The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. FELLOWES presented petitions from various places in
Huntingdonshire against the proposed alteration in the law of
settlement. Also a petition against the union of the Sees of
St. Ast.ph and Bangor.
POST-OFFICE ABUSES.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by
400 merchants of the City of London, complaining of the
exaction of fret' by the officers of the General Post-office,
under the pretence of an early delivery of letters ; also, com-
plaining of the abuses of the Post-office generally, and pray-
ing for inquiry. Ile had already given notice of a motion
for a Committee of inquiry. Also, a petition from an
individual, praying for the inclosure of waste lands for the
benefit of the poor.
BRADFORD, D
LONON,
ILWAY.D AN BIRMINGHAM
RA

The Bradford, London, and Birmingham Railway Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the LordsYNOO brougTH.ht down certain Bills.
MA
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Dundee and other
places, disapproving of the 11laynooth grant.

NOTICE OF MOTION—ACADEMICAL INSTITU-
TIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord J. MANNERS gave notice that or, the motion for the
second reading of the Academical Institutions (Ireland) Bill,
he should move that the I3ill be read a second time that day six
months.

ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. T. DUNUOMBE moved for leave to bring in a Bit
to amend the law fcr the arrestment of wages in Scotland.—
Agreed to.

TEN HOURS' FACTORY BILL.
Lord PA LAIE RSTON presented a petition from Manchester
and Salford in favour of a Ten Hours' Factory Bill.
NEW ZEALAND.

' Mr. G. H. HOPE said he was desirous of calling the atten-
tion of the House to a statement which he made on the 2d of
' May, in reference to the circumstances under which a notice
of motion made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), was postponed. The postpone-
ment was made by the Hon. Gentleman himself, and not
at the request of her Majesty's Government. neither was it
the result of any compromise between the Noble Lord at the
head of the Colonial Department and the New Zealand Com-
pany. A report of that Company had been pub-
lished, from which different inferences had bees drawn.
Ile would state in a few words what occurred.
On the let of May, having post; oned his motion in
consequence of some communication with Lord Stanley, he
postponed the motion to which he had alluded, but
which, a; he had stated, was not the result of
any compromise whatever. In order that no mistake
might arise, he would read the letter which had
been sent by the Noble Lord to the Honourable Gentleman.
The Hon. Member then read the letter addressed to the lion.
Member for Liskeard, requesting to know the reason why be
postponed his motion, and whether it arose from a previous
arrangement. 'To that letter he had returned an answer that
no arrangement had been entered into by the Honourable
and Learned Member. After this, he would leave it to
the House to decide whether they (the Ministry) were justi-
fied or not in these proceedings.
Mr. CH ARLES BULLER, who was throughout very
imperfectly heard, so much so, that many Hon. Members
repeatedly called out, " Speak out, speak out," was under-
stood to say, that it was due to the Right Hon. Baronet op-
posite, and to Lord Stanley, that he should make some ex-
planation respecting the correspondence which had passed
between himself and the Government, and the circumstances
which had been alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, in regard
to the withdrawal of the motion which he was sorry to say
had been attributed to circumstances that had no existence.
It was a mistake to say, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
J. Graham) had entered into any compromise with him for
the withdrawal of his motion. What occurred was this. He
had, requested the Right Hon. Baronet to admit of a negotia-
tion on the part of the Directors. The Right lion. Gentleman
said that he would consult Lord Stanley, but that it was im-
possible for the Government to enter into any negotiation so
long as his (Mr. Buller's) motion stood upon the paper of the
He therefore represented the matter to the Board of
Directors, and they agreed with him that it would be best to
withdraw the motion, and leave the Government free to enter
into the negotiation. There was no compromise whatever.—
(Hear, hear.) He had thought it his duty to say that there
was no breach of faith on either side.—( Hear, heir. )
Sir J. GRAHAM must corroborate the statement of his
Hon. and Learned Friend. But he must also state his regret
that confidential conversation between Members of that house,
even though they sat upon opposite sides.—(Hear, hear.)
The conversations which he had had with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard were perfectly confidential, and
it was with great surprise he received a letter from the chair-
man of the New Zealand Company, informing him that the
secret committee of the board of directors were possessed of
minutes of the conversations between Mr. C. Buller and him-
self; that they were about to publish them, and requested him
to corroborate or correct them. Now, as he had taken no
notes of the conversations, he could neither correct nor cor-
roborate those minutes. But the Hon. and Learned Member
for Liskeard had so correctly stated what had occurred, he
could not doubt that the minutes alluded to would be equally
faithful.

Mr. AGLIONBY said that the secret committee of the
board of directors had thought it their duty to report the sub-
stance of the conversations to the board. He was glad to hear
the Right Hon. Baronet bear testimony to the sincerity and
high honour of his Hon. and Learned Friend.
GAME-LAWS—THE CASE OF JAMES DEANE.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet a ques-
tion of which he had given notice last night, in respect to the
case of James Deane, a man sixty years of age, who was sent
to Reading gaol for four months for stealing pheasants' eggs.
He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it was his
intention to lay before the House the documents relating to
the case ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that, in consequence of magistrates
having cumulated the punishment by adding one month's im-
prisonment to the previous sentence of three months' imprison-
ment, he had advised her Majesty to remit the cumulated por-
tion of the sentence.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that it was exceedingly
wrong for a man to be imprisoned and fined both for such an
offence as this. It was anything but fair for the proprietors to
profess a wish to reduce poaching, and then to take the very
measures which wore likely to increase the evil. There was
noth►ng more monstrous than for the preservers of game to
become the purchasers of it from the public. In the cue
which had been cited the poor man had been relieved from his
imprisonment by the Hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett),
who thought that a double punishment was too much, and
therefore paid the fine hi►naelf.

Sir JOHN WALSH said that this man had been con-
victed for this offence without hi: knowledge, and certainly
without any wish of his. The circumstances, it appeared,
were these :—The offender had offered game for sale ; he be-
lieved they were pheasants and pheasants' eggs, to a young
man, who had only been about a twelvemonth in his service,
and who, from being unacquainted with the game-laws, had
asked the other keepers what course he should pursue, and in
consequence of their advice, he had again seen the man, who
was apprehended, taken before the magistrate, and convicted.
He ( Sir John Walsh )was out f the country at the time, or he
would certainly have interfered.
Mr. OSBORNE said that a man had been sentenced to one
month's imprisonment, but had undergone three months, in
consequence of his inability to pay the fine, and he certainly
thought that the Government ought to inquire into the
matter,

Sir J. GRAHAM said the merits of the ease had not been
brought before him, nor did he go at all with them. It was
quite open to the parties to go into the merits of the case, but
theey did not go into them. _

Mr. COLLETT said he hoped he might be excused for now
saying a word or two, as the matter had reference to himself
personally. The daughter-in-law of this poor man came to
his house, and made a statement corroborative of that which
appeared in the Times newspaper. Feeling for the poor man,
he sent his servant down to Beading with the money for his
liberation. The poor man was obliged to pick oakum, and
had been in solitary confinement. The money was, however,
paid, and the man was set at liberty. The Hon. Member
then read a letter which appeared in the Times newspaper of
that day, and added, that as the payment of the fine had been
ascribed to a person much higher in rank, he thought it but
right to make this statement. He had, on that day, written
to the Times to the same effect.—(Cheers.)
JERSEY LAW COURTS.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to putii-cluestion to the
Right Hon. Gentleman relative to an appiication which had
been made to the Comptroller-General, respecting the eon-
duct of the law officers of Jersey. Application was made to
the other law courts, and from them the matter had been re-
ferred to the consideration of the Royal Court, whieh had de-
termined it was a matter of civil action. It was not a concern
for criminal interference. A secret inquiry, which is peculiar
to the constitution of Jersey. was then instituted, and the
whole of the results of this inquiry were published in the French
language, and it was determined that no punishment should
be awarded. The Hon. Member wanted to know whether any
steps had been taken by the Government to ask for au ex-
planation of the conduct of the law officers of Jersey.
Sir J. GRAHAM replied that the law officers had not yet
had an opportunity of making any defence, and he felt satisfied
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not press his question
until the officers had been enabled to explain.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know what step the Govern-
ment intended to take with respect to the question of privilege
that had been brought before the House last night. A report
of the Committee had been presented, and it appeared to consist
of two parts. The first was with respect to delaying the exe-
cution on Monday next ; and the second was that the Court
had come to the decision that it was proper to proceed by a writ
of error in the superior Court. With regard to the first part,
that of staying the execution next Monday, the House might
go into the subject ; but with regard to the second part, that
relating to the writ of error, he begged leave to state that it
was the opinion of the Committee that they ought to meet
again and draw up a more detailed report, to be presented to
the House before any discussion taken place upon the ques-
tion. It was necessary, before the House going into the sub-
ject, to have the fullest data before them. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Worcester (Sir Thomas Wylde) and the
Right Hon. Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey)
thought this would be the proper course to pursue.
Sir R. PEEL said, as this was a most important question,
it was desirable, before going into its discussion, that they
should have the fullest report from the Committee, along with
the reasons on which their report was founded. Before taking
any other step, such a course, he held, was absolutely necessary.
Sir T. WILDE thought it was desirable to state to the
House that, of the two evils, the taking of the course recom-
mended by the Committee would be infinitely the lesser one.
The allowing the execution to take place next Monday, would
not interfere with the proceedings of the writ of error. The
evil of levying damages, bore no proportion whatever to their
taking a premature step before full and explicit information was
placed before them.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that, if the proposed levy was
allowed to take place, it would prejudice their case when they
went into another Court to have it heard. He wanted to know
how any difficulty of this kind was to be got over.
Sir T. WILDE said that the proceedings in the writ of
error would be quite independent of the others pending against
them. The writ would be unaffected by the execution. When
such a course was taken by the House, with the understanding
that it was to try the question in a superior Court, no evil
could arise from it. He was satisfied that no evil could arise

from the execution, if they acted upon the suggestions of the
Committee.

Mr. HUME said that many of their warrants had been is-
sued, but few of them had been carried into effect. The war •
rant ran thus :

" According to the Standing Orders of the House, the
House of Commons in Parliament assembled, these are to re-
quire you to take into your custody any party or parties who
may or shall affect, interfere, or molest the person of Sir Wil-
liam Gossett, our Sergeant•at-Arms ; and also all Sheriffs,
Sheriffs' officers, or other persons who may be assisting in the
same. And for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant.
" Dated this 3d day of February.
(Signed) "J. Sit awe LEFEVRE, Speaker."
Now, this was a powerful warrant, and he did not think that
they ought to depart from the position they had assumed. They
might, indeed, waive their own privileges, if they only consi •
dered themselves, but they affected the public, and, therefore,
he thought that it was their duty to uphold them. He thought
that they had succumbed sufficiently already. For his part,
he was inclined to propose that the officers of the House
should take into custody all and every person who
should attempt to carry this judgment into execution, and
imprison them forthwith. The Hon. Member had talked of
waiting for further information before they deliberated on the
report, and asked for further delay before they made an:, mo-
tion, but for this he saw no necessity. Every Member of
that House had a right to act as an officer, and on the unhappy
occasion when Mr. Percival was shot, he (Mr. Hume) had
been thc person to seize the assassin and assist in conveying
him up stairs, and had kept him there in custody until the
officers arrived to convey him to safer keeping. The qUestion
was, whether they really had any privileges or not. He thought
they had, and that it was high time to vindicate them, and he
only wished that his Hon. and Learned Friend would lead the
way.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the House would pause
before they acted, and get the full report of the Committee.
There were two parts in the report which it was essential to be
brought under the attention of the House. First, whether the
House would follow out their decision and seize the Lord Chief
Justice on the seat of justice.
Mr. HUNIE—" Seiz2 him if he comes to this notice."
Sir R. H. INGLIS said, that if the Hon. Member waited
till the Chief Justice appeared at that bar of the House his cou-
rage was not likely to be very soon tested. But though' here