The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-30 00:00:00

THE TEN HOURS BILL.

Dr. BOW RING presented a petition, numerously signed,
from Bolton, in favour of the Ten Hours Bill.
MANUFACTURING DISTRESS.

Mr. COBI)EN presented a petition from the hat manufac-
turers of Lancashire, complaining of distress and praying fur
inquiry.

PRIVILEGE.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought up the report of the
Committee appointed to inquire into the case of the action of
Howard v. Gossett. The report stated that on Tuesday last
judgment was obtained against Sir William Gossett, and a ver-
dict of 2001. returned, execution upon which would be levied
on tha 2d of June. The Committee recommended that a writ
of error should be brought on the judgment in the
Court of Queen's Bench. As the execution would not preju-
dice the proceedings in the writ of error, the Committee did
not feel it expedient to prevent the levy.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL then moved that the report
be printed.
Mr. HIJAIE thought that some day ought to be mentioned
upon which to take this report into consideration. He thought
that the privileges of that House were not properly protected.
He thought the time had now come when they ought to ascer-
tain whether they had any privileges or not.
The SOLICITOR- GENER AL thought that it would be better
to wait, so as to give further time for consideration. They might,
it was true, take the other course, and he was quite willing to
follow any suggestion the House might make, but he thought
that these was some further information which might be laid
before the House. By thus doing, the House would effectually
interfere, without being committed to any course.
Mr. HUME wished to ask whether there were any means
of stopping the execution?
Mr. WATSON said that unless they put in bail in error the
execution must proceed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that execution could
be enforced on the 2d of June. He would lay a copy of all
the papers before the House to-morrow, and the report might
then be taken into consideration.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said they had got a copy of the
judgment, but they wanted a copy of the warrant and of the
record to enable them to proceed rightly.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the record, though
not supplied, might be had to-morrow, though, strictly speak-
ing, it could not be made up until all the proceedings had been
gone through in the case.
Sir T. •;'ILDE said that it was necessary to have a copy of
the warrant and of the record before the House. before they
took any step with any justifiable hope of vindicating their
privileges.
Mr. COLLETT asked whether this was a motion of suffi-
cient importance to take precedence of the other orders of
the day.
The SPEAKER—Of course.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the copy of the record
was being printed, and he would lay copies of it on the table
in the morning, and he moved that the report be taken into
consideration to-morrow.

This was agreed to, and the subject dropped.
Sir W. H. BARRON presented a petition from Waterford,
against the Irish Poor-law Bill.
Air. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the Com-
plete Suffrage Society, for an eateniion of the franchise.
THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that, on that day fortnight, he
would make a specific motion as to the mode in which justice
was administered in the Channel Islands.
NEW ZEALAND. . _ _

Mr. M. MILNES gave notice that on the motion of Mr.
C. Buller respecting the New Zealand Company, he would
move that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire
into the sufferings of the emigrants under the Company.
The Hon. Member further gave notice that, on the 3d of June,
he should call the attention of the House to the mischievous
effects of public executions.
CASE OF LIEUT. COLLINS.

Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT rose to put to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Beverley the question of which he had given notice.
He wished to ask him whether the Court of Directors of the
East India Company had considered the case of Lieut. Collins,
late of the East India Company's service, who had been tried
by a court-martial and dismissed, whether he was enabled to
give any opinion as to the legality or illegality of the court-
martial by which he had been dismissed. Secondly, supposing
that, in their opinion, the court-martial which
had dismissed Lieutenant Collins was illegal, whe-
ther he did not think that some substantial
compensation should be made by the Government to Lieut.
Collins for his illegal dismissal by a sentence which the Court
of Directors of the East India Company themselves considered
as illegal; and he would ask, in addition, if the Hon. Member
was not aware that in the opinion of many learned persons,that
Court was an illegal Court?
Mr. HOGG thought he was scarcely called upon to answer
these questions.—( Hear, hear.) If it were the pleasure of
the House that he should go into the ease of Lieutenant
Collins, he would do so, and he would state the charge
against that gentleman, not in his oan words, but in
the words of the finding of the court, with the observa-
tions of the Commander-in-Chief thereon.—(Hear, hear. )
He would state this in the words of the finding, without add-
ing a word of observat ion from himself, if the House thought
it was expedient that he should do so ; but he gathered that
the House was of opinion that it would he better that he
should abstain.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the legality
of these proceedings, he was surprised that the Honourable
Gentleman should ask whether or not the Court of
Directors had considered the legality of the court-martial.
They had no right to take upon themselves to judge of its
legality. The whole authority for judging of court-martials
was vested by the warrant of the Crown in the Commander-in-
Chief. He was the sole authority on the subject, and from his
decision there was no appeal. The Court of Directors had no
power to alter, correct, or affirm:the decision of any court-martial.
The Mutiny Act described the course of proceeding if there
was reason to complain. The courts of Westminster were
open to those who in this country felt themselves aggrieved,
so were the courts in India, and the courts in the
various presidencies. The Court of Directors had
no power to pass any opinion on the finding of a
court-martial. They had the power, by the 51st of Geo. 111.,
to restore into the service any officer who had been sus-
pended or dismissed by the sentence of a court-martial ; but
the power of the statute did not come into operation till the
sentence of the court-martial had been come to. The
Court of Directors had considered the case of Lieu-
tenant Collins, and believed it one of hardship. If he
had voluntarily retired from the service, he would have had a
pension of 731. a year, and although he had forfeited his right
to that allowance, the Court voluntarily agreed to give him the
sum of 701. a-year, 31. less than the pension he would other-
wise have received. To show the House how careful the Di-
rectors had been in exercising the power vested in them,
of restoring officers to the service who had been
dismissed by a court-martial during twenty-seven years
they had only been called uponto exercise it on eight occasions,
and every one of these cases were referred to them by local
authorities, or by he Commander-in-Chief himself. It would
therefore ai•pear that the Court of Directors had inquired into
the case with a desire to do everything for this unfortunate
man, consistent with their duty to that service in which
he had been an officer. He repeated that he was not the
organ of the Court of Directors. He did not think much dis-
cretion was shown in forcing the subject before the House.
Mr. ESCOTT said the Hon. Gentleman bad not answered
either of the questions which he had put to him. He should
refer the matter to the Board of Control, who would, no doubt,
give their attention to it.
Mr. HOGG was understood to say that the Board of Control
had no jurisdiction in the matter.