The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juue 11.
The SPZAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
'NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY.
on the order of the day for the report on the Newcastle and
Darlington (Brandling Branch) Railway being read,
Mr. LIDDELL moved that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. H. HINDE opposed the motion, which was negatived
without a division, and the report was agreed to.
NEWCASTLE AND BERWICK RAILWAY.
On the motion for the third reading of the Newcastle and
Berwick Railway Bill,
Mr. H. HINDE moved that the Directors appointed by
the Duke of Northumberland shall be shareholders in the
company ; and that the standing order requiring such amend-
ment to be referred to the Standing Order Comm►ttee, be sus-
pended.
The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill was read a
third time and passed.
MANCHESTER AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.
The report on the Manchester and Birmingham Railway
( Ashton Branch) was agreed to.
ASHTON, LIVERPOOL, AND STALEYBRIDGE
RAILWAY.

The report on the Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool
Junction Railway Bill was brought up.
The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Iron Bill was read a third
time and pas,ed.
PONTYPOOL RAILWAY.
Mr. BECKETT brought up the report on the Pontypool
Railway Bill.
MANCHESTER IMPROVEAIEN I' BILL.
The Manchester Improvement Bill, and the Manchester
Courts Bill were respectively read a third time.
GREAT WESTERN (IRELAND) RAILWAY.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE moved that certain reports on the
subject of inland Lavigation (Ireland), should be referred to the
Committee on the Great Western Railway (Ireland) Bill.
Lord HARRY VANE, moved that certain persons should
be summoned to give evidence before the Committee on the
Nuneaton Railway Bill.—Agreed to.
CHESTER AND BIRKENHEAD RAILWAY.
The report on the Chester and Birkenhead Railway Bill was
brought up.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Durham in favour
of the Hartlepool Railway Bill, and another from Heywood in
favour of the Liverpool and Birmingham Railway Bill.
ACCIDENT TO SIR B. HALL.
Lord SANDON reported from the Committee of which he
he was Chairman, that Sir Benjamin Hall had not at-
tended in consequence of an accident which had befalkn the
Honourable Baronet, by which he had sustained serious injury.
He moved that Sir B. Hall be discharged from further at-
tendance on the Committee.—Agreed to.
LYNN AND DE,,EHA ti RAILWAY.
The report on the Lynu arid Dereham Railway Bill was
brought up.
WATERFORD AND KILKENNY RAILWAY BILL.
The report on the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway Bill was
brought up.

POOR. LAWS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. H. DRUMMOND presented a petition from Perth
against the Scotch Poor-laws.

DISTRESS.
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from the operatives
of Leicester, complaining of distress, praying for relief, and
mere particularly for an alteration of the poor-lawn. T I4e
Hon. Member gave notice that he should to-morrow move
that the petition be printed.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from the iltecr-
?sellers of Salford, praying to be placed on the same footing as
the licensed victuallers.

Mr. F. KELLY presented a petition from Cambridge
against the Parochial Settlement Bill.
Mr. COWPER presented two petitions from Yorkshire in
favour of a Ten Hours' Bill for young persons and females.
Mr. BRIGHT presented three petitions from Rochdale to
the same effect.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition in favour of the
Smoke Prohibition Bill.

ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE brought in this Bill, which was read
a first time.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).

Mr. LAW gave notice that, on the motion for the third reading
of the Irish Colleges Bill, he should move an amendment to the
effect, that the inculcation of religion was an essential element
in a system of national education, and that no measure brought
in by her Majesty's Government on the subject of education
ought to receive the sanction of the House unless it contained
provisions for reliaiou- instruction.
RAILWAY CONSOLII>> HON CLAUSES (SCOT-
LAND) KILL.

LI answer to a question froM Mr. LABOUCHERE,
The LORD ADVOCATE said he should bring on this Bill
on Tuesday next.
STATUTE LABOUR (SCOTL IND) BILL.
The Douse then went into Committee upon this Bill.
Clauses Ito 10 inclusive were agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved the insertion, at the end
of clause 10,, of the following words : —" Provided always that
nothing herein contained shall be held to preclude
the imposing and levying of any assessment which by
any local Act applicable to any county or district in
which there are no tolls, is authorised to be imposed upon and
.evied from any person, by reason of his keeping a horse or
horses, although such person may not be the proprietor or
occupier of lands, buildings, or other heritable subjects as
aforesaid."

Mr. HUME thought the provisions of the measure required
some amendment, though he agreed generally in its principle.
The amendment was then agreed to.
The House then resumed.

The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again.

DOG-STEALING BILL.

Mr. LIDDELL proposed the second reading of the above_
named Bill, which would have the effect of imposing a punish-
ment of seven years' transportation for dog-stealing, on con-
viction.

Mr. HUME considered the Bill was very badly drawn up,
for the effect of clause the third proposed, that if a dog followed
a man he would be liable to be transported, and besides, the
Bill would expose any person to much inconvenience in case a
dog strayed by accident into his house, or was designedly left
there. The Bill provided, that any person in whose house
a strayed or stolen dog was supposed to be, would be liable to
be served with a search-warrant, and to appear before a ma-
gistrate to account for the presence of the dog or, his premises.
Those who kept dogs ought to look after them, and no Act of
Parliament, in his op nion, was needed. Supposing he had a good-
natured cook in his house, who was in the habit of giving a
strange dog a bone now and then, which was very frequently
the case, and as the dog would most likely be in the kitchen,
a search-warrant might be issued, and he would be exposed
to great inconvenience entirely through the good nature of
his cook. There existed a system of smuggling on the bounda•
ries of France and Belgium, which was carried on entirely by
means of dogs trained for the purpose. These dogs are kept
and fed within the French territories, and whenever they are
taken within the environs of Belgium they are flogged most un-
mercifully. At the sight of a douanier, or Custom-house officer,
and having pareels of tobacco, silks, and other articles ticd round
their necks, they are immediately let loose, and off they scamper
safe with their smuggled goods beyond the reach of the agents of
the law. It was owing to the possessors of dogs letting them go
astray from home, that they were lost.—( Laughter.) Every man
should lock up his dog until he wanted him.--(Laughter.)
If this Bill be wanted, let the Government bring it in. He
begged to move that it be read a second time that day six
months.

Captain BERKELEY said that dog-stealing had become an
intolerable nuisance in London, and therefore he hoped the
Hon. Member would persevere with his Bill.
Major BERESFORD said that if the Hon. Member for
Montrose had read the evidence, he would not have spoken
upon this subject as he had. Dogs were a valuable property,
and had a right to he protected.
Mr. WARBURTON conceived that the punishment con-
tained in the Bill was disproportioned to the offence, when
he recollected the small offences for which people
were punished with transportation. What would the
Secretary of State for the Home Department say
of transportation, which had been lately substituted fur
capital punishment, being made the punishment also for the
second offence of dog-stealing ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM could not remain silent after the
appeal made to him by the Honourable Member for Kendal,
especially as such silence would probably ba misinterpreted.
As to the graduation of punishment, a few years ago sheep-
stealing was punished by death, and he never could understand
why the common law of this country should regard the posses-
sioa of dogs as base property. He considered such a distinc-
tion insupportable and anomalous, and as the provisions of the
present Bill did not contemplate the removal of such objections,
and the recognising these domestic animals among the rights of
property, he should give his support to the second reading,
reserving for himself the right of examining more closely
into its details, previous to the Bill going into Committee.
Mr. WATSON said that the law bad very wisely stated that
dogs, being of wandering habit could not be the subject of
larceny. The words of the Act at present in force were,
that n any person should be found in possession of
a stolen dog, or the skin thereof, he should be liable to heavy
penalties. Surely that was enough.—(Hear, hear.) Before
she Committee of Inquiry up stairs several witnesses were
brought forward who had lost dogs, and the most distressing
case amongst them was that of a man who had lost a pug dog.
—(A laugh.) He opposed the Bill.
Mr. RICARDO also opposed the Bill.
Mr. ESTOOCRT said that the Bill was monstrous and un-
just, and he would oppose it to the utmost of his power.
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the Bill. Was a poor
man to be punished for being found in possession of a dog
which he had perhaps found starving in the streets, and which
from motives of kindness he had taken to his home.

Mr. LIDDELL said the attacks were as foolish and igno-
rant as any provision in the Bill. A Commissioner of Police,
who was examined before the Committee, said he thought the
present law was in a most unsatisfactory condition. It was
also proved before the Committee that 1,000/. had been levied
en the London public in one year by these artful dog-stealers.
Mr. FOSTER thought that it was a mere waste of the pub-
lic time to legislate on such a frivolous and absurd subject, and
he begged the House to observe the gravity of the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite ( Sir J. Graham) as an evidence of the serious
light in which that Gentleman treated the subject. (Laughter. )
_ Mr. BRIGHT said that dogs were running about the
_streets so numerously, that it ws impossible to know whosedog,
deg, they were. He considered that there was at present a
sufficient protection for that kind of property, and if this Bill
passed there would be an undue and an unnecessary protection
given, which would increase, rather than abate, the nuisance.
dflegsthothnegyht,,litohualdt
aiflsothey allopted the principle with respect to
equally as valuable it to another species of property
—he
meant the domestic cat.—( Laughter.)
He had no doubt there were many lathes who would cordially
sanction the introduction
of such a measure. He objected,
however, to that House
legislating on such frivolous Bills, and
would vote, with great
pleasure, against the clause.
After a few words from Darby, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Henley, and Mr.
Mr. AGLIONBY sai •
d he
should not be protected from could see no reason why dogs
proper ty. the robber as well as any other
The House then divided, when th
For the second reading . ere appeared—
Against it .......................... 67
Majority for the second read in ... ........
23
COUNTY RATES BILL ......
—44
Sir J. Y. BULLER moved the second reading of the
County-
rates Bill, the principle of which was to enable the. County
/tlagistrates to appoint a Committee, selected from their OWLS
bldy, who in their turn should appoint a valuator and collector
S
of rates; from these officers they could ascertain the several
p irticulars which would enable them to determine and fix a
rate. Such being the main feature of the Bill, he would not
then eater into its detail,. Improvements or amendments could
be made on it when in Committee, and he therefore trusted no
opposition would be given to its second reading pro forma.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought the question of fecal taxation
was in a most complicated and unintelligible state, and any
Leasure which would place it epos a more satisfactory footing,
would not only be satisfactory, but invaluable. But regarding
as he did the present measure as one neither calculated to re-
stove nor diminish the objections at present existing, he called
upon Hon. Members to pause before they passed it into a law.
It gave the adjudication of apportionment into the hands of in-
terested parties, and as to rating, it made the mode of assess-
ment, according to the annual, instead of the intrinsic, value of
the property, and thus house property would be rated at double
the value of land, and according to the net annual value. But
such was a most unfair criterion, and, like the Bill itself, un-