Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page




$9ar!e«tmcnr. HOUSE OF LORDS. âTHURSDAY. The Earl of Aberdeen laid upon the tabic a bill to give effect to the treaty concluded between this country aud the Brazils fur the suppression of the slave trade. The Irish Banking Bill went through committee. The Game Law Bill was readasecond time. On the motion of Lord Denman, a bill was read a second time the object of which was to enable the judges in certain cases to take circumstances into account in the infliction of punishments according to the statute. Several bills on the table were forwarded a stage, after which tneir lordships adjourned. FRIDAY. The Irish Banking Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Irish Jurors Bill, the object of which was to amend the state of the law relating to the challenge to the array which occasioned so much legal discussion in the Irish state trials.. Lord Dc-nman expressed a hope that a bill of which he so highly approved, would not be confined to Ireland, but extended to the L nitod Kingdom. The Lord Chancellor said if the present measure passed, lie would introduce another in reference to England. The bill was then read a second time. THE COASTING TRADE V. RAILWAYS.âThe Marquis of Lon- donderry, in moving for returns relating to the coasting coal trade, said lie feared that this trade, which had been the great nursery of British seamen, would be annihilated by the facilities given for bringing inland eyals jo London by ratlwav convey- :\11e.. The Earl of Dalhousie thought such fears groundless. Bv railway coals would cost three farthings per ton per mile, which for 2.)0 miles, would be 15s., while sea-borne coals were carried from Newcastle for 7s. Gd. Lord Ilatherton thought that coals would be carried by rail- way at a half-penny per mile, which, for 150 miles, for that would be about the distance, would be only 6s. 3d. for the entire carriage. He was desirous of seeing the metropolis cheaply supplied with coals, yet would be sorry to see the coasting trade diminished, as it was the means of supplying our navy with the ablest seamen in the world. Lord Brougham said he was anxious to see our mercantile marine on the increase, but the best mode of acquiring such an increase would be to remove all restrictions on the commerce and industry of the country. He did not believe there was any ground for the apprehensions of the noble marquis. After some observations from Lord Ashburton, Lord Stanlev, the Earl of Colchester, and the Earl of Haddington, Lord Kinnaird said the sea-borne coal, from its greater strength, would be always preferred to inland coal, for manufac- turing and steam fuel. He hoped the noble marquis would endeavour to break up the coal monopoly in the north. After some observations from the Marquis of Londonderry, in reply, the subject dropped. Several bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their ljrdships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.âTHURSDAY. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.âMr. Divett brought under its con- sideration a case of breach of privilege, which occasioned much interest. Mr. Jasper Parrott, formerly a member of the house, and now a magistrate in the county of Devon, petitioned for the advice and protection of the house under the following circum- stances :âHe had been summoned to give evidence before a select committee of the house upon the Poor Medical Relief Bill, and in the course of his evidence stated some facts, for which statement Mr. Phillips, of Totness, directed his solicitor to bring against Mr. Parrott an action for libel. This was done, and Mr. Parrott now sought protection of the house. Air. Parrott's solicitor was called to the bar of the house, and pro- duced a copy of the declaration in the action, and gave the name of the plaintiff, his attorney, and their London agents. Mr. Divett then moved that the parties had been guilty of a breach of privilege. Mr. C. Wynn said there were two courses open to the house in this case. They might allow Mr. Parrott to plead that he had spoken the words in giving evidence before a committee of the House of Commons, which ought to be a defence to the action or they might proceed by their own power and authority. He was of opinion they ought not to refer the case to other de- cision than their own; but the house should at the same time consider whether imprisonment for the remainder of the session would be a punishment sufficient to deter the parties from setting their privileges at defiance. Sir R. Peel said it would be premature to declare that the parties had been guilty of a breach of privilege. The better course would be to call the parties to the bar, and ascertain if the action was brought for words spoken before the committee, for it might be, though the probability was otherwise, that Mr. Parrott might have repeated the purport of his evidence in the lobby of the house or in Palace-yard, and the action might be brought for that repetition. He viewed the matter as most im- portant, and the case of Mr. Jasper Parrott, as stated in the petition, to be one which called upon the house to extend to him its protection. Without stating what course it was advisable to pursue until they had the facts more specifically before them, he would only observe that he should not conceive himself at all bound by the advice or the vote he had given in the case of Howard v. Gossett. PNNS LAW AMKNn\rr\T (Snnri,.4-vn) H«T Low! .A.t- vocate then moved the committal of the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill. Mr. Oswald opposed the bill as calculated to be productive of injury rather than of benefit to that country. lie moved that it be committed that day three months. After some discussion, Mr. D. Dundas said, that there was an essential difference between the standard of comfort in Scotland and that of England. For himself he was not ashamed to confess that until he left Scotland for England he had never been fed upon anything but porridge. At the same time he admitted that having, as a Scotchman, obtained a settlement in England, it was neither just nor generous to exclude Irishmen or Englishmen from ob- taining a settlement in Scotland. Sir J. Graham said, it was of great importance that the bill should be passed during the present session, and he hoped they would therefore go into committee, where the clauses might be amended. The house then divided, and the amendment of Mr. Oswald was rejected by a majority of 7G to 33. The house then went into committee, and the discussion of the clauses occupied the remainder of the evening. FRIDAY. AFFRAY NE AR CORK.âIn reply to a question from Mr. Bouverie, Sir T. Freemantle said the Government had received accounts of an affray near Cork, in which several lives were lost, and he was informed the police had fired on the people, under the impression that their lives were in danger. The coroner's in- quest was to take place immediately, and instructions had been given to watch the proceedings, in order to ascertain the fact of the unhappy occurrence. COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.-On the motion for the house resolving itself into a committee on the Commons Enclosure Bill, Mr. S. Crawford moved that the bill be committed that day three months, on the ground that it would conduce only to the benefit of the land owners and the lords of the manor. The house had no right to barter away the rights of succeeding generations but he would not object to the enclosure of com- mons, if it could be effected on equitable grounds, though he would never assent to the bill before the house. Colonel Sibthprp seconded the amendment, Lord Worsley opposed the amendment, and was not sorry the measure was taken out of his hands; for it was one which ought to be taken up by the Government, being of great public importance. Mr. Ilume said it was a landlords' bill, and founded on ex parte evidence. It was an invasion of the rights of the poor, and he would oppose it as he had done all other enclosure bills. After some observations from Mr. Trelawney and Mr. llenley, Lord l'almerston said it was a great mistake to suppose that common lands were public property. The projected system of enclosure would give employment to a great many people, and he would, therefore, support the bill. The house divided, and the amendment of Mr. Crawford was negatived by a majority of 1~1 to 11. The house then went into committee, and was occupied dur- ing the remainder of the evening in discussing the several clauses.

[No title]

I Cuientrar



[No title]