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

tleman or the Hon. Baronet who had moved the amend-
stmt. He would not then go into the subject,and he thought
h WdS most unjust to the Government and the colony to
continue those disputes, 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 company, that they did not receive in the Bill the
full measure of juTtice thv were entitled to. But, be-
lieving in the good faith and good intentions of Govern-
ment, he abandoned those objections. Thinking this a
good opportunity to give the colonies the means of self-
government, he abandoned the just claims of the com-
pany. He was satisfied with what Government intended
to do, and he left the case where it at present was.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied having made any charge
against the company; ho 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. SMITH had spoken to the Hon. Baronet on
the subject of the charges ho 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. Baronet replied he was engaged in the Southwark
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.—(flear.)
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. Memb;r answered that Government Would never

produce the pipers. 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 ho 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 (N 0.2) 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. Anstey 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 Al' TORNEY-GENER AL stated that the pro-
vision in the clause under which the registration of
chapeli 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 baying moved the third
reading of this Bill,
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he 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 he 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. PACICE 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 Bill 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 bo pressed, or why it should not be
deferred until another session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
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
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 tho 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 following 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.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 17.
The Royal Assent was this afternoon given, by Cora•
mission, to the following Bills:
Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance.
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.
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardro
Athlone Markets and Customs.
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.
Shillingford, Wallingford, and Reading Road, and Shil-
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 Acts,
&0.---NO. 2).

Stockport and Marple Road.
Pedmore and R3wley Roads.
Stroud and Milky Road.
Macclesfield and Buxton Road.
Kirkby Stephen and Hawes Road.
Marsden, Gisburne, and Long Preston Roads.
Bury and Little Bolton Road.
Branaley and Ridgewiek Road.
Wakefield and Denby Dale Road.
Rotherham and Pleasley Road.
Leven Railway.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and York and North Midland
Railways.
Beaconsfield and Redhill Road.
Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midlands Junction
Railway.
Kettering and Northampton Road.
Railway Passenzers' Assurance Company.
Greenfield and Shepley Lane Head Road.
Leeds Waterworks (No. 2).
Tramore Embankment.
Limerick Improvement and Market.
South-Eastern, and Reading, Guildford, and Reigate
Railways.
Ipswich Dock.
Tyne Improvement.
South Wales Railway.
Londonderry Bridge (No. I).
Londonderry Bridge (No. 2),
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
Yeovil and Ilchester Turnpike Trusts.
London and North-Western Railway (No. 2).
Eastern Counties Railway (Power to use the East
Anglian Railways, &c.)
Leek and Hassop and Middlehills and Buxton Road.
York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway (Deviation of
Bishop Auckland Branch, &e.)
BowdenPresbyterianp
arkMEisntiastte.er Widows' and Orphans' Fund.
Clarksou's Estate.
Watson's Hospital (Edinburgh) Estate.
Balmoral Estate.
The Lords Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
the Marquis of Salisbury, and Earl Fortescue,

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.

MR. MATHER'S CASE.
Lord BEAUMONT gave notice that he should, on
Monday next, call the attention of the House to the
correspondence which had been lately laid on the table,
relative to the recent assault on Mr. Mather , at Florence.
the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, praying for
an amendment in the Passengers' Act.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition in favour of
eopyhold enfranchisement.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented a number
The Earl of HARRO WBY presented a petition from
of petitions against the Maynooth grant.
BILL.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (CRIMINAL) JU-
RISDICTIONLord WODEHOUSE moved the second reading of
this Bill.
The Bishop of SALISBURY opposed the Bill. He
allowed that reforms were necessary, and professed him-
self desirous of seeing them carried into effect, but he
did not think this Bill calculated to bring
about any re-
form. He thought, in dealing with this subject in a
fragmentary manner, they might trench upon principles
which it was desirablo to maintain intact. The Right
Rev. Prelate concluded by moving that this Bill be read
a second time this day six months.

Lord CAMPBELL said that a Committee of their
Lordships' House had investigated this subject, six of
the members of which were prelates of the Church, so
long as twenty years ago, and had reported in favour of
a measure of the kind now submitted to their Lordships.
The Right Rev. Prelate appeared to be in favour of a
more sweeping measure of reform in reference to the
ecclesiastical courts than the Bill now before the House
was, but this Bill was wholly unexceptionable in that
respect, and did not stand in the way of future
e legis-
lation in reference to those courts. The object of the
Bill was to abolish the jurisdiction of these courts in
caansdestheofonbrawling objection
Prelate to
the measure appeared to be that it was brought forward,
not by the Government, but by an independent Member
a
o f the R iaguhdt Rev. es of defamation;
of the House—an objection which was wholly futile, for
it properly lay with any independent Member to bring
refornaWhich pro-
ceededno provided
forward a measure for so manifest a reform of abuses as
this was.
The Bishop of OXFORD could not acquiesce in the
had views of the Noble and Learned Lord who s
-- just sat
down. The Noble and Learned Lord had misconceived
the argument of hie Right Rev. Friend, whose objection
wasto
thoseon nodefinite piecemeal
attem pls at
principle,
substi-
tuteand for the existing remedies which they Proposed to
do away with. He (the Bishop of Oxford) admitted,
with his Right Rev. Friend, that the subject deserved
great the attention of the Legislature, and that
areat reforms
ought to be introduced into the ecclesiastical
courts of
the country. But it was because he believed the pro-
ceeding with those nibbling measures was not the way
to produce reform, but rather to leave real difficulties
untouched, that he objected to this Bill, particularly as
it did away with the only remedy at present available
for certain great existing evils, and substituted no other
reremedy in its place. Such legislation as that he re-
garded as vicious. The particular offences to which the
Bill applied could not be dealt with in the ordinary
courts of justice, and, therefore, if they abolished the
existing remedy, they must substitute a new one.
He admitted that there were many cases of defama-
tion which he should be glad to ace not brought
before these courts ; but in the main these
courts were most effective in repressing offences of
this kind, which were of frequent occurrence in the more
populous parts of the country. During the throe years
prior to January, 1830, the number of these offences
brought before the courts was 311, which showed the
necessity that existed for maintaining a remedy. When,
however, they had substituted a better mode of dealing
with these offences than the present one he should be
glad to see the present mode done away with, but not
before. By this piecemeal interference with the main-
tenance of the discipline of the Church of Christ—a dis-
cipline which was was ono of its inalienable rights—by
thus removing remedy after remedy for admitted abuses,
without giving a substitute, they would produce, not a
chaos.
system of reform, but a hopeless No one knew
better than h© (the Bishop of
Oxford) did the necessity
which existed for a thorough and complete reform of the
abuses of the ecclesiastical courts, and he hoped he
should live to see it effected; but it must be accomplished,
not by removing, in this piecemeal fashion, one parti-
cular abuse after another existing in the system of the
discipline a
nt law of the Church, but by bringing back
to a more rnal, simple, and Primitive state what the
abuses of modern times had corrupted.
Lord WODEHOUSE observed, in reference to what
had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate, that there was a
remedy existing at common law for the offences treated
of in the Bill, for they could be misde-
meanours. Punished as
He should divide the Souse on the second
reading.
Earl FITZWILLIAM said their Lordship would be
glad to know what was that primitive state
of the law
which the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) de-
sired they should return to. From the tone- of the Right
Rev. Prelate's speech it was easy to
-- see what the spirit of
the law would be which the i
R
--ght Rev. Prelate would
have established as a restoration of the primitive system,
and he thought their Lordships cai,,,,
-.6'4 conclude that the
Rght Rev. Prelate's objection to the pro osed amendment
h t
of the ecclesiastical law was, not
atp the Bill was so
small, but that he thought the commencement of a reform
of that law might lead to a
something
still greater, as a
reform of those courts which, even
- ac co rding to the Righ
Rev. Prelate's own statement,:were scandal to the coun-
try. The country, however, after
the statement of the Right Rev.,Prelate, would now know Where tollook for the
destruction of the abuses of those courts.
The Earl of DERBY said, that
after the statements
of the two Right Rev. Prelates, and
after the declara-
tion which ho understood had beep made io the other
House of Parliament, and which he
-- hade no objection to
repeat in that House—viz,, that the subject of the eccle-
siastical law and of the practice of tho-se courts should
receive the earliest attention of her
'
ment, he hoped the Noble Lord would Me ei t
t 5
notrYess the Gover-
n
He was firmly convinced that What the Noble Lord on
the cross benches (Earl Fitz willifsens ,
• had attributed to
the Right Rev. Prelate (Oxford)...ez
1
would be found an uncompronassie erne y, that he
is
la be
to e
abuses of the ecclesiastical courts, wool n
d be shown toth be
the case in reality, and not in the manner in which the
Noble Lord had supposed by way of taunt and of cast-
legridicule upon the statement of the RI
ht Rev. Pre-
©
that Ho (the Earl of Derby) was fargf m saying
that a question of this kind
mightro not be
brought forward by any i a
-nee/sens
of Parliament in either House; M mber b4i,ent e
rn
time he might venture to express his
at the sa. ft
where there was a lage question to be _,e o_pinion, til_aC
difficult and complicated character, and rottlt with, of a
moval of abuses which had arisen in process of
the re 7
which might be attributed principally to
th_of time, and
cumstances and habits of the time, the Goy: altered cir-
the means and appliances at their commaor°
,ment, with
assistance they could call to their aid, ,must : with the
tunities, if they set about it in earnest, of dealing with
manner thau it could treated if taken up h
more effective
vidaal Member of lameParint only. No concealing
himself however however, the difficulties of het
sfleg fkom
even presuming to say that they should beet,, and not
before the House a satisfactory scheme, but"dle to lay
that their attention should be devoted to t eclaring
with a view to removing those abuses Which question,
milted on the part of the Right Rev. Prelates he
ere ad-
express a hope that the Noble Lord who b d ' ne must
a d
the Bill would, after that statement, and lookinintroduce
period of the session at which they had arrive ,g to the
to leave the question in the hands of her nt
.eat c,onsent
vernment, and not press the measure further.Y
3 a Go-
Lord WODEHOUSE was sorry that he could
as-
sent to the proposition of the Noble Earl, but
must
not
the measure. The country expected it, aedwpress
ard it as an earnest of that more extensive ould re-
as promised that evening. ref orm which
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that
the first time he had heard the postponement that was
urged on the ground of the lateness of heat of a Bill
the 16th of June—(lronical cheers from the tse!sion, on
benches)—particularly in the case of 0 _
Bill Ministerial
passed through the House of Commons, sup
which had
both sides of the House, and amended by the lawted by
of the Crown by the introduction of the onrofficers
which he had deemed requisite in the measurye—
proviso
too, which had been brought up to their Lorda Bill,p
Howe without one dissentient voice. If the G svhi- a'
ment had not thought it a proper Bill, they othehte ern-
have given it their approval in the other House:"Banto tto
should not, at all events, now, on the plea of the they
of the session, seek to throw over the Bill whene nheasds
given no pledge that they would undertake the reform
which was admitted to be needed for those scandalous
abuses. It was by no means creditable to the Govern-
ment thus to reject this proposed amendment of abuses