The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-26 00:00:00

SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.

The House then went into Committee on the Smoke
Prohibition Bill on the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN.
On the Ist clause being put,
Mr. HAWES said that he should certainly object to
this clause, for he did not see that there was any suffi-
cient security for carrying out the provisions of the Bill.
The Earl of LINCOLN trusted that the Hon. Gen-
tleman would sot persevere in his opposition to the clause,
fur he thought that there was a sufficient security for
the Bill being carried out. The machinery of Commis.
sioners was totally unnecessary for carrying out its pro-
visions, for the Bill itself would be its own security.
The clause then passed.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK opposed the clause, on the
ground that there was not sufficient provision for en-
forcing the regulations of the Bill.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that his attention had
not been brought to this point until this morning, and
he thought that some clause might be iatroduced for
giving the town council of boroughs power to assess
the rates. Justices for the county had certainly a right
to interfere with the rates, but town justices had not.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought thatthe words
of the Act were puite sufficient for the purpose, espe-
cially as the term smoke appeared to be well defined.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that the term smoke he
apprehended to mean the dark vapour which issued from
the chimney of the manufactory, and he thought that
any one acquainted with the labours of the Select Com-
mittee upstairs would have no difficulty in coming to a
decision.
After u, conversation, in which Mr. Mackinnon, Mr.
Hawes, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Borthwick took part,
Mr. WILLIAMS said that a friend of his, who was
most certainly the largest manufacturer in England, had
erected an apparatus for 38s. which had completely ob-
viated all the nuisance.
Mr. RICARDO said, that so far as his experience
went, the attempt to obviate the evil had been perfectly
useless, and he thought that before the House called
upon any manufacturer to abate the nuisance, they ought
to provide a means by which the evil might be reduced.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the manufacturer of whom
he had spoken had saved several hundred pounds a year
at the cost of 385., and had completely abated the evil
from every portion of his manufactory.
Mr. MACKINNON thought that it would be quite
useless to lay down any plan for reducing the evil. The
circumstances of every manufactory were different from
every other. All they wanted was to know what it was
that they had to guard against.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that he should wish to
introduce by amendment that the work smoke should,
in every instance, be taken to mean dark smoke, and not
gas or vapour.
The clause then passed.
A long discussion then arose on the provisions of the
second clause, in which Lord Newry, Mr. Hawes, Mr.
P. Borthwick, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Ricardo joined.
Mr. PROTHEROE contended that the lion. Member
for Wolverhampton was wrong in supposing that smoke
was not injurious. He (Mr. Protheroe) contended that it
was
not only injurious, but extremely inconvenient to
the inhabitants of those houses in whose vicinity it was
emitted.
Mr. J. H. VIVIAN proposed, as an amendment, that
the resolution contained in the interpretation clause be
confined to steam-engines connected with mineral
mines.

After a few observations from Mr. Vivian and Mr.
Buller, the Souse divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 2
Againstit
Majorit y against it —42
The House then divided on the amendment proposed
by Mr. Villiers, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Maj0rity.................. ...... —33
After a few words from Mr. M•linniox and Mr.

VILLIERS,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that he had very greath
doubts as to the policy of those amendments
subject had been referred, by distinct agreement, The
subject toe
a Select Committee, and he, therefore, would give his
decided opposition to anything that militated against
the opinion which they bad come to, in reference to
stationary engines.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the Hon. Member
for Stoke-upon-Trent should not, after the evidence
which hd be given press the adoption of his views.
Aftera a few words, from Mr. WA is
and Mr.
DUKINNoN,
Mr. BROTHERTON said that a petition had been
presented by his ovvri constituents against the amend-
ments of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He
.thought by adopting the measure it would be in no way
andurious to the manufactories of the country.
Mr. RICARDO said that he Rave the gentleman
vast credit for his perseverance in bringing forward

this question, but he thought he should not press the
subject forward with such unseemly haste.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BORTH WICK said that his Honourable Friend
Mr. Mackinnon had not broken faith with th Honour-
able Member for Wolverhampton. It was only iron
works which were to be exempted, not minin works.
Mr. VILLIERS suggested that it would e better to
postpone the Bill for a week, in order to prey nt any one
supposing that there had been any trick in etting the
Bill through. The Honourable Gentleman (jr. Mac-
kinnon) had received a deputation of manufacturers who
believed that they would be affected by this Bill, and the
Hon. Gentleman gave them the assurance that the Bill
would not affect them. On this ground, then, it would be
well for the Honourable Gentleman to postpone the Bill
for a week.

Mr. M'KINNON said the amendments which had
been made in the Bill were not his but those of the Com-
mittee.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought the Bill ought to proceed.
The Earl of LINCOLN did not think that any ground
had been shown for the postponement of the Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD was understood to take the same
view.

Mr. RICARDO said he had no wish to interfere with
the decision of the Committee. He had understood the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) on a former
occasion as recommending Members to consult their con-
stituents. That course he (Mr. Ricardo) had taken and
had received petitions from numerous respectable manu
facturers, accompanied moreover by deputations, not
only from the town he represented but other extensive
commercial districts. In consultation with these parties
he proposed to introduce and support the clause both
in Committee upstairs and also in Committee of the
whole House, but being informed that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Lymington had promised to obtain the insertion
of the clause in either stage of the Bill, he contented
himself with merely giving it his vote. Finding, how-
ever, now that the Hon. Member had deserted his
charge he (Mr. Ricardo) would take it up anew, and
press it with all the power he could command.—(Hear.)
Mr. MACKINNON explained that his course on the
present clause was solely in reference to the iron-works.
Mr. HAWES should oppose the Bill unless he ob-
tained a specific assurance from the Hon. Member for
Lymington that he had not neglected the wishes of the
manufacturers after giving a pledge to support them.
Mr. VILLIERS denied that the manufacturers were
opposed to the Bill.
Mr. PROTHEROE suggested that the clauses urged
by the Member for Stoke•upon-Trent should be with-
drawn until the Bill was reported, sad at that stage re-
introduced.

Mr. P. BORTRWICK and Lord G. SOMERSET defended
the conduct of the Member for Lymington.
After some further discussion the Committee divided,
when the numbers appeared—

. 53

For the motion .
Against it
Majority against the motion —'46
On the next clause being read,
Mr. HAWES proposed an amendment that all en-
gines and works under the inspection of the Excise be
exempted from its provisions.
Mr. MACKINNON objected to the amendment- He
did not see any just reason for the exemption.
After a few further remarks by several Hon. Mem-
bers the gallery was cleared for a division.

-
On our return we learned that the amendment was
withdrawn without a division.

Clauses up to 12 exclusive were then agreed to with-
out discussion. On that clause, which enjoined a penalty
of 5/. on the manufacturer who neglected to consume his
smoke,

Mr. RICARDO objected to it, as entailing a gross ina
justice on the master, by the negligence of whose ser-
vant the infringement of the law had been committed.
Mr. P. BORTtIWICK explained that the master
could proceed against the servant, and the magistrate
was empowered to inflict a penalty on the latter.
After a few words from Mr. Mackinnon, the Solicitor-
General, and Mr. Hawes, the clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
House resumed.

The report was ordered to be brought up on Friday
next.

Lord JOHN MANNERS postponed his motion for
the second reading of the Pious and Charitable Purposes
Bill till the 16th of July.
FOREIGN LOTTERIES.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for and ob-
tained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law for-
bidding the advertisement of foreign lotteries, and to
stop certain actions commenced under it.
To be read a second time on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVIIIFIGE
HOWARD v. GOSSET.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire Alto the
proceedings of the action of Howard v. Gosset, and to
report their observations and opinions thereon to the
House, have proceeded to the consideration of the
matters to them referred, and have agreed to the follow-
ing report :
Your Committee proceed, in discharge of the duty
imposed upon them, to express their opinion as to the
e)urse which, in the present state of the proceedings in
the action of Howard v. Gosset, it is advisable for the
House to adopt.
They have given their anxious consideration to this
question, and have found it one of great difficulty. On
the one hand, they feel that it is of the utmost import-
ance that the House should maintain the ancient privi-
leges which are essential to the discharge of its consti-
tutional functions ; on the other hand, they are not in-
sensible to the public evil which might result from the
adoption by the House of Commons of decisive measures
for resisting the execution of a judgment of a court of
law. They are not without apprehension that such mea-
sures may hereafter become inevitable: but they enter-
tain a strong conviction that it would be inexpedient for
the House needlessly to precipitate such a crisis ; and
they think that every other legitimate mode of asserting
and defending its privileges should he exhausted before
it resorts to the exercise of that power which it possesses,
of preventing, by its own authority, the further progress
of an action in which judgment has been obtained.
It must be borne in mind, that this action has been
already suffered to proceed through all its ordinary
stages. The House, in permitting its officer to plead,
followed the precedents of Burdett v. Abbott, and of'
Stockdale v. Hansard. Your Committee entertain no
doubt that in taking this course the House had no in-
tention of submitting its privileges to the judgment of
the Court ; but that its single object was to bring under
the knowledge of the Court, in the most formal manner,
that the acts complained of by the plaintiff were done by
an officer of the House in obedience to the authority of
the House. In this view of the case, the pleas, in the
opinion of your Committee, ought to have been admitted
as a sufficient answer to the action.
A different, and, as your Committee are persuaded, an
erroneous construction, appears to have been placed
upon the pleas ; and the question therefore now arises,
what, in the present state of the proceedings, is the
course most consistent with the dignity of the House and
the maintenance of its privileges.
Your Committee cannot advise an acquiescence in the
decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Simply to sub-
mit to the judgment, and adopt no other proceeding.
might be construed into an admission of the doctrines
maintained by at least two of the judges, not upon any
purely formal or technical points, but upon alleged prin-
ciples of law, deeply affecting the privileges of the
House. These doctrines, if allowed to remain unques-
tioned, might, because they were unquestioned, be here-
after appealed to as decisive authority, and considered as
the ruling principles which determined the judgment of
the Court in this case. Submission would thus almost
inevitably lead .to further encroachments on the privi-
leges of the House.
In considering the expediency of any other course,
your Committee have adverted to the fact, that the de-
cisions adverse to the privileges of the House of Com-
mons which have been given of late years by judicial
authorities, have been given by one Court only, namely,
the Court of Queen's Bench, and that the opinion of
the Judges of the other Courts has never been pro-
nounced upon the subject.
Your Committee, moreover, attach importance to the
fact that the Court of Queen's Bench itself, in this ac-
tion, was not unanimous in its judgment; and that the
Judges, who constituted the majority of the Court, as-
signed reasons for their judgment inconsistent with, and
even contradictory to, each other.
Under these circumstances your Committee have come
to the conclusionthat it would be advisable in the present
case to bring a writ of error on the judgment. They are
aware of the argument which may be urged against this
further step, as an apparent recognition of the authority of
the court of law to judge of the privileges of the House,
but they do not admit the force of this objection. They
recommend a writ of error under the impression that,
after the course already taken by the House in the pre-
sent action, a writ of error, on the ground that the
Court of Queen's Bench ought to have admitted, upon de-
murrer, the sufficiency of a plea that the acts complained
of by the plaintiff were done by an officer of the House,
in obedience to its authority, would not compromise the
rights of the House, or impair the power with which it
is invested by the Constitution of asserting its privileges.
It must not be forgotten, that in the case of Burdett v.
Abbott, where the judgment of the Court below was in
favour of the privileges of the House of Commons, the
plaintiff appealed to a Court of error, and the judgment
of the Court below was supported in the Court of error
by counsel on behalf of the Speaker of the House of
Commons, the defendant in error. Your Committee
only refer to this case as raising a presumption that the
House of Commons did not consider that there was any
material distinction in principle between pleading in the
Court below and following the record into the Court
of error.
What may be the judgment of the Court of Error in
the present case, your Committee cannot of course anti-
cipate. If that Court should reverse the judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench, the privileges of the House
of Commons will have been recognized, and the desire
of the House will have been evinced to act with modera-
tion and forbearance.
If, on the other hand, the Court of Error should up-
hold the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, it will
then be for the House to determine what measures
will be indispensable for it to take, in order to pre-
serve unimpaired those privileges of which the
Unloose of Commons is the guardian, and which it can
not a •
ba ndon without violating the trust which has been
c°lllrte(t
Your Committee
are of opinion that the consideration
of sue measures will not be prejudiced by the fact of a
writ of error having been brought ; but that, on the con-
trary, the necessity for their adoption will be rendered
more evident by the proof that every other
essentialcourseother which
was open for the vindication ofwt o ich
privileges the
proper discharge of its public functions, had been pur-
sued, without success, by the House of Commons,
There is one point on which a few words of explana-
' tion may be necessary. In the first report, your Com-
mittee, After oubpiitthig their (Pinion that a writ Qf error

should be brought, added, " that as the levying of the
plaintiff's execution would in no respect prejudice the
proceedings in the writ of error, they did not deem it
expedient to advise the House to interpose to prevent
the levy,"
Your Committee took into consideration the question.
whether it would be expedient to prevent the levy by
authorising bail to be given on bringing the writ of
error as a necessary condition of a postponement of the
levy. They were clearly of opinion that this would not
be expedient. It is true that it would have precluded
the plaintiff from reaping the immediate fruits of his
action ; but your Committee felt that, by authorising
bail to be given, the house would have submitted to
abide by the future judgment of the Court of Error, in
the event of its being adverse. They were of opinion
that any improbability of receiving back the amount of
damages in the event of the judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench being reversed by the Court of Error,
was comparatively unimportant ; and that it was of the
highest consequence that the House should reserve to
itself an absolute and unfettered discretion as to the
course which it may be hereafter requisite to adopt.
Your Committee cannot close their report without ad-
verting to the fact, which has in some degree influenced
their recommendation, that three other actions are pend-
ing at present against officers of the House for acts done
under its authority ; that in one of these actions the
damages have been hid at the sum of 100,0001, and that
they have all been brought in the Court of Queen'ss
Bench. In each of these Cie House has permitted its
officer to plead, and it has directed that the Attorney
General should defend the actions.

Your Committee wish expressly to guard them-
selves against the supposition that, in recommending a
writ of error in the action of Howard v. Gosset, they
have expressed any opinion as to the course to be adopted
in the event of a decision in any of the pending actions
adverse to the privileges of the House of Commons.
The proceedings in the actions are not before them ; and
it would be premature to offer any recommendation to
the House as to the course which it may hereafter be
right to take with reference to those cases.
Your Committee, however, are of opinion, that a de-
cision of the Court of Error in the action of Howard v.
Gosset, if obtained, as it probably would be, before the
judgment of the Court below is pronounced in any of
the other actions, may greatly assist the House in decid-
ing on its future course.
June 20, 1845.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

Jean Dierner, who, had been for several years in the
employment of Messrs. Paas and Schott, merchants, car-
rying on business at Antwerp under the name of F. G.
Paas only, was brought up for final examination, upon
a very serious charge of forgery. Mr. Clarkson attended
for the prosecution.
Mr. Schott, the managing partner of the concern at
Antwerp, was absent from that place in November,
1843, and upon his return, he heard that the prisoner,
in whom the house had the utmost confidence, had ab
sconded, and taken a large sum of money from their
cash-box, and had filled up a cheque fir 6,000 francs,
which he had received, and with the proceeds of which
he had disappeared. The prisoner had been accused at
Belgium of the offence, and not having surrendered, was
condemned par contumace, and sentenced to eight years
trevaux forces. The charge, however, made against the
prisoner on the present occasion by the Learned Counsel
was that of having forged, or altered forged notes with
guilty knowledge. The prosecutors not having heard
any thing of the prisoner, considered that they knew the
whole extent of the depredations committed by him ;
but, about fifteen days ago, a promissory-note was pre-
sented for payment, purporting to be made by the firm
in favour of a M. Brunninghausen of Hamburgh for
5,000 francs. Payment of the note was at once refused,
upon the ground that it was a forgery. It was protested
for non-payment. Shortly afterwards, the prosecutors
received a letter, informing them that there were other
promissory-notes in circulation bearing their names, and
advising them to come to England, and put themselves
in correspondence with the writer, who signed himself
as being the well-known Vidocq. They came to town,
and measures were adopted for securing the prisoner,
who made a desperate resistance.
Mr. Schott stated, that upon leaving Antwerp he left
some blank bills in the hands of the prisoner, to be used
in the affairs of the house only.
Here a bill for 5,000 francs, of the translation of
which the following is a copy, was produced by Mr.
Clarkson :

" Antwerp, 9th March, 1845, good for 5,000 francs.
" Three months after date I will pay to the order of
Monsieur A. Brunninghausen the sum of 5,000 francs,
♦alua received on merchandise, which you will pass.
" FR. GM. PAAS.

At my residence at Antwerp."
Endorsements to the bill:—
" Pay to the order of Mr. Bachelet value received on
merchandise.
" Hamburgh, 6th April, 1845.
" A. BRUNNINGHAUSEN."
"Pay to the order of Messrs. A. Spielman and Co.
value received in cash.
"London, 12th May, 1845.

" C. BACHELET."
" Pay to the orchr of Messrs. Osy and Co. value
received.

" London, 17th May, 1845.
" A. SPIELMAN and CO."

Witness gave to the prisoner a bill in conformity to
the bill produced, but it was not filled up by any p arson
in the house which had no transactions with any of the
parties referred to in the bill produced. Witness, upon
returning to Antwerp, after he had left the blank bills
in the possession of the prisoner, found that the prisoner
had gone off, but did not at all know that he had uttered
the bill produced. That bill had not been used for
the firm.

Mr. Charles Bachelet, an agent, residing at No. 63,
Regolt-street, stated that he knew Dierner well. He
received the bill for 5,000 francs from the prisoner some
time last May, and took it to Messrs. Spielman's office
for the purpose of getting it discounted, upon the un-
derstanding that he was to have a commission upon the
discount. He received the sum of 65/. on account, and
handed it to the prisoner in Newgate-street, where they
had appointed to meet. The prisoner had handed to
him the bill in Regent-street, at witness's lodgings.
Mr. L. F. Barrow, clerk to Messrs. Spielman earl Co.,
of Lombard-street, bullion dealers, stated that the bill
produced was presented at the office of the firm, between
the 12th and 15th May last, by a person who said his
name was Bachelet. The house did not choose to dis-
count it, but returned it, and Bachelet brought it back,
and the house agreed to discount it if they were at liberty
to send it to Antwerp. They did so, and found that the
parties were respectable. There was however an ind wse-
ment upon it relative to which they were anxious to
know more, and they gave Bachelet 651. on account.
Metropolitan Policeman Bleaplin stated that he appre-
hended the prisoner at No. 8, Ranelagh-street, Pimlico ;
that he was obliged to break open the door of the room,
and was then assauled with a poker by the prisoner.
The prisoner (through an interpreter)—l wi,h to know
whether, in consequence of the testimony of the wit-
nessses, I am to be tried in this country or elsewhere ?
The LORD MAYOR—You will be tried here if you are
committed here. Do you wish to say anything now in
your defence ?
The prisoner here asked if he was to consider himself
upon his trial at that moment ?
The LORD MAYOR—No. It is my duty to consider
the evidence against you, and to commit you for trial if
I should think it sufficient. and if so, your trial will take
place next month, on the 7th of July.
The prisoner—At that rate I shall reserve my defence
until that time.

The LORD MAYOR soon afterwards said, " I shall
now commit you for trial."
The prisoner—I wish to have an exact cpy of the
bill of exchange produced against me, together with a
copy of the depositions.
_ _ _

Clarkso-n—We have not the least objection.
The prisoner was then c )mmitted fur trial at the next
session of the Central Criminal Court.

Ann Wood, a woman who has been for many years
in the habit of shamming fits fora livelihood, was brought
up charged with having played off a sceneat Drutnmond's
banking• house.
The policeman, who had on previous occasions taken
her into custody as an impostor, having been informed
hat a poor woman walked into the passage leading to
the room in which business was transacted and fell into
a fit, went to the place and saw his old acquaintance in
a fit, fro n which his well known voice soon recovered
her. She was described as a most admirable p:rformer
and of course her profits were adapted to the fidelity
with which she imitated nature.

She said she had long ceased to be considered an
impostor, although she admitted that the frequency with
which she had been visited by the affliction might have
induced some injudicious persons to imagine that she was
not sincere. She, however, assured his Lordship, that
there was no mistake about her disorder, and she did not
know the moment it might come on.
Several of the officers identified the defendant as an
old customer, who had exhibited great skill in the trade
she had selected, and
The LORD MAYOR committed her to Bridewell for a
month, notwithstanding her assurances that she would
leave the City, and never set her foot in it again.