The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-08 00:00:00

BURIAL BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill several
amendments were moved and negatived without a divi-

sion.

Viscount EBRINGTON then moved the insertion of
the following clause :—Whereas the diversity of arrange-
ments required by different bishops as the condition of
their consecrating burial grounds have occasioned much
perplexity to the people and reproach to the Church of
England, and also much inconvenience to the inhabi-
tants of certain towrs engaged in providing public burial
grounds, under the acts 16 and 17 Vict., chap. 134, and
17 and 18 Vict., chap. 87 : Be it enacted,—That nothing
in those acts contained shall render it necessary for the
burial board of any town or parish to do more than
prove, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State,
that they have provided a fit and proper burial ground,
with such lines of demarcation between the parts
intended for the interment of members of the
Church of England and persons not belonging to
that Church respectively as have been generally deemed
requisite, and that having done so they have invited the
bishop of the diocese to consecrate the said first-men-
tioned part of such burial ground ; and in the event of
such bishop, as the condition of hiscori,ecrating the same,
requiring the construction of walls or other unreasonable
and unseemly partitions between the several parts of the
said burial ground, contrary to the determination of the
said burial board, it shall be lawful, notwithstanding,
for one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State,
in his discretion, to declare the provisions of the said act
to have been sufficiently complied with in respect of pro-
viding a consecrated part of such burial ground ; and no
proceedings shall be institute.] against any minister of
the Church of England on account of his having offi-
ciated at any interment in such ground altar it has been
so approved by the Secretary of State, and before its
consecration by the bishop of the diocese.
Mr. FERGUSSON seconded the adoption of the
clause proposed by the noble lord, considering it calcu-
lated to put an end to the evils complained of.
Sir G. GREY did not see the good that was to be
effected by the clause proposed by the noble lord, nor
did he think it was called for by the public. He must
therefore vote against it. _

Mr. HENLEY—Considering that the operation of
the clause would make confusion worse confounded, and
would impose on the Secretary of State a task of great
difficulty, felt bound to oppose it.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought that the question of
boundary should be left to the Burial Board, and that a
short clause to that effect would do all that the noble
lord required.
Mr. W. J. FOX, thinking the clause most beneficial,
would give it his support.
Mr. PELLA.TT supported the clause, thinking its
provisions necessary.
Mr.WIGRAM thought that as long as burial grounds
were consecrated, the parties officiating ought to be pro-
perly qualified.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE supported the clause,
thinking that Dissenters ought to have the privilege of
the services of their own clergymen at their own burials.
The ATTORNEY•GENERA L objected to the clause,
thinking it would not effect the object the noble lord had
in view.

Mr. HADFIELD trusted that the noble lord would
persevere in the clause, and divide the house upon it.
Mr. BARROW objected to the clause.

Mr. BELL supported the clause.
After some observations from Mr. Cowper, Mr.
Spooner, Viscount Ebrington, Sir George Grey, and
Mr. Malins,
The house divided, when the numbers were,
Fur the second reading of the clause 26
Against it . 29
Majority
- •

The clause was accordingly thrown out.
Mr. BELL, in the absence of Mr. Miall, moved the
insertion of the following clauses :—" 1. Where any
unconsecrated burial grounds have been closed under.
the herein recited acts, it shall be lawful to provide a
new burial ground under such and the present acts to be
either in part or wholly unconsecrated, notwithstanding
that the parochial burial ground may not have been closed.
2. Where for any reagon it may be deemed undesirable
to erect in the consecrated part of a burial ground a
chapel for the performance of Divine service, it shall be
obligatory on the burial ground to erect a chapel on the
unconsecrated part thereof, unless it shall be determined
by three fourths of the vestry that the same is undesir•
able and unnecessary, as hereinbefore provided. 3. All
notices relative to the closing of burial grounds, or of
vestry meetings to be held in pursuance of this and_ of
the herein recited acts, shall be affixed to the doors of
all places of worship in the respective parishes to which
they refer.
Each of them, however, after a short discussion, was
rejected without divisions.
Mr. PE GLATT, who had also given notice of a clause
respecting fees and payments for interments, withdrew it.
The bill was afterwards read a third time and passed.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

On the order of the day for the adjourned debate upon
the addition of a clause providing an appeal to Quarter
Sessions,
The clause was negatived without any discussion.
Mr. M‘MATION then proposed the insertion of a
clause, the object of which he stated was to prevent
frivolous and vexatious prosecutions, by empowering
magistrates to award to the defendant his costs, and also
an alio wance for loss of time in case of acquittal, which
ext..enses should be paid by the prosecutor ; and in cases
where the prosecution should appear to be malicious or
vexatious, that the justices should have further power to
award to the defendant a further sum of money not
exceeding 201.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said tbat this clause
was most objectionable, and was utterly at variance with
the established principle and practice of criminal law in
this country.
Mr. WATSON also condemned the tendency of such
a clause to introduce an injurious element into the ad-
ministration of the law ; though he admitted that the
question as to the propriety of compensating prisoners
in cases of malicious or vexatious prosecutions was well
worthy of consideration at some future period. He
further thought that the principle on which the bill
itself was founded was bad ; and that, although we were
much indebted to the magistracy for the zealous and
conscientious manner in which they discharged their
duties, the country could scarcely have confidence in
them as competent persons to be entrusted with sum-
mary jurisdiction in criminal cases.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the amendment, and Mr.
HADFIELD supported it.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said that although he
was of opinion that the public ought to compensate
prisoners who had been unjustly accused, he did not
approve of the means by which this bill sought to attain
that object.

j[LEFT SITTING.]

ADULTERATION. OF FOOD, URINES,
DIZUGS, (I:c., COMMITTEE.
(THIS DAY.)

The committee re-assembled this morning shortly be-
fore one o'clock, there being present Mr. Seholefield,
chairman ; Lord Goderich, Mr. Otway, and Mr. Kin-
naird, and the Hon. Mr. Villiers.
The first witness called was Mr. Boddington, solici-
tor of Leamington, and chairman of the Local Board
of Health in that town.

He stated in effect that he concurred generally in the
evidence given by Mr. Redwood and Mr. Phillips, tend-
ing to show that adulterations of food, &c., had been
much over-rated. He thought certain restrictions
upon tradesmen for the protection of consumers
would operate beneficially ; but he at the same
time considered that the admixture of inno-
cuous ingredients with some articles such as
chicory with coffee—was quite justifiable, because it con-
tributed to reduce their price. In the case of coffee, he
thought that it could not be sold to the consumer at such
a low price as it was now unless chicory was to some
extent mixed with it. In short, he thought it quite
sufficient for the consumer if he obtained the article he
required at the lowest possible price. If the competi-
tion, which at present resulted in a reduction of price
upon articles of common consumption—though these
articles were harmlessly adulterated--were inter-
fered with, it would produce a series of small
monopolies in the genuine article, which would be
extremely inconvenient, as well as unjust to the public.
By Mr. Villiers—Ile must be underotood, in what he
had said, to draw a distinction between articles add
terated with ingredients of a deleterious or injurious
nature, and those which were merely mixed with inno-
cent ingredients ; but. he could not commit himself to
draw the line between them.
The examination of Mr. Postgate was afterwards re-
sumed, and occupied the attention of the Committee
. until very shortly before they rose.