The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-02 00:00:00

!tPlleared to him, that this matter iuvolved a principle of some
Importance—a principle, in what degree, and in what cases,
constables were justified in interfering to put down public
meetings, and in arresting indiviluals who were taking
l'art in them. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now,
he thought that the constables in this case exceeded
the proper line of their duty, and he thought it,
especially at that moment, when Parliament was going to se-
parate for a long time, and when it was possible that many in-
stances might occur during he recess in which meetings of that
kind would assemble--( Cries of " Oh, oh." from the Ministe-
rial benches, and laughter from the Opposition)—and in which
constables, acting under a mistaken impression of their duty,
eight interfere in a manner which would be productive of
great public inconvenience ; he thought that was a case in which
the House would act wisely in instituting an inquiry to ascer-
tain the real facts of the ca-,e—from au examination of the two
Sides---that if there were no ground of complaint it might be
made known; and if there were ground of complaint, the Go-
• nment might take measures for preventing the recurrence of
allele conduct. On the whole, he thought there was good
Found for acceding to the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said his Right Honourable Friend
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under
whose superintendence the metropolitan police generally acted,
bad intimated to the Home that in his opinion there was not
Sufficient ground for him fo interfere for the punishment of
this person, and supposing the House from the information
before it was dissatisfied with the judgment he had formed,
and there were no mode whatever of conducting aiy inquiry
except by a Committee, there might possibly be some plausible
ground for acceding to the motion. But were there no means
of determining whether this constable had exceeded his
dZeetttY, besides the appointment of a Committee ?—( Hear, hear.)
'as his Right Hon. Friend's decision final and conclusive?
Ae
• a very moderate cost the parties might compel the legal
, tribunals of this country to determine whether the police con-
stable had acted justifiably or not. He might commence
en action against him for false imprisonment or for
the refusal of bail; and which would be the more
Sttisfactory.as ruling the law, the decision of a Court of Justice,
CI: the Houieof Commons? Suppose the House of Commons
• se—not having eiiidence upon oath be it observed—should decide
that the constable had acted illegally, that would be no legal
rale if a Court of Law came to an opposite conclusion, a Court
°l' Law being a regularly constituted tribunal, and having
eridenee upon oath.—(Hear, hear.) He deprecated the
Rouse of Commons exercising its judicial functions in such a
ease• He would be the last man in the world to encourage a
constable or any other person in a constant annoying enforce-
!ni.ent of the law, even where the law was upon their side •,
n! •
thought they would only discredit the' law by too much
111:eur in its application; but on the other hand let them
remember the peculiar position of these men, who
ire intrusted with the execution of the law, and
let them forbear by their censures ' and needless
Inquiries from discouraging men who held a responsible trust,
Z.ntl acted faithfully and honestly in the discharge of their du-
. leS• Let them suppose that in consequence of the non-
taterference of the policemen there had been a serious riot, and
life had been lost, what would they have said of the man then ?
any rate, through his conduct there was no riot, and no one
14cl been injured. What were the facts of the case ? There
,Was a meeting in the chapel an hour before, and a conflict be-
- °seen Corn-law repealer') and Chartists took place. Was
there a mere commotion in the chapel ? On the contrary,
-Were not the seats torn up by the contending parties? Were
sot blows struck ? They had heat enough in that House some-
limes; but suppose they proceeded to the length of tearing up
their seats. If there were nothing but excitement, loud cries
of "Hear, hear," from the Chartist advocates on the one side, and
vehement declamation on the-other, that would not approach to a
aVet..Probably the House recollected the story of the man in Ire-
nd,leho described the rebellion in 1796 as a " hurry ;" when a
89 main event took place, he said it took place " in the hurry of
; "--( Laughter.) Another man described the insurrection
'et! 180e3 as "a dispute in commerce."—(Renewed laughter.)
He could not underteke to say that the conduct of the police-
tnan in this case was justified. There was a discretionary
Pow er vested in men, who were not, perhaps, well qualified by
*ale erience to exercise it; but, taking all the facts into con-
lid, ration, the cries of " Serve out and bludgeon the police,"
N. the conduct of the persons assembled, he thought the con-
duct tof the police could hardly be blamed. It was now open
'2 'the individual to institute a prosecution against the police-
4am- All he asked was, that they would not go out of their
sirdinary course to assume functions which properly belonged
ee'e Court of Law.
Alm T. DUN COBME replied. He believed that the
iit'eatest portion of what the Right Hon. Baronet had stated, on
ritd e authority of others, was a tissue of misrepresentation. He
no hesitation in saying that the seats were not torn up, and
twn_!..t no damage was done to the chapel. With respect to the
ectum) Mallalieu, it was not surprising that he had a vindic-
tive,_e feeling against the Chartists, as he was one of the police-
;Le who were sent down to Birmingham. —( Oh, and cheers.)
."5 Right Hon. Baronet was perfectly consistent in refusing
r_e
fry.
It was the principle of Toryism to refuse
_1(11:try. If the House read the petition of the 5000 per-
;n assembled on Blackh*th, they would find that they
estee' that the meeting wanegally assembled, and they con-
teterei 1 that they were not bound to submit to such conduct.
less
believed that the people would not submit to it, and if any
tilt` .0f s'ife ensued, the Government who refused to inquire into
ileastacte. of this case would be responsible.
The Kouse then divided, when there appeared—
e;er the inquiry •
A gainst it
_Majority against the inquiry
SUPPLY.
Irhe Housee then went into Committee of Ways and Means,
and the
tot.......itowing votes for the service of the year were
• aed
11 47°'2137/• surplus of Consolidated Funds.
1,3a1.q. •
, our of Ways and Meens • and
IJuI JAtOnt to • • of last
Tit , House jhuPply deficiency in Exchequer bills
en resumed.
.The Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill went through Com-
tatttees Report to. morrow.
et The Court of Chancery Offices Bill was read a second time.
"'neenaiteese to-morrow.
TOBACCO REGULATIONS BILL.
,The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
Zci er of the Day for the further consideration of the Report
'1 he Tobacco Regulations Bill.
ir. T. DUNCOM BE said the Bill was a most inquisitorial
iZe` --that it interfered with a number of important interests,
-,;:t1 t whom he had presented many petitions this session,
thtal olaining of its provisions. It would require at least ten
And new officers to visit all the small dealers in tobacco—
afre_▪ in tumstance which would doubtless create very great patron-
e' the Government, but would entail very great and un-
.ete ary expense on the country. He moved that the Bill
sfealmitted that day three months.
-napta, in PEC HELL seconded the motion.
'„'Llie SPEAKER, having put the question,
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
nestion was one which considerably affected the revenue
4,12 ed from so important an article of consumption as to-
v4 't in consequence of its being so much adulterated with
li-,;
me,d• ochre, and other deleterious substances. The practice of
eration was carried on to such an extent as to call for an
CMG diate remedy. The Bill would give time to parties hold-
ti se adulterated articles to dispose of them, and thus the
Ldes would be put on a wholesome footing.
bs-T • HAWES begged to remind the House that this Bill
fi be en abandoned by the late Government. The Report of
.11! Co, mmissioners was not in favour of the Bill of the Right
tZllour.eble Gentleman. If the survey was applied to the
illattu fact urer and not to the "feeler, it would be merely
t 4401 lucing another party, namely, the dealer, who would
o _eV to make adulterationa in the article. But whether
to were adulterations or not depended on the purchaser of
T, rticle. A high price would always ensure a pure article.
;el'e Right Hon. Gentleman could not speak with confidence
the s Bill, and he therefore hoped he would not press it. The
tine iple of it was vicious, and it would not produce any great
I.,set it to the revenue. He therefore hoped the Right Hon.
-"at :emu' would not persevere with the measure.
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
44 lon
the present evils would require a much stronger one.
144.'1/4% BO WRING thought the diminished consumption of to-
e) was to be attributed to its high price. He hoped, that,
lit there was,. a difference of opinion on the subject, the Right
°„0- Gentleman would postpone the measure till next session.
Alt. M. pmit.i PS ',aid that there was a difference of opinion
„
; the .subject of this Bill among the constituency he had the
h:tlintir to represent, but after having given the .best attention
stiower to tine measure, he came to the conclusion of op-
;T• ing tale Bill. ,He believed if the Chancellor of the Ex-
regner• would give to the next session to consider the ques-
t°n, it would afford tile greatest satisfaction.
ti• Strangers were theft ordered to withdraw, and the House
IVid ed, when there appeared—
For the amendment 9
Against it
Majority against the amendment ... —44
Th a Bill was then re-committed; the various clauses were
jecre-0 1 to with some amendments; and the House resumed,
"`eßeir t on Wednesday next.
4t.:,C,CLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING
BILL.

-59

b! hr GRAHAM having moved that the Report on this
should be received,
)11, Or. V. SMITH rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the
should be re-committed. He would wish, for his part,
often the Bill should not be proceeded with during the present
4 llsilton. The Bill had been first introduced in the other
kokt ie by the Bishop of London ; bat it was found that
:h hould have originated in the House of Commons,
0. the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home
rp; irtment, had taken charge of it in that House.
appeared to him (Mr. V. Smith) that the measure was one
th_whtcl t would never attain the;purposes for which it had been
sh7i,lae, I. He explained the general purpose of the Act which
e% 1 to give to corporations, sole and aggregate, the power
4el i.ig tl •property, and he cited one case, occurring in the
1705, when the corporation of London obtained a lease
hng the Bishop of London, by the terms of which only one-
ii‘,4l of the value of the property went to the Church ; this
toll' a system which he wished to check, as it would tend
leprive the ecclesiastical corporations of that surplus
hetnue which might be applied to the improvement of
R Church itself, and the abrogation of Church-rates.
had other reasons for wishing to postpone this Bill. Tile
Q, gl at Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had given up his
%; ation of bringing forward a measure for Church Eaten-
-1;;
of
on the udderstanding that the Right Hon. Baronet at the
of the Government would give it his best consideration,
'I b a prepared to state what course he should adopt in the
11 tt session. He also wanted to follow up the plan proposed
tZ, the- late Government, of introducing a better system of
Wag ement of Church property, with a view of applying the
v1:1) lus so produced to a settlement of the question of
14 rch -rates.—( Hear, hear.) He wanted to get at what
toitkt surplus might be. .He therefore wished this Bill
withdrawn for the present, in order that it might re-
the best consideration of the Government during the re-
• They were now giving away the power by which the
lus he had alluded to might be produced. The calcula-
ti?4 aof Mr. Finlayson had by no means been overturned, on
I,;'*' contrary they had rather been augmented, and it might
ti.°,lli, be stated that the surplus would be 306,8601. He thought
*.rt could be no possible necessity for the measure passing
ih lb ession. He quoted the effect of the Act passed for the
Pr.A 'ement of the Bishop of London's estate, to show what
13Vht, be expected from a
ve gener
theal meaowersure ofrant the kind.
11,,
~40er 1 • that Act, which ga pof in the
le lit g /eases, the Bishop received an improvementg of the re-
tea, le to the amount of one.third of the ground tents. It did
t,PPI sar to him that they were throwing away a direct source of
anus. He believed the question might be so settled as to
4! e satisfaction to all 'parties, and the public would by no
-;_ ins by satisfied if the Right Hen. Baronet should in an-
,t
lu er session come forward and ask for a grant of money for
4h arch extension, when he had by this measure thrown away
e. opportunity of raining a revenue that might be applied with
V.), justice to this purpose. He therefore moved that the
..1 0. be committed this day three months.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was impossible not to allow that
alight Hen. Gentleman had argued an intricate and dif-
:Colt question with very great ability and fairness. He could
• i 'Lot bu,t fallow the example he had set in contending that zny
" tprovement of Church revenue thus obtained should be
tis
plied to no other purpose than the maintenance of the Church
by law established. There was nothing in this Bill incon-
wm dent with that object, but even on this principle the Bill
as a large step in the right direction. The Bill was intro-
;e d by the Bishop of London in the other House, and had
e sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commission, nor did
contain anything inconsistent with the five re-
commendations of the Report of that Commission.
, lie Bill got rid of leases on lives and fines upon renewals;