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

THE SUN, LONDON, THU*RSDA I Mr,;RNIVG, JUNE 26, 1

impracticable. It would be impossible to oblige a com-
pany who had laid down their lines, either upon the 7 foot
or on the 4 foot 8f inch gauge to adopt now the other
gauge or some intermediate gauge between the two.
It was not necessary to prefer the adoption of one gauge
more than the other, and, in fact, it was at present im-
possible to say that it would be expedient, considering
the vast number of railways that were now in progress,
to lay down any definite law on the subject. If the
gauges on existing railways were to be changed, it would
necessarily lead to an alteration in the structure of wag-
gons and carriages, and thus an increasing expense
would be entailed on the various railway companies. He
did not consider that the superiority of one gauge over
another was after all a matter of very great importance,
He should have no objection whatever to the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman, if it was considered how far it
might be practicable to re-organise existing railways.
Mr. S. WORTLEY quite agreed with his Hon.
Friend and also with the Right Hon. Baronet, that this
question had, in effect, been already settled. The enor-
mous expense that would be entailed on the country by
changing existing gauges, and the general inconvenience
that would result would induce him to leave the
matter as it now stood. He trusted also that the

who had stolen a dog worth 201., the charge was not
made against him for stealing the animal, but for steal-
ing his collar, which was worth 7s. 6d., there being
some difficulty in punishing a person who had stolen a
dog of that value. That person was convicted, and was
then undergoing transportation for the offence with
which he was charged. Sarely this proved that the law
was in an inefficient state, and that it required emenda-
tion. Then he saw no reason why the punishment for
stealing a dog of the value of 2.0 L or 301. should not be
equal to that to which a person who stole a " jack-ass"
rendered himself liable--(Laughter)—an offence formerly
punishable by death, but now by seven years' transpor-
tation. He hoped, therefore, that the House would
allow the Bill to go into Committee.
Mr. VIVIAN considered that the penalty of trans-
portation for seven years for the offence of stealing a dog
was not of that exorbitant nature supposed. He should
not have proposed such a punishment if the offence had
been a mere casual one ; but it should be recollected
that a great number of disreputable persons existed.by
stealing dogs, and by levying a species of tax, in conse-
quence, on the community. The law at present in force
was not sufficiently powerful to reach those persons.
That sentence, however, would only be cerried out when
the judge had the fact before him that the prisoner had
been in the habit of stealing dogs, and he conceived it
was necessary that such an offender ought to be removed
out of the country for that period. Great difficulty was
experienced in serving a "search warrant, as in London
there were receptacles for dogs which had .been stolen ;
and as they were adroitly moved from place to place,
the police had great difficulty in ascertaining the place
to serve it. He did not propose to remove that obstacle
entirely. but to give additional facilities to the authorities.
Mr. ESCOTT considered that the present law was
sufficient for all the purpoSes required. Nine persons
out of ten fell into the error -that there was no law for
punishing persons convicted of stealing dogs, whereas
they were liable to' a fine of 201., over and above the
value of the animal, which, in his opinion, was a sufficient
punishment.
The Howe then went into Committee.
The first clause was agreed to.
Mr. HAWES objected to the second clause, and pro-
posed its omission.
Mr. BOU VEIZIE seconded the amendment, and
thought dogs ought not to be considered in the light
of property. The law, as it originally stood, .trade this
distinction, and be did not see any reason for changing
the law in that respect.
Mr. LIDDELL admitted that the original law made
such a distinction, but he thought very unwisely so.
He would tell the Committee why he thought the dis-
tinction foolish and unwise. It was untrue to suppose
that dogs were kept merely for pleasure. Look, for in-
stance, in the southern parts of England, where dogs
were kept for the purpose of protecting sheep. A more
useful animal than the sheep-dog could hardly be found,
and he could see no reason why the sheep-dog should
not be protected from the robber in the same way as
other valuable property.
The amendment was not pressed, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 3 being put,

Honourable Member for Stockport would not persist in
the terms of the motion of which he had given notice,
but would be satisfied with the question as it had been
already decided. He trusted, however, that as the ap-
portunity had been afforded for further inquiry into the
principle of the broad and narrow gauges some general
plan for the public convenience should be definitely
adopted before the construction of auy future railway was
commenced.

Mr. BARING quite agreed in what had fallen from
the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, es-
pecially that which was contained in the latter part of
his observations. He confessed that he was very un-
willing to interfere with the public convenience to the
extent to which this alteration from 'ehe railway gauge
would lead. He would admit that it was a
great principle, and one that ought to be decided be-
fore any other railway was formed.
Mr. RICARDO thought certainly, before any of the
earthworks of new railways were begun, it was necessary
to ascertain what the gauge should be. With great
respect for the Hon. Gentleman and the Right llon.
Baronet, he must say that the object to be attained was
the permanent advantage of the country. Whatever
might be the result, great inconvenience must be ex-
perienced wherever the two gauges should meet ; and it
w,:s absolutely in ces,ary that some rule should be
adopted for avoiding the great impediment which was
daily telt from the uncertainty in which the question
was now left.
Lord G. SOMERSET was willing to concede the
motion of the Hon. Member for Stockport, and trusted
the Commission would arrive at such a conclusion as to
make it reasonable for them to call upon all future rail-
ways to aslopt one particular gauge.
Mr. WAI-tip was glad Government had conceded the

motion of his Hon. Friend, because he thought it was
highly desirable that the question of gauge, setting aside
the contest between the two rival companies, should be
referred to an impartial tribunal, whose decision should
guide them for the future. In his opinion, neither the
broad nor the narrow gauge was a security against acci-
dents, nor did he think speed had anything to do with
it. for trains bad travelled at the rate of 60 miles an hour
without accident or inconvenience, while the majority of
the accidents which had already taken place, had occur-
red to what were termed slow trains. _ _

An HON. ME3IBER rose and complained that a penalty
of 201. was too heavy for the first offence of dog-steal-
ing, while that part of the clause which inflicted the
punishment of transportation for seven years for the
third offence was most monstrous.

Mr. WATSON agreed with the Hon. Member. If a
man stole all the dogs in the country, he would not
deserve to be punished so severely.
Mr. CaTRTEIS could not consent to hear dog; ran
dowr in that way, because he thought many of them were
useful and valuable animals.

Mr. SHAW thought that, if any Gentleman would
take the trouble of reading over the evidence taken be-
fore the Committee, which was commonly called " The
Broad Gauge Committee," he would find great difficulty in
arriving at any certain conclusion.—(Hear,ihear.) He
believed that the " medium gauge" of five feet three
inches, which was adopted in Ireland, would be the
best as a uniform gauge.(Hear, hear.) He thought
the inquiry was worthy the attention of the Govern-
ment.—(Hear.) He hoped they would undertake it, and
carry it on laboriously.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. HAY IER could not anticipate any advantage
from the inquiry, but, on the contrary, thought that it
would lead to great inconvenience.

Mr. WILLIAMS approved of the principle of the
Bill, but did not think it either wise or just to inflict the
punishment of transportation OR a person who had been
convicted of clog stealing.

Mr. P. BORTHWICIC said the dogs which the Bill
was intended to protect were dogs of a most deteriorated
species.—( Laughter.) Dogs that were prized most were
generally the ugliest of their species, and it appeared to
him the only use of them was to engender hydro-
phobia.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HAWES moved that the clause be struck out
altogether.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the adoption of the clause 33
Agaitht it
_ .

Mr. COBDEN said, in explanation, that the object of
the inquiry was not to find a new gauge, but to establish
some uniform principle.
The motion was then agreed to.
Lord NE vV RY presented a petition from the county
of Down complaining of the expenses that were in-
currtd in builtithg union workhouses in Ireland, and
praying that a n.medy might be applied to the evil.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition, signed by the
merchants and manufacturers of Manchester, praying
the House to address the Crown for the purpose of
having the treaty entered into by the Government of
Buenos Ayres to give free access to the River Plata
enforced.

Majority
The clauso was then agreed to.
Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the third clause relative
to the punishment for the concealment of dogs.
Mr. WATSON said that the Bill would rank with
those other Acts of Parliament which the Judges were
every day in the habit of characterising as equally un-
wise and anomalous.

-2;

A petition was then presented against the abolition of
tests in the Scotch universities.

Mr. LIDDELL thought that if the law in one instance
was proved to be defective, it was the duty of every
Member in that House to endeavour to apply a remedy.
Mr. WATSON said that it was the duty of Govern-
ment, if a remedy were wanted, to apply it ; but he was
altogether opposed to this nibbling sort of legislation.
Mr. C. BULLER thought that if the Hon. Member
for Durham had merely brought in his Bill, making dog
stealing punishable like sheep stealing, it would have had
the effect of avoiding the necessity for all this discussion.
He did not admire the anomalous powers given by the
Bill to justices of the peace and other magistrates.
The 3d and 4th clauses were ultimately agreed to.
On clause 5 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY moved that certain words be omitted.
After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENE-
RAL, recommending the lion. Member for Durham to
accede to the motion, the motion, as amended, was
agreed to.

Sir R. PEEL said that he presented a petition the
other night in favour of the colleges about to be insti-
tuted in Ireland, which he stated to be from London. It
was not from London, it came from Dublin.
LUNATIC PAUPERS BILL.

This Bill passed through Committee. The Report
was brought up and received, and ordered to be printed.
STATUTE-LABOUR (SCOTLAND) BILL.
_ . . .

The report of the Committee was brought up.

Mr. SIiOLLETT moved that the Bill be recom-
mitted for the purpose of adding the following clause
And whereas it is expedient to abolish the personal
performance of statute service, and the levying of the
conversion thereof in money, or any assessment in
lieu of such conversion, as a personal or poll tax ;
be it enacted, that rom and after this present
year, 1845, it shall and may be lawful for all such
trustees, at a general meeting assembled, if they shall
think fit, to order and direct that in any county, or dis-
trict of a county, all such performance of statute service,
and all such levying of conversion, or assessment in lieu
thereof, shall cease and determine. And be it enacted,
that it shall and may be lawful for all such trustees, at
a general meeting assembled, if they shall think fit, to
assess auy sum not exceeding the amount of the conver-
sion or other money which by the reason of this Act shall
cease to be exigible, and to cause the same to
be levied upon all lands, buildings, and other
heritable subjects not hereinbefore exempted from
assessment, or to be added to the sums otherwise as-
sessable by any local Aft ; and all such sums so assessed
or added, shall be levied and applied in the same
manner as the money might have been levied and
applied in lieu of which the said sums are assessed ;
Provided always, that all such sums shall be payable by
the occupiers of the lands, buildings, or other heritable
subjects so assessed, but such, occupiers shall be en-
titled to deduct out-half of such sums from the rent pay-
able to the owners or other parties having right to such rent.
And be it enacted, that in the case of such assessment
being laid upon lands, buildings, and heritable subjects, as
aforesaid, the annual value thereof shall be ascertained by
such trustees, in manner prescribed by the local Acts now in
force, or in such and like manner as the annual value of
lands, buildings, and heritable subjects, is authorised
and directed to be ascertained in counties and burghs
respectively, under and by virtue of an Act passed
in the second and third year of the reign of
her Majesty Queen Victoria, intituled, ' An Act
to improve Prisons and Prison Discipline in Scotland ;'
and it shall be lawful for such trustees, if they shall think
fit, to assume the amount ascertained as the annual value
of such lands, buildings, and heritable subjects in counties
and boroughs respectively, under the said recited Act,
to be the amount on which the assessment hereby
authcrised to be levied, may be levied for the purposes
of this Act."

—Clauses 6,7, and 8 were then passed without oppo•
sition.

On clause 9 being proposed,

Mr. ESCOTT said that he thought this clause had
better be confined to the Bill of last year, so as to obtain
a tabula rasa for future proceedings.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted his lion.
Friend would not persist in opposing this clause.
Mr. ESCOTT withdrew his opposition.
The Bill passed through Committee, the House re.
sumed, and the report was then brought up.

Mr. BAILLIE *aid that as rnsny <petittonT.hadTliedlfi
presented from Scotland. some of-them by himself, from
Inverness, sgsinst the Bill ; and as a considerabie oppo-
sition was exhibited towards the principle of the Bill,
he trnste.i that, under these circumstances, the Hon.
Nrember would not press his motion.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that the opposition from
Inverness was most absurd, and he could not think of
withdrawing tho motion because of it.

Mr. I'. M. STEWART thought the Bill would confer
great benefits on Scotland generally, especially if in-
formation were procured from the different counties and
islands threatening to oppose it. He hoped, therefore, the
Member for Perth would withdraw his opposition, and
at least allow the report of the Bill to be brought up.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND was understood to assent,
and the report was accordingly brought up. The House
then went into Committee on the Bill, and on the third
clause being read,
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG rose to address the House, but
from the excessive noise in the House, and the low tone
of the Hon. Member, his remarks were wholly inaudible
in the gallery.
Several other clauses, with some verbal amendments
suggested by Mr. SMOLLETT and Mr. EDWARD ELLICE,
jun., were agreed to.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, jun., moved an amend-
ment, that servants should be altogether exempted from
the tax, and that the clause affecting them should be
struck out.

Mr. P. MAXWELL STEWART agreed with the
lion. Member for St. Andrew's. He thought that the
Bill did not go far enough. Ho could not understand
why servants should be subjected to a contribution at
all. He should, therefore, gladly support the amend-
ment for their exemption.
Mr. LOCKHART said it was an important subject,
which required great consideration. He had not yet
made up his mind on the subject, and would recommend
postponement.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, jun., then withdrew his
amendment, as it appeared to him the House were not
willing to entertain it.
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the Bill
passed through Committe.
The House resumed, and the Report was brought up
and agreed to.

this question, but he thought he should not press the
subject forward with such unseemly haste.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BORTHWICK said that his Honourable Friend
Mr. Mackinnon had not broken faith with the Honour-
able Member for Wolverhampton. It was only iron
works which were to be exempted, int mining works.
Mr. VILLIERS suggested that it would be better to
postpone the Bill for a week, in order to prevent any one
supposing that there had been any trick in getting the
Bill through. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr.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
fur a week.

Mr. MiZINNON 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 firmer
occasion as recommending- Members to consult their con-
stituents. That course he (Mr. Ricardo) had taken and
had received petitions from numerous respectable mann
facturers, accompanied inurenvee 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
Lymingtou 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.

4.
Mr. PROTHEROE suggested that the clauses urged
by the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent should be with-
drawn until the Bill was reported, and at that stage re-
introduced.
Mr. P. Bonntwrcx and Lord G. SOMERSET defended
the conduct of the Member tOr Lymington.
After some further discussion the Committee divided,
when the numbers appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion
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. Ire
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 51. on the manufacturer who neglected to consume his
smoke,

Mr. RICARDO objected to it, as entailing a gross in-
justice on the master, by the negligence of whose ser-
vant the infringement of the law had been committed.
Mr. P. BORT tIWICK 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 Ji )lIN MANNERS postponed his motion for
the second reading of the Pious and Charitable Purposes
Bill till the 16th of July.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

ARLIAMENTARYBSTNESS.

TUESDAY. JUNE
The following Bills were read a third tiine, and passed :
Oxford, 'Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway.
Oxford and Rugby Railway.

Standing Orders Comm ittee,—Resolution reported;
" That, in the case of the Cockermouth and Workington
Railway Bill, clause and amendments on further considera-.
tion of report, the said clause and amendments are of such
a nature as may be entertained by the House, if they shall
think fit."
Report to lie on the table.

The following Bills, with further amendments proposed;
were•referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders :
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (No. 2).
Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway and Docks.
Armagh, Coleraine, and Portrush Railway.

The report of the following Bills to be taken into consi
deration to-day :
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway.
Wear Valley Railway.
Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway.

NOTICES GIVEN AT TIIE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE.
West London Railway,—Third reading, Thursday, June 26.
Diss, Beceles, and Yarmouth Railway,—Report., Thurs-
day, June 26.
Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Gloucester Exten-
sions. Stoke Branch, and Midland Railways Junction),—
Third reading, Thursday, June 26.
Liverpool and Bury Railway,—Third reading, Thursday,
June 26.
Cork and Bandon Railway,—Third reading, Thursday,.
June 2G.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
lIOWARD v. GOSSET.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into 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
course which, in the present state of the proceedings in
the action of 'Toward 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 ; en 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 node of asserting
and defending its privileges should be 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
a REPORTED DEATH OF M. SCMS, ALp._it was
Court of Queen's Bench ought to have admitted, upon
complained reported in the House of Commons yesterday' iitternoon that Mr
the celebrated ship-owner, and, SA T•
murrer, the sufficiency of a plea that the acts
of by the plaintiff were done by an officer of the House, soma,
We tioN that thi:nrrepoDarrtimZullth'prdoieve
in obedience to its authority, •ould not compromir the suddenly this roornin&..
rights of the 'louse, or impair the power with which it incorrect:
itrOß.l:sl,y-T:S AND CESSPOOLS.—Mr. Green,
is invested by the Constitution of asserting its privileges.
It must not be forgotten, that in the case of Burdett e. of -1;(2,11:1,1:
• atm y, n • suggested a method of purifying wella.
Abbott, where the judgment of the Court helm was in
ac., from the foul air which so often accumulates in
favour of the privileges of the House pf vilmmouß
plaintiff appealed to a Colivi Rt gild 0,, • , the them when long closed, and has not unfrequently been
of the Court beloW Nt'ai ,111Toi.tiid •• judgment destructive of life. Tice plan is simply to throw into the
Ety 0q",f,1
.pl;ait.er Court. of error well a quantity of unslacked lime, which, as soon air ft
Ogg“;:iitios- ti.- ' ..,e Speaker of the House of comes in contact with the water, throws up a column of
-- • aetendant in error. Your Committee vapour, driving before it all the deleterious gases, and
',my refer to this case as raising a presumption that the rendering it perfectly safe fur the workmen to descend
House of Commons did not consider that there was any immediately.—Tho Deader.