of the changes which had taken place in the
book-keeping department of the public offices since the Report
that was made on the subject in the year 1822.
Mr. GILL wished, pursuant to the notice which he had
given yesterday, to put the following question to the Right
lion. Gentleman opposite—namely, whether the Right
lion. Gentleman was aware of the fact that there were two
officers of the 76th Regiment now in lievonport under arrest
since the 24th of July last, now nearly eight months, and that
they were put ander arrest in consequence of a dispute in the
mess-room to present further consequences, also whether or
not applications were made in December and January last by
letter to the Horse-Guards on behalf of one of the officers,
and if so what notice had been taken ? He wished also
to know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman had any objec-
tion to state to the House the grounds of the continued de-
tention of those officers, and why they were not released or their
conduct submitted to a proper tribunal. Lastly, he wished to know
whether /Sr not that arrest was not contrary to the articles of
war, which stated that no officer should be detained longer in
arrest than eight days, or until a court-martial could be as-
sembled ?

Sir H. HA RDINGE said, in reply to the first question, that
it was correct that two officers were so detained in arrest, and
secondly, they were put under arrest in consequence of a dis-
pute which occurred in the mess-room, to prevent further
consequences. With regard to applications made on behalf of
one of the officers to the Horse-Guards, he believed it was correct
that some letters were written to the authorities there. In reply,
to the fourth question, as to whether he had any objection to
state the grounds of the continued arrest, and whether the said
officers should net either be released or tried, as the Articles of
War quoted by the Hon. Member directed, he (Sir H.
Hardinge) had stated to the Honourable Gentleman
and to the House, that those officers were placed
under arrest, because one of them, a junior offi-
cer, was the bearer of a challenge to a senior officer,
which the latter accepted, both having thus violated their duty,
and therefore rendered themselves liable to arrest. After he
had been arrested the junior officer made the most ample apolo-
gies in his power, which were accepted by the other officer,
and the aggressor, who was very much in the wrong,
was about to be tried by Court Martial in conse-
quence of his • conduct. The other, who was not so