in the county of Forfar. The distress of Petition laid on the Table. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, February 18, 1842. MINUTES] Bills 10. Buildings Regulations; Boroughs chester Infirmary; Severn Navigation; Ashby-de-la question of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, which might appear ludicrous at first view, but was not so, as it was connected with the administration of justice. He had seen it stated in the newspapers that at a recent assize in Ireland a man had been sentenced to the punishment of death for killing, not a human being, but a goat. He wished to know whether in Ireland such a penalty existed for such an offence? He did not suppose for a moment that the Government would inflict such a punishment in such a case; but he wished to know what course would be taken, and what punishment this unhappy man would suffer? Lord Eliot believed, that the main fact was correct, as stated by his hon. and learned Friend; but the man was tried, not at the assizes, but at the sessions before an assistant barrister. On the case being proceeded with, it appeared, that an ancient statute, which had not been repealed, inflicted the punishment of death in such a case; there was, therefore, no remedy to the assistant barrister but to pass the sentence. On the case being communicated to the Government, they ordered the instant release of the man, as he had undergone several weeks' imprisonment. He regretted that such an act continued to disgrace the Statute-book, and he might add, that it was the intention of his learned Friend the Solicitor-general for Ireland to bring in a bill to assimilate the criminal law of Ireland with that of this country. SYRIA.] Sir Charles Napier rose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet on a subject on which he felt considerable interest-namely, respecting the condition of the inhabitants of Lebanon. He had seen it stated in the newspapers that Emir Besthe Amendment of the Prisons (Scotland) Act.-By Mr. chir, late ruler of Lebanon, had been sent head Improvement; Nottingham Gas (1 and 2); ManZouch Road; Hinckley Road; Southwark Improvement (No. 1); Bradford Waterworks.-20. Municipal Corporations -Considered,- Duchy of Cornwall. Petitions presented. By Mr. Lockhart, from Lanark, for Mackinnon, from Mrs. and Miss Chambers, for an Improvement in the Bankrupt Law.-By Mr. Wallace, from Individuals, and Mr. T. Duncombe, from Kidderminster, for Universal Suffrage.-By Mr. Ferrand, from Eccleshall, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.-By Mr. Wakley, from Southwark, and Mr. Lyall, from Camberwell and other places, for the Redemption of Tolls on the Metro politan Bridges.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Sheen (Staffordshire) for Alteration of the Poor-law.-By an John Easthope, Mr. Brotherton, Lord James Stuart, Mr. house, Mr. M. Gibson, Sir C. Napier, Mr. Elphinstone, CRIMINAL LAW-KILLING A GOAT (IRELAND).] Mr. C. Buller rose to ask a to Constantinople, and the inhabitants of Lebanon had been placed under the tender mercies of two Pachas, and the forts on the coast garrisoned by Turkish troops. He wished to know whether the Government had received any information on the subject? Sir Robert Peel observed that it would be rather difficult for him to tell what might be the particular course of proceeding by a Government like that of Turkey. He, however, was not in a situation to give the gallant Admiral any particulars. It would be recollected that the object of the late operations of the British force on the coast He had great pleasure in reading the let the part he took in this case was only on public grounds. It would now be seen that this whole case had originated in misapprehension. of Syria was to restore the sovereignty of | that country to the Turkish Government. ter, and he could assure the House that No accounts had arrived from Constantinople since the 20th of January, at which time the Emir had not arrived there. With respect to the other point-the sending two Pachas to govern Lebanon-he was not able to answer. With respect to the government of the forts, all he could say at present was, that the Turkish Government had sent the Seraskier Pacha to Beyrout to inquire into the grievances, both among the Druses and Maronites, and also to consider the best mode of governing the district, but the result of this mission had not yet transpired. He regretted, therefore, that he could not as yet give the desired information to the hon. and gallant Admiral. Sir C. Napier was very much obliged to the right hon. Baronet for calling him gallant Admiral, but that was a mistake, as he had not got that rank yet. Sir R. Peel said, he wished tomakean observation in reference to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite could probably recollect that he had asked him, on a previous night, whether, during the period when he held office in 1834 and 1835, the Lord President had not signified to him his intention to resign office. He then stated that he had no recollection of such a circumstance, but he had since received a communication from the Lord President, stating that he had never made any such proposal, and that he might therefore have given the most peremptory contradiction to the statement. Mr. F. Maule said what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet was rather an answer to a question which he had put in debate, than a contradiction of any thing which he had stated. He was as much pleased with that statement as any friend of the Lord President could possibly be, setting at rest, as it did, a re THE LORD PRESIDENT HOPE.] Mr. Wakley wished, with the permission of the House, to call its attention to a letter from the late Lord President of the Court of Sessions in Scotland. That learned individual had addressed him in the follow-port which had been very prevalent in Scot ing terms: land. No one now was more convinced than himself of the misrepresentation "Edinburgh, Feb. 14, 1842. "Sir-As you appear to me to act in Par- which had taken place, and no one acliament quite independently of party feelings, cepted the refutation with greater satisand as I fear that many may draw the same faction. He was not sorry to hear the inference which you have done from the motion letter which had been read by the hon. for the returns moved for by Mr. Maule having Member for Finsbury, and in the absence been refused (I dare say on good Parliamen- of all official information, whatever may tary grounds), I am sure that, if a proper op- be his opinion with reference to the portunity occur, you will be glad to state in the conduct of the retired judge in remainHouse of Commons, that I have assured you that during the eleven years since the trial of ing in office, as he thought, after his civil causes by jury belonging to the first divi- powers had failed, he should be the last sion of the Court of Session devolved upon me, man either in that House or out of doors there have only been three cases, as far as I to question the integrity of that individuknow, or can now ascertain, in which any other al's word, which had never been tarJudge sat or presided for me. With these ex-nished. He, therefore, should at once ceptions, I tried every one of them. In one of the letter of the late Lord those three a possible interest of a very near relation prevented me from sitting. In the other two, casual indisposition, which did not last for three days on either occasion, prevented me. If Mr. Maule's motion had been granted, and if it had included the trials in all of which I presided in August last (for his motion limited the returns to the 31st of July), there would have been only one case in which any other Judge sat for me. "I have the honour to be, Sir, "Thomas Wakley, Esq., M.P." assume to President give the information which the official returns would have afforded. He had no hesitation in stating now, as he had before done, that so far as the late Lord President's actual presence in the Jury Court in Edinburgh was concerned, he had been thus led by wrong information into an error which he sincerely regretted. He was extremely sorry that he had mooted that subject, and he trusted that it would now be set right. or rather an address to that House, which he had just received from his constituents in Manchester? Of course it was not for him (Mr. Gibson) to refuse an address from his constituents, and he wished the refusal, if there were to be one, should proceed from that House. He felt it to be his duty to take the earliest opportunity of asking the advice of the Chair on the subject, as the declaration he held in his hand related to the subject which would shortly be under debate. The address was signed by 25,000 persons, inhabitants of the borough of Manchester, and it was to the effect: "We, the undersigned merchants, tradesmen, and working men of Manchester, declare that in loyalty to our Sovereign"-The hon. Member was about to proceed with the reading of the Address, when he was interrupted with cries of "order." THE FISHERIES.] Captain Pecheli | RATION.] Mr. Milner Gibson wished to wished to put a question to the right hon. ask the Chair whether it were convenient Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-to the House for him to present a petition, vernment. The right hon. Baronet was aware that a convention had been concluded with France, which had for its object the regulation of the fishing trade on the coasts of that country and of Great Britain. Commissioners had been mutually appointed to arrange the disputes which had grown up between the fishermen of the two countries, and to adopt regulations to prevent collision for the future. He wished to know what progress had been made by the commissioners, and also at what period the right hon. Gentleman expected that he should be enabled to bring forward a measure to sanction the regulations that might be agreed on? Sir R. Peel replied, that the gallant Officer had stated correctly that a treaty was concluded in 1839 between this country and France, to regulate the oyster and other fisheries off the coasts of the two countries. The treaty provided that commissioners should be appointed by each side to specify the limits within which the rights of each should be restricted, and to make regulations for carrying the treaty into effect. The commissioners had been appointed. They had met and had agreed upon the regulations; but there had been discussions as to the mode in which the regulations should be carried into effect. But he believed, that the difference was confined to one point, and that was not one of any difficulty; so that he hoped that before the oyster fishing opened in August the whole matter would be settled. The right to the fishing on the part of this country was confined to three miles from low water-mark. But there was a discussion as to the French boats being allowed to come within the three miles, not to fish, but to rest for the night. He repeated that he certainly did hope the matter would be speedily adjusted. The Speaker said, that if the address was in the nature of a petition, the proper time for presenting it would be after the Order of the Day was read for going into committee on the Corn-laws. Mr. M. Gibson said, that the address was not in the nature of a petition, but rather a declaration from the people of Manchester, stating what their feelings were respecting the present Corn Bill of her Majesty's Government. The Speaker said, the House could not receive any declaration that was not in the shape of a petition. But METROPOLITAN ROADS.] Mr. P. Borthwick wished to put a question, involving a matter of much importance to the inhabitants of the vicinity of the metropolis, to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. It related to the lighting of the approaches. to London. Up to a very recent period these approaches had been lighted by means of money collected as tolls. the present winter, in consequence of the increase of communication by railway, the tolls had so much decreased, that the trustees of the roads could no longer light those roads, and had, in fact, refused to light them. The parishes also had declined to light the roads. The consequence was, that persons passing to and from the metropolis by night were exposed to much CORN-LAWS-MANCHESTER DECLA- danger. He wished then to ask the right Captain Pechell said, an act was passed last year to enable the Privy Council to carry out such regulations as might be agreed upon by treaty between the two countries. Now, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, was it his intention to apply for a renewal of that act, which had expired? Sir R. Peel would consider it. hon. Gentleman, had he any measure in | formity with law and precedent. On contemplation for the purpose of securing looking at the act he could not see on the safety of persons travelling by these what ground the House could refuse to roads, by compelling the parishes, or send this petition to the committee. There some other authorities, to light them? could be no doubt but that it was an election petition. The 3d section of the act 4th and 5th Vict. defined what constituted an election petition. Sir James Graham said, that the various parishes had power by law to make rates for the lighting of the roads, if they should think fit to do so, but the executive had no power to compel them to do so. He had been applied to by some of the inhabitants of the parish of Kensington on the subject, and he had recommended that a vestry-meeting of the rate-payers should be called, and that the propriety of levying a rate for the purpose of lighting the roads should be submitted to them. The vestry meeting was called, and he regretted to say,that a large majority decided against levying any rate for that purpose. It was a question entirely for the decision of the rate-payers of the different parishes, and the executive had no power whatever to interfere in a matter of local taxation for such a purpose. PRIVILEGE-BELFAST ELECTION ADJOURNED DEBATE.] The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the petition of Baron Ennishowen and Carrickfergus having been read, The Speaker put the question "that the_petition being the petition of a Lord of Parliament be not referred to the election committee." Mr. C. Wood said, that, on looking carefully over the act, he had come to the conclusion that the House had no alternative but to refer the petition to the committee; and he had the greater satisfaction in coming to that conclusion, because he felt that the House would attain that object which the right hon. Baronet had declared to be of immense importancenamely, that the House ought not to be called upon to decide on questions connected with contested elections. The right hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that, ever since the passing of the Grenville Act, it had been the policy of the House to leave the determination of questions connected with election petitions to a body resembling a judicial tribunal, rather than to take upon itself to determine the matter. He confessed he could see no reason for refusing to refer this petition to the committee in the usual manner, and he considered that by so doing they would be acting in strict conVŎL. LX. {Third} "Every petition which shall be presented to the House of Commons within such time as shall be limited, complaining of the undue election or return of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, &c., shall be deemed an election petition." He apprehended that no person would dispute that this was a petition presented within the limited time, complaining of an undue return. And then came these words "But no election petition shall be received by the House unless at the time it is presented it shall be subscribed by a person claiming therein to have been a candidate at the elec tion." He apprehended that no one would deny that the petition was, at the time of presentation, signed by a person alleging himself to have been a candidate at the election. If that were the case, then it must be apparent that this came under the definition of an election petition; and he also contended that it had been received by the House. It had been sent to the examiners of recognisances, who had reported the recognisances to be unexceptionable, and he did not know what other act was necessary to constitute the reception of a petition by the House. He would now read to the House the first part of the 30th section: "And be it enacted, that all election petitions which shall be received by the House shall be referred by the House to the general committee of election, for the purpose of choosing a select committee, as hereinafter provided, to try such petition." It seemed to him that if these points were granted, this came strictly within the definition of an election petition-that it was not included in the exception at the end of the third clause, and that the 30th section rendered it imperative that all election petitions received by the House should be referred to the committee for the purpose of being tried. He apprehended, therefore, that the House had no alternative. The only ground on which this petition could be refused was, that it was signed by a Peer of Parliament. He, Y to any one now to argue that the petition had not been received. He did not wish to inquire what the decision of the committee might be, whether or not they might make a special report to the House that in consequence of Lord Ennishowen being a Peer they would not go into it; but he apprehended that it was incumbent on the House to refer this petition to the committee. however, did not think it was competent | entered into, no order was made for referring the recognisance to the examiner. It was done as a matter of course. The House therefore had not done any act amounting to the petition being received. It seemed to him the question now to be decided was, whether the petition had been received or not. If it had been received, the House was bound to refer it to the general committee, and that committee might report upon it. If it had not been received, the House had a discretion on the subject, which it ought to exercise, for the petition was signed by a person designating himself by a title which had been inserted in the Gazette, from which it appeared that he had been summoned to the House of Parliament. The real question, as he said before, was, whether the petition had been received by the House. If it had, he thought they were bound to refer it to the committee. If not, then he thought the House ought to exercise a discretion on the subject. Mr. Williams Wynn quite agreed with the hon. Member for Halifax that this was a question of some nicety and difficulty. As far as related to the petition now before the House it might be of little importance, inasmuch as there were other petitions to which no objection applied containing the same allegation. The fact of this petition being signed by a Peer of Parliament was a decided objection to it being considered by a committee. That objection might be taken in a preliminary manner, and upon that, a committee might determine as they had done in the case of a petition presented by a Member who had been reported to be guilty of bribery, or as in a case where the petitioners were insufficiently described as having a right to vote. The preliminary objection might be taken, and they might refuse to hear it. If this objection were taken before the reception of the petition, he should certainly think it a valid one. He thought the House ought not to receive a petition which upon the face of it purported to be addressed by a person, who, according to his own description, had no right to interfere or address the House upon the matter of an election. But then came the words which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, "That every election petition which has been received by the House shall be referred to the general election committee." He supposed, with the hon. Member, that these words would override the other, and that if the petition had been received the House would be bound to refer it to the committee. The doubt which he entertained was, whether this petition had been received. No order whatever, so far as he was aware, had been made. With respect to the petitions being referred to the examiner of recognisances, the recognisance was not conditional upon the petition being received; on the contrary, it was entered into before the petition was presented. On the recognisance being Mr. C. Wood said, he did not mean to argue that the petition being sent to the Recognisance-office was a proof of its reception. He merely meant to say that everything which was directed to be done until they came to the 30th section had been done. That section declared that all petitions which had been received should be referred, necessarily implying that before reference they must have been received. Everything had been done regularly up to the point of reference. Sir G. Grey said, that on referring to the votes it would be found that an order had been made on the subject of this petition. In the case of the Sunderland election petition he observed that it was ordered to lie on the Table, and that order constituted the reception of the petition. The Speaker said, that all petitions when received by the House were ordered to lie on the Table. The Solicitor-general felt the objection of receiving an election petition signed by a Peer of Parliament, for if he had a right to petition against the election, he had also a right to appear before the election committee, and conduct the case in the inquiry against a Member of that House. That certainly did appear to him (the Solicitor-general) contrary to the resolution of the House of Commons, preventing a Peer of Parliament from interfering with elections. But he did not rise to discuss that point, because he entirely agreed with |