The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-11 00:00:00

IMPEhIA L PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 10.

Their Lordships ►net shortly before five o'clock.
The Bristol Floating Dock Bill was read a second time.
Several Bills on the table were advanced a stage.
The Victoria Park Bill passed through Committee,
and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday.
The Exchequer Bills Bill (190,0000 passed through
Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on
Thursday.
The Kensington and Knightsbridge Openings Bill also
passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read
a third time on Thursday.
SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS.
Lord HATHERTON gave notice that he would on
Friday present petitions on this subject, and that he
would take the opportunity of asking her Majesty's
Ministers whether it was their intention to take any
step upon the suggestion which he ventured to offer last
year, that a permissive (not a compulsory) Act should be
passed to enable the directors of canals, if they thought
pr, per, to make regulations for preventing Sunday
tr.tine on their canals.

The Copyright Bill was read a second time.
A Message from the Commons brought tip Benecke's
and Fierville's Naturalisation Bills, Weatherby and
Boroughbridge Roads Bill, and some other private Bills,
winch were severally read a first time.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM rose to bring the subject of bri-
bery at elections before their Lordships, a subject he had
before troubled their Lordships upon. He was induced
to call the attention of their Lordships on that occasion
to the subject, as a Select Committee had been appointed
in another place, for the purpose of inquiring into
costae corrupt compromises that had been made
with respect to charges of bribery. A Bill had been
introduced into that House on the subject some time
ago, and there was then on their Lordships' table a Bill
ready to be read a second time ; but they both differed
from each other as widely as they possibly could. The
Noble Lord then took a review of the two Bills as sent
up from the other House. Their Lordships could not
by possibility have given their consent to the former Bill
in the shape it was in when first presented. The Bill
introduced a year ago, was not introduced prospectively,
unlike that at present before their Lordships. The Bill
of last year provided that the witness was to tell all he
knew—the husband against the wife, and even the counsel
to give up his client. Now such a provision in the pre-
sent Bill, would be passing into a law that which was con-
trary to the first principles of English justice, that
of calling on the counsel to divulge the secrets
of his client, and that agent not a party to the bribery
at all, but to whom the acts of bribery had been con-
veyed, in order to the defence before the Committee.
Tan; was the man called upon by the Bill to
give evidence. The absurd part of the Bill was,
that the witness would be indemnified provided he con-
cealed nothing, but told the whole truth. This
was the most absurd part of the Bill. Anything
more impossible for their Lordships to give their
assent to never entered their Lordships House.
But if it be said why did you not alter the Bill more than
by leaving out three clauses, his answer was, that the
Bill came up to the House on the eve of the dis-
solution, and that to make even the one alteration it
was necessary to take it, not in Committee; but upon
bringing up the Report, fur the sake of saving one day.
He, therefore, in order to show that their Lordships
were of all men in the world the last to countenance such
practices as had prevailed, and that they might show the
utter want of foundation in the charge of which
he had spoken of their Lordships having thrown diffi-
culties in the way of providing a remedy—he urged them
to pass the Bill which he had proposed. He thought
it was the highest injustice to cast any reproach
upon those who; having petitioned for seats to
which they felt they were entitled, had with
drawn their petitions on the seats being resigned.
The man who petitioned did so-in his private capacity,
and was not bound to expose himself to the expense and
delay of a contested election in Committee, when his
adversary abandoned the seat to him. No one
abhorred more than he did the corrupt practices which
had prevailed ; but it was the worst thing that could be
done for the cause of morality to make exaggerated
charges ; for then the general sense of mankind was
roused in favour of the accused party as of a person who
was unjustly attacked. He concluded by moving the
second reading of the Indemnity to Witnesses Bill. He was
confident that the Bill would greatly assist in puttins, an
end to the corruption which was universally admitted and
notorious, and to put down which nothing more was neces-
sary than the cordial co-operation of both Houses of Par-
liament.
The Earl of WICKLOW said the Noble and Learned
Lord ought to have given notice of his motion. He (the
Earl of Wicklow) perfectly agreed in the principle of
the Bill, his objection to it was on a point of form.
Lord BROUGHAM said he did not think that any
notice was necessary.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that all difficulty
would be obviated if the Noble Lord would consent to
postpone his motion till to-morrow, and take the discus-
sion in the Committee.
The Earl of WICKLOW said, that whether it was a
matter of form or only a custom of courtesy to give no-
tice, he thought the custom ought to be adhered to.
Lord BROUGHAM was understood to assent to the
proposal of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions from Hud-
dersfield and other places against the Income-tax.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from Aber-
deen, praying for the abolition of Church patronage in
Scotland.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a number of
petitions against any alteration in the tariff.
Lord CLIFFORD (of Chudleigh) presented petitions
from Somerset and other places, complaining of Roman
Catholic grievances in the army and navy. The Noble
Lord said that he should withdraw his mo-
tion of which he had given notice, for a Com-
mittee to inquire into the treatment of certain
Roman Catholics in the presidency of Madras.
The Noble Lord proceeded to state his reasons for with-
drawing his motion. It was not for the purpose of
advocating any certain class which had induced
him to bring it forward, but one motive was,
that the House should be put in possession
of information not possessed by the House
prior to the 23d of September ; and another reason
was, that he wished to vindicate the memory
of a Noble Friend of his upon whom aspersions totally
without foundation had been cast. In withdrawing
his motion he wished it to be understood that
he had not at all changed his opinion
as to this subject, for he still believed that if the system
was continued it would much endanger her Majesty's
dominions in the East. Having lerrnt from the pub-
lic prints, that her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in
Madras, were to receive the attention of her Majesty's
Government in another place, he thoughtit was unneces-
sary to persevere in his motion for a Committee, as he
felt perfectly confident that all the good would arise to
the parties concerned, by the subject 'sting left to her
Majesty's Government, and would result from the .Com-
mittee. He had not withdrawn his motion from any
personal interest of his own. He withdrew his motion,
because he believed that every attention would be paid to
it by her Majesty's Government, and he therefore
thought it his duty to retire. He concluded by moving
that the motion he had placed on the books be rescinded.
Lord FITZGERALD said lie should not follow the
Noble Lord at any length, as he had withdrawn his
motion, but had he persevered in his motion, he (Lord
Fitzgerald) would have found great difficulty in acceding
t it, inasmuch as it would be a perversion of the '
functions of their Lordship's House. The answers to the ad-
dresses sent by the Noble Lord, the Governor-General of
India, to the Presidencies had not been received in England.
The Noble Lord might have received information, be-
cause he had some correspondents in India. Perhaps he
could depend upon it ; but this information was unknown
to the house. lie (Lord Fitzgerald) thought, upon the
imperfect information they possessed on the important
question of India, the very character of the inquiries
suggested by the Noble Lord, to be made by this Com-
mittee would render it almost powerless, and he thought
the Noble Lord had exercised a sound discretion in with-
dra e ing his motion, us the Noble Lord had stated it was
the invention of her Majesty's Government to inquire ,1
into the whole of the case. That inquiry would, he
hoped, be conducted with the utmost impartiality, for
he believed that great regard ought to be had to the
interests of those people, removed, as they were, so far
from the Imperial Government.
After a few' words frem Lord Clifford and Lord Fitz-
geraLl, in explanation; the subject dropped.
The 'souse then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four.
Toe Ferrybridge and Boroughbridge Road Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham
against the Stourbridge Road Bill.
On the motion of Mr. LYALL, the Indemnity Mutual
Marine Assurance Company was recd a second time, and
• ordered to be committed.
GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY BILL.
Lord J. STUART moved that the House should agree
to the Lords' amendments to the Glasgow, Kilmarnock,
and Ayr Railway Bill.
Sir J. EASTHOPE moved, as an amendment, that the
Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee,
for the purpose of considering the amendments.
Lord J. STUART believed the course adopted by
the Hon. Member for Leicester-was most unusual, and
tie should, therefore, resist the motion.
After a few observations from Mr. Fox Maule, Mr.
Dennistoun, Sir A. Leith Hay, Mr. Brotherton, and
Mr. Grimsditch,
Strangers were ordered to withdra.v, and the House
divided :
The numbers were—
For the recommittal of the Bill 54
For the Lords' amendments l5
IVlajority —39
THE FACTORY CHILDREN.
C6l. SIBTIIORP presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire, in favour of a Bill to prevent children, under
thirteen years old, being employed in factories more
than ten hours daily.
The Lords' amendments to_ the Glasgow and Redbnrn
Bridge Road, and to the k;ottingharn Drainage, were
agreed to without a division.
The Warkworth Harbour Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Farmers' and Gardeners' Hail-storm Insurance
Company Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
Benecke s Naturalisation Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Lords' amendments to the Buckland Enclosure
Bill were agreed to.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire, praying the House to pass a law to limit the
labour of all persons employed in factories to fifty-eight
Lours per week.