The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-18 00:00:00

THE LONDON,

late Government had passed a measure to remedy these
evils. In that measure Parliament . gave great, and

„ .
almost extravagant, powers to the Board of Health, but
great as they were they wt re insufficient for the pur-
pose; the act became practically inoperative, and alter
two years the Board of Health, in its second report, ad-
'flitted that there had not been one burial-ground closed
in the metropolis, and that nothing had been done to
mitigate those evils. The causes which led to the
failure of the Act were two-fold. In the first place, as
the money for carrying out its provisions was to be raised
by loan, it was discovered by the capitalists, to whom
application to that effect had been made, that the ex-
istence of the Board of Health was not guaranteed for

a longer period than three years. This objection,
no doubt, might have been surmounted by
giving the security of the State, and it was
therefore one of form only. But the second
cause of failure was an objection of a substantial
nature. It turned out that the fees to be levied, and
Which the insurance company who were applied to for
the loan in question had to look to for the repayment of
their advances, did not necessarily go to the Board of
Health. In fact there was no provision against the crea-
tion of extramural joint-stock cemeteries by any parties
who chose, and as the cost of the cemeteries to be
created by the Beard of Health would be very great in
consequence of the compensation that body would have
to pay for closing intramural graveyards, the probability
was that a number of those joint-stock cemeteries would
spring into existence. The Board of Health had ex-
pressed themselves to the effect that they went direct to
the root of all these calculations, and that if it was not
remedied, the Act would remain a dead letter. To re-
medy it, they proposed one of two alternatives to the
Government—namely, to snake it compulsory on all per-
sons to bury their dead in their cemeteries; or to levy a
fine equivalent to the burial fees upon all interments
in cemeteries other than those of the Board of
Health. The late Government, however, declined to
adopt either alternative, or to accede to this propo-
sition. That was the state of the case when the
present Government came into office; and their atten-
tion being at once directed to the subject, it seemed
to him (Lord J. Manners) and his colleagues to be a
bounden duty to endeavour, at least, to cut the Gordian
knot which hampered so completely the operation of an
Act of Parliament, passed, he was free to say, in his
opinion, with the best intentions. They considered,
therefore, that the proper remedies for the evils that ex-
isted was to be found, not in carrying out to such a great
extent the principle of monopoly and centralization pro-
posed by the Board of Health, but in a more consitu-
tional, simple, and effective system, based upon the old
Parochial system of burying the dead, which had existed
from time immemorial in this country, subject of course
to the supervision of the state as regarded those abuses
and grievances which, it was admitted, defaced parochial
mangernent in some parts of the metropolis. The Go-
vernment had accordingly introduced the Bill which he
then asked them to read a second time, and the prin-
cipal provisions of which he would recite briefly. In
the first place, it proposed to repeal in tote the Act of
1850; in the second, to give power to Glee Secretary of
State to close such burial grounds in the metropolitan
districts as should be proved to be noxious and
Unwholesome • in the third, to give power to
the parochial' authorities to replace these burial-
-grounds so shut up by others out of the districts of
the metropolis; and in the fourth, to reserve to the Go-
vernment the power of opening new burial- grounds,
Where parishes were deprived of such accommodation by
the shutting up of the old ground. The Bill had been
already some weeks in the hands of the Zion. Members,
and therefore he should forbear entering into further
details of its provisions. He wished, however, to meet
one objection which had been taken, and he thought
taken fairly, to the constitution of parochial boards
Under the Bill. It had been urged that in the city of
London, where some 50 or 60 parishes might unite for
One burial ground, that inasmuch as the Bill provided
that not less than three members should represent each
Parish in a joint burial board, it was obvious that a
board of 150 or 160 members would never be able to
transact business. To meet this objection, however, he
(Lord John Manners) proposed to substitute in the
city of London for such separate burial boards the old
Machinery of corporate action which existed in 1848,
and which was then found effectual for the purpose to
Which it was applied. That would at once have the in-
tended effect, and at the same time preserve the principle
of responsibility. On one important point, the
Present Bill escaped the greatest difficulty of ad other
schemes—namely, compensation. As it was proposed
to close only such burial grounds as should be proved a
Public nuisance, no compensation could be dematued,
and none ought to be paid. It might be objected that
as the Bill stood the Home Secretary might close
grounds as nuisances which in the eye of the common
;ay were no nuisances at all. All he (Lord John
Manners) could say was, that nothing was more
likely than that his Right Hon. Friend the present
Home Secretary would exercise that power in a manner
to avoid such a difficulty; but, nevertheless, he (Lord J.
Manners) should be prepared in Committee to propose
a clause to meet this objection in the fullest manner.
lie did not anticipate any ohjections to the Bill; he
knew amendments might be proposed in Committee, and
he would be ready to give them his best attention. He
therefore asked the House to assent to the principle of
the measure, and he committed it accordingly to their
dispassionate and deliberate consideration, firmly be-
lieving that, though the Bill might not, perhaps, meet
the views of those excellent but mistaken men, who sub-
mitted that the burials of this great community should
be undertaken by a department of the State, still that it
afforded a practical remedy for a practical evil, with as
little alarm to the ancient constitution of the country,
and as little violation to the feelings, to the rights, to
the habits, and to the customs of the inhabitants of the
metropolis, as was consistent with a due regard to the
enforcement of public dscency.
Viscount EBRINGTON would not oppose the mea-
sure if ho believed it to be a practical one; but he be-
lieved it was the contrary, and that it would excite public
eZpectation higher than the former Bill, without satis-
fying it in the same manner. Therefore ho protested
against it. He did not think the burials of the metro-
Politan community should be made a department of the
state ; but he thought that this department should be
conducted on representative principles. He objected to
the Bill being brought in at the close of the session, on
the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, and in a thin
House, to repeal the Interments Acts of last session,
Which had been passed after the most mature considera-
tion by large majorities of the House, and with the
approval of almost all parties. The Noble Lord had
referred to what he called the failure of the scheme of
last session; but it could not properly be called a failure,
for bite whole scheme in its completeness had not been
tried, for it had not been wholly embodied in the Act
of last session. Instead of introducing the present,
It would be far preferable to pass a temporary, mea-
Sure, which would meet the exigencies of the case
(which this Bill did not), and leave it to the new Par-
liament to come, with full time for due deliberation, to
the consideration of a permanent and complete measure,
It could not be said that there was any overwhelming
pressure to proceed with this measure, for under the Act
of last year the Government had got a burial-ground
which, together with the unoccupied ground of the
existing cemeteries, amounting to between 150 and 200
acres, would suffice until a measure of large scope was
Passed. Besides, experience showed that parochial
boards such as those contemplated by the Bill, would not
Provide an efficient and economical management; and
the re-opening of the religious question out of the este.
blishment of mortuary chapels for members of the
Church and of dissenting bodies, would lead to much
dissension; and the disposal of the mortuary fees as
Proposed was by no means satisfactory. On these
grounds, then, he was strongly opposed to thus summa-
rily disposing of the important question of extramural in-
terment of the metropolitan dead.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE insisted to set himself right
relative to a statement which he had made on a former
occasion relative to some practices at the burial-ground
of St. Clement Danes, in the Strand, as he had been
Charged by the parochial authorities of that parish with
having misrepresented the circumstances of a revolting
ease to which he had referred on that occasion. The
statement was that a young man, who had died of malig-
nant smallpox, had been buried in St. Clement Danes'
churchyard, and that the uncle of the deceased, in pass-
ing three weeks after the burial, had observed the coffin
Plate of his nephew exposed to view, and read the inscrip-
tion on it; that the sexton was at work on the grave,
which had been re-opened and the coffin tossed about.
This was stated to be the misrepresentation; he had made
inquiry on his attention being directed to it by the paro-
chial authorities, and he found that it was not three
Weeks, but three days after the burial of the young man
that the uncle noticed the opening of the grave upon
Which the sexton was at work, but that he could not
buncombe)
to what extent the coffin was disturbed. He (Mr.
uuncombe) had, however, received a statement relative
to the practices at that graveyard in the centre of the
Strand, from a person named Woolridge (as we under-
stood), who had resided close to that churchyard in the
employment of a baker, and that en
statemt ws corrobo-
rated by another person who also gave hie
iname, and
from their united testimonyy it appeared that t was usual
on Saturdays to open the graves, after an examination
• of the ground was made by means of a loeg iron rod,
which was forced into the ground for the purpose—that
on the graves being opened, n triangle was fixed over
them, by means of which pails filled with decomposed
to a stone
Matter were drawn up, which was removed_
building at the side of the churchyard that human
limbs were frequent, seen thrown carelessly about, that
the effluvium which escaped from the open graves was
most offensive, the graves being left open all the Saturchy
With a tarpaulin only thrown over them, until Sunday
Morning, when fresh bodies were interred in tthem—
during their residence in the locality, the health of their
families suffered greatly from the noxious exhalations
arising from the burial ground, and that on that account
they had to remove to another locality to reside. They
added that they had frequently seen the grave-diggers,
after being at work on the graves, scrape off the decomposed
Matter from their tools. Ile might remind the House
that in the evidence given before a Committee of the
-douse relative to this same burial-ground of St. Cle-
ment Danes, it was stated by one of the gravediggers
that, when engaged with others at work upon a grave
he recognised the head of his own father, who had been
buried there, which had been cut off from the body—
that he knew it by its having one tooth knocked out,
"d another splintered—that when he toldesist d the gra.ve-
diggers of the fact, and desired them to , they
°nly laughed at him. lie made the authorities of St.
Clement Danes then, a present of the correction which
11 now gave of what they calleda misrepresentation-
With respect to the Bill before the House, he could only
BaY that he thanked the Government for introducing it.
1 t
Was by far the best measure that had yet been intro-
duced'e on the subject, and be also thanked them for re-
vealing the Act of last year. With respect to the pre-
Sent measure, he would only suggest that the closing of
the
be churchyards which were most objectionable should
compulsory. Re would advise the introductiou of a

compulsory clause for that purpose which should compel
the closing of the churchyards on a particular day
named, and he would not throw upon the Secretary of
St~ie the invidious tails of compelling them. He also
highly approved of their giving no compensation in the
cases of those burie.l-grounds. The Government was
undoubtedly in earnest on the question, and the Bill
would contribure to the welfare or the meq.opolis.
Lord SEYMU OR said it certainly was desirable to
close the graveyards in the metropolis ai soon es pos-
sible.—(Hear, hear.) That was the reason the Bill of
1850 passed, which failed because the Board of Health
could not raise the money required for the purpose.
Moreover, the Board proposed regulations to which the
Government could not acceed; as, for instance, that the
families of all persons buried from London should pay a
certain sum towards the expense of carrying out the
measure, which was obviously inadmissible. The late
Government had, therefore, prepared a new measure,
which was obviously inadmissible. The late Govern-
ment had, therefore, prepared a new measure, repelling
the present Act, and giving the Secretary of State power
to prohibit metropolitan interments. So far he quite ap-
proved of the measure, not, perhaps, in all its details,
but undoubtedly in its principie.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir B. HALL concurred in thanking the Government
for bringing in this Bill to repeal the Act of 1850, and
taking the question out of the hands of the Board of
Health.—(Hear, hear.) The Board would happily ex-
pire in the ensuing year, and the metropolitan Members
would resist its resuscitation. He hoped the Bill would
as speedily as possible pass into a law.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday, at twelve o'clock.
ME TROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.

The House then w7rlt into Committee on this Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON said several places in the neigh-
bourhood of the metropolis suffered from want of
efficient sewerage, and he should propose a elauce to
place them under the Public Health Act, exempting
them from the Commissioners of Sewers, and enabling
them to control their own drainage.
Sir B. HALL rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of
Works what is the amount of debt and liabilities due
from the Commissioners at the present time, and what
has been the increase of the debt and liabilities since the
passing of the Act of last year; how much has been
levied by rate since the last Act; and how much of the
sums so raised has been expended in reducing former
liabilities, and how much in new works and management;
and what is the state of the Victoria sewer; and what
was the total cost of that sewer? He said, on reference
to the accounts, it appeared that the cost of manage-
ment had in one year amounted to 25 per cent. on
the expenditure.—(Boar, hear.) Last year the ex-
pense of management had amounted to 35,000 h
out of 84,0001., or about 40 per cent.!—(Hear, hear.)
At the same time there was an increase of debt, as com-
pared with the last year, of no less than 10,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) The ratepayers could not be satisfied with
such a state of things, especially as the board was
practically irresponsible.—(Hear. hear.) He hoped the
Noble Lord would look into the matter. And next year
he understood that the Noble Lord intended to consider
the whole subject. For this reason he doubted whether
it would be well at present to pats this partial
measure.

Lord J. MANNERS said the amount of present lia-
bilities of the Commission was 113,0001.; the increase
was last year 98,0001.; the amount levied on the rates had
been 57,8001.,0t which 34,0001. had been applied to the re.
duction of the liabilities, and 11,000 to new works. The
cost of the Victoria sewer was to cost 25,0001. He
thought there were good grounds for passing the pre-
sent measure, on considerations of justice to the agricul-
tural districts.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said the exemption the Bill
introduced was objected to by some metropolitan
parishes, and he hoped that clause would not be pressed.
Lord EBBING TON said certainly some modifica-
tion of the law was required. He said the great pro-
portion of the expenditure of the Commission absorbed
by expenses of management, was owing to the state of
the law.
Mr. MILES Said surely the metropolitan Members
could not object to rating the land around the metropolis
at the same rate as the town parishes.—(Hear.)
Sir B. HALL did not deny that there might be reason
fur some re-adjustment, but only objected to its being
attempted as a temporary measure. As to the accounts,
they actually showed that the expense of management
exceeded the amount of work done.—(dear.)
Mr. R. S TEPHENSON said that nearly the whole of
the expenses beyond the original estimates for the con-
struction of the Victoria sewer was attributable princi-
pally to the Woods and Forests, in consequence of their
objecting to the discharge of the sewer through Crown
property. Whether the responsibility of this rested on
the late Chief Commissioner (Lord Seymour) or not, he
would not undertake to say.
Lord SEYMOUR admitted that the Woods and Forests
had objected to the discharge of the sewer through
Crown property, but the reason for that was, that if they
had done otherwise the effect would be greatly to dete-
riorate that property.
The clause was brought up and added to the Bill,
which was then reported to the House.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The Militia Ballots Suspension Bill was read a se-
cond time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The Militia Pay Bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed to-morrow.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.

On the motion for reading this Bill a third time,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH rose and said it was his in-
tention to move the omission of the whole of the land
clauses, on the ground that the House was not in a po-
sition to decide what were the just claims of the New
Zealand Company upon the land.of the colony, until an
inquiry had been instituted into the conduct and affairs
of that company. He should also demand an inquiry
into the conduct and affairs of the company before
the passing of the land clauses; because, in obtain-
ing their Act of 1847, the company had concealed
from the Colonial-office, from the Treasury, and
from Parliament, the true state of their affairs. The Can-
terbury Association, in a letter addressed to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, alleged
that the New Zealand Company had applied a portion •
of the funds placed in their hands, in 1846 and 1347, to
private purposes, and not to the legitimate purposes of
the company, and this was an additional reason why a
full inquiry should take place prior to the passing of
the land clauses. No less than 236,0001. had been paid
out of the public purse to this company, and he thought
it would be unjust to saddle the colony with the expense
which these clauses would entail until a full inquiry had
been bad into the affairs of the company. At the pro-
per time he should move the omission of the land clauses
from the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Sir W. MOLES WORTH moved the omission of the
land clauses.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the Hon. Baronet
had pressed the omission of these clauses on precisely
the same grounds which he had advanced in Com-
mittee, and which he (Sir J. Pakington) bad then
combatted.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted, therefore,
that the Honourable Baronet should have thought
it necessary again to re-open the question. He
though: that the House would feel it impossible to re-
verse the deliberate decision it had arrived at upon Lord
Grey's statement years ago. That Noble Lord went
into the subject most fully—he examined it most nar-
rowly, and gave his deliberate decision upon it. He de-
clared that he thought no Government could, with pro-
priety, invalidate the bargain that was then made with
the New Zealand Company. That bargain was ratified
in the most deliberate manner. A purchase was con-
cluded, and under that purchase a certain sum of money
was now due to the compauy. All he asked the House
to do was, that which in common justice they were bound
to do towards this company, namely, to take care that
they were not sufferers by the change which the present
measure would make in the government of the colony.
He was sorry to see that the Honourable Baronet was
willing to risk what he acknowledged was a great boon
by proposing the postponement of this measure. He
(Sir J. Pakington) attached the greatest importance to
these concessions, and he appealed to the House not to
reverse the decision of the Government in this matter
at a time when these colonies stood in a very critical
position. He appealed to them not to dash awayth
the
concessions.
H e entertainre
referenceh it
non t h thee
s these importanthad led
them that in the petition which was presented to the
minde ind
House that evening from Now South Wales, to which
the Hon. Baronet attached so much importance, this
question of the waste lands was made an important
feature.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. GLADSTONE said be cordially supported the
proposition of the Hon. Baronet the Member for South-
wark and the frank admissions which he had made. He
did not mean to find fault with the Government, but
when the Right Hon. Secretary said that a postpone-
ment of these concessions was a great evil, and would
endanger the
question altoeether, he must say that he
(Mr. Gladstone) had the most perfect faith in the success
and the ascendancy of those principles upon which colo-
nial legislation should be conducted. He thought it
muchass a
bbeatdt e
or
nteo.
T postponehey oughts
recollect
th
that eki kind
they d than
hadto
p
refused to make those amendments in a former measure
ee
which were so strongly urged upon the
quence was, that the Bill which they had Ten Thet
out insnusceh-
haste to the colony was a bad one, and called up the resist-
ofitthothactolothneistms
etahseumreseloyrieslr,iBso:
al-
thoughanee an and
or remonstrances
farterea lactoe
as
dm
vhiaedw
madeedin theall abstract,egations owf a
thesa great
suppression boon.lloit facts
His
Hon.
byd theend
New Zealand Company, and of obtaining the
Parliament in consequence, whereas, if these facts were
of
known, the company never would obtain this measure.
If they postponed this measure f ir the purpose of having
these facts inquired into, they would have the means in
the next session of Parliament of doing what was right.
He thought that the House would bo incurring a grave
responsibility if they wilfully declined that information
which was at their command. The Hon. Member for
Cockermouth had himself admitted many of these state-
ments, (Here Mr. Aglionby denied that he had ever
done so.) After the statement made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Southwark, it was their bounden duty to go into
the case. He (slr. Gladstone) did not admit the bar-
gain of 1847. Ile looked at it rather in the nature of a
boon than a bargain. A very large boon had been con-
ferred upon the company, and nothing whatever in the
nature of an equivalent had been rendered by them to
the public. He considered that they would be neglect-
ing their duty if they now refused to examine into these
facts. He cordially supported the motion of the Hon.
Baronet.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had spoken under a miseieneep;i al and a want of
knowledge of the subject. The members of the com-
pany were prepared to assent to any ordeal of an inquiry
that might be proposed, cut of which he was sure they
Would COMO et all events as clear as the Aigiat Lion. Gen-

tleman or the Hon. Baronet who had moved tho amend-
ment. He would not then go into the subj ect.and he thought
1 is wes most unjoet to the Government and the colony to
e Intieue those di-putee, which were so improperly raked
up by the Hon. Baronet. It was said the company were
not satisfied with the Bill. He confessed, on the part of
the couipenY, that they did not receive in the Bill the
full measure of justice they were entitled to. But, be-
lieving in the good faith and good intentions of Govern-
ment, he abandoned these objections. Thinking this a
good opportunity to give the colonies the means of self-
government, be abandoned the just claims of the com-
pany. He was satisfied with what Government intended
to do, and he loft the case where it at present was.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied having made any charge
against the company; he had only reasoned upon the
Lion. Member's own words.
Mr. AGLIONBY—I will explain that matter by and
bye. You will pardon me; you do not understand a
word of the subject.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. A. sxurri had spoken to the Hon. Baronet on
the subject of the charges he had made against gentle-
men with whom be was personally acquainted, and with
whom he had acted for so many years; and had remon-
strated with him for not having communicated personally
with those gentlemen, and received from them an expla-
nation of the trumped-up charges—for trumped-up
charges they were—which would have cleared the cha-
racter of the Hon. Gentleman who had been so unjustly
attacked by the Hon. Baronet. He had offered the Hon.
Baronet all the papers and letters for his perusal, but the
Hon. Barcnet replied he was engaged in the Soathwark
election, and he could not give his attention to the sub-
ject. Though the Hon. Baronet had not time to read the
paper he could find to make unsupported charges. He
wished the Hon. Baronet success in his election, but he
also wished the Hon. Baronet in his future charges against
gentlemen would ground these charges on fairness and
justice.—(Hear.)
Sir W. MOLES WORTH explained that he had been
invited into a private room by the Hon. Member to look
over the letters and papers relating to the New Zealand
business. He had replied he was engaged with the
Southwark election, and he could not look over the
papers; in fact, he could only look to official papers pro.
duced officially for information on the subject. The
Hon. Member answered that Government would never
produce the papers. He mentioned these matters be-
cause the Hon. Gentleman himself had referred to a
private conversation which had passed between them.
Sir J. PAKINGTON explained that pressure of pub-
lic business was the only reason which prevented the
official papers from being produced.
Mr. MANGLES wished for full inquiry into the con-
duct of the New Zealand Company, as the charges
brought against the company were entirely unfounded.
He was anxious the colonies should have the boon of
self-government secured to them.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the omission ... 21
Against it ... ... 99
Majority against the omission —7B
Mr. AGLIONBY was proceeding to address the House
in explanation of the charges, when he was interrupted
by cries of " Order," " Spoke." He claimed the indul-
gence which the House usually extended to Members
when personal matters had to be explained. He had not
availed himself just now of the opportunity of replying
to them, because he conceived he would have been per-
mitted to make a reply before the discussion closed.
Most certainly if the second opinion which the company
had obtained had been in accordance with the first, he
should have held that the company were bound. The
answer which they had sent out to the settlers at
Nelson was that the company had every desire to meet
their wishes. The opinion having been that the com-
pany had not the power to carry out the regulations
which the settlers wished, he had brought in a Bill to
enable them to do so, but it was thrown out by the
House. Much as he disagreed with Earl Grey on many
points connected with the New Zealand Company, he
would always admit that Earl Grey was a man of high
honour and statesmanlike views, with a firm determina-
tion to do what was right, and that his equal or superior
was not to be found in the kingdom. Earl Grey had
stated that he had gone through all the charges against
the New Zealand Company, and that he had come to the
conclusion that the directors were not to blame.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he should be ready to
prove the charges he had made before any Committee of
Inquiry. and he challenged contradiction of them.
The Bill was then passed.
The Appointment of Overseers Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Representative Peers Scotland Act Amendment
Bill and the Holloway House of Correction Bill went
through Committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having moved that
the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the
Corrupt Practices at Elections (No. 2) Bill that day three
months,
Mr. ANSTEY moved as an amendment that the
House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill
this day.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion of the Attorney-General 67
For the amendment of Mr. Ansley 24
Majority —43
••• •••
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on
the Protestant Dissenters Bill,
On clause 1 having been put,
Mr. ANSTEY proposed that all the words relating to
registration should be omitted from the clause, and that
the following words should be inserted in the place of
them:—" After the passing of this Act the said recited
Acts shall be repealed."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the pro-
vision in the clause under which the registration of
chapels should be made before the registrar-general,
had been adopted at the suggestion and request of the
Hon. Member for Manchester.
Mr. ANSTEY withdrew his opposition to the clause
after that statement.
The clause was then agreed to, and the Bill passed
through Committee.
THE COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL.
Lord R. GROSVENOR having moved the third
reading of this Bill,
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that be had supported the
second reading of the Bill; but he had done so on the
supposition that it could be brought into operation at
the next election. As he found, however, that that
could not be done without great inconvenience to the
voters, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the further
progress of the measure.
Mr. J. STUART said be believed the Bill would
operate very unfairly
in many of the counties.
Mr. R. PALMER also opposed the
Bill as it then
stood. He certainly thought that it ought not to come
into operation until after the next election.
Mr. PACKS' said he believed the Bill would disfran-
chise a fourth of the freeholders in the counties.
Mr. FORBES opposed the Bill, and moved the ad-
journment of the House.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said he had no objection to
have the operation of the 13i11 postponed until after the
next election.
Mr. R. PALMER said that if the Bill were to be
postponed until after the next election, he saw no reason
why it should then be pressed, or why it should not bo
deferred until another session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
thought the objection of the Hon. Member for Berkshire
(Mr. Palmer) to their then proceeding with the mea-
sure was unanswerable. But, at all events, he trusted
that they would at once come to some decision on the
subject, and that they would not continue sitting after
two o'clock.
The motion for the adjournment of the House was
then withdrawn, and a division was taken on the ques-
tion that the Bill be read a third time—
For the third reading... ••• 39
Against it
••• ••• ••• ••. 49
Majority —lO

_ijority
Colonel THOMPSON moved a series of resolutions
on the subject of the increasing production of the gold
mines, and the duty of the Government to take care
that the contract with the holders of public securities
should not be practically violated in consequence of that
production.
The motion was negatived without any discussion, and
without a division.
Mr. ANSTEY moved the followipg resolution:--
" That after Mr. Speaker has taken the chair, the House
shall not be counted until the doors are locked and the
division bell rung, as upon a division, and that all Mem-
bers being at the time of such count within the House,
or in the division lobbies, upper corridors, or chair lob-
bies thereof, shall be counted with the rest of the Mem-
bers present, as upon a division."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion.
The resolution was negatived without a division.
Mr. W. PATTEN moved for copies of all correspon-
dence with the several departments of her Majesty's
Government, from November, 1842, to June, 1852, re-
specting the grant of coal made to Sir James Brooke,
the Governor of Labuan, and by him transferred through
Mr. Wyse, to the Eastern Archipelago Company.—
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at a Quarter-past Two o'clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 17.
mission, to the followino Bills:
The Royal Assent was this afternoon given,
Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance. by Com-
Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Proclamation for Assembling Parliament.
Law of Wills Amendment.
Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages.
Apprehension of Deserters from Foreign Ships.
Law of Evidence (Scotland).
Public Works.
Kennington Common, &c., Improvement.
Belfast Custom House.
Kelvin Bridge (Glasgow) and other Works.
Somersetshire Central Railway.
Newmarket Railway.
Athlone Markets and Customs.
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Railway.
St. Helen's Gas Bill.
Ulverston Waterworks.
Abbey Tintern and Bigswear Roads.
London (City) Improvements.
Middlesbrough and Guisbrough Railway.
Sharpies and Hoghton Roads.
Shields and Morpeth Roads.
Merthyr Tydfil Waterworks.
Battle and Robertsbridge Road.
London (City) Small Debts Extension.
South Essex Estuary and Reclamation.
Runcorn Improvement.
Shillingcord, Wallingford, and Reading Road, and ElJl-
lingford Bridge.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
Lancaster Waterworks, Cemetery, and Gas.
Portrush Harbour.
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (No. 1).
London Gas Light Company (Amendment of Acta,
64,-4'4, 2),