The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-22 00:00:00

from the last report of the visitors of the College of
Mayneoth that to change what,2,ver had of late taken
place in the system of education in that establishment;
trod there could therefore be no ground for the proposed
inquiry. But if the Government had thought that such
an inquiry ought to be instituted they ought to have
taken up the matter themselves, and not to have left it
in the hands of an independent Member of Parliament.
But they were bound, at all events, to come forward and
distinctly announce their intentions upon the subject.
The petitions were then ordered to lie on the table,
and the subject dropped.
IN E BILL.
On the motion
of Lord COLCHESTER, this Bill
passed through Committee.
HIGHWAY RATES BILL,
As did also this Bill.
INIPROVEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF
EQUITY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of this Bill pro forma, with a view to referring it to
the Select Committee of the Masters' Abolition Bill.
Lord CRANWORTII foresaw difficulty in proceed-
ing, in consequence of the limited time awarded for sug-
gestions and amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the two Bills
were the result of the labours of the Commission ap-
pointed by the Crown, who had bestowed every possible
consideration upon the subject. The law Lords, ho
thought, would be able to deal with any difficulties
which might arise; but if the Masters' Abolition Bill
were to pass without this, ho feared the judges would
find it very difficult to carry out the due administration
of justice.
The Bill was then read a second time, and referred in
the manner proposed.
ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION BILL.
PROTESTANT DISSENTERS BILL.

These Bills were severally read a third time and
passed, and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 21.
The SPEAKEIt took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed:
Liskeard Roads.
Great Western, Shrewsbury, and Birmingham, Shrews-
bury and Chester, Shrewsbury and Hereford, Birken-
head, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, and Here-
ford, Ross, and Gloucester Railway Companies.
North British Flax Company (Claussen's Patent).
Rotherham and Pleasley Road.
Tho Stockton and Hartlepool and Clarence Railway,
and Hartlepool West Harbour and Dock Companies
Bill, was considered and agreed to.
The Thames Embankment Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.
LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL
MAUSOLEUM BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Lord EBRINGTON objected to the chimes giving
compensation to the clergy, and declared that the mea-
sure was altogether superfluous. It proposed to create
a cemetery of 2,000 Here; while the opinion of all the
authorities on this subject, including that of Mr. G. A.
Walker, the able and meritorious pioneer in this question,
concurred in stating that a cemetery of between 400 and
500 aceee would be found amply sufficient for the real
wants of the metropolis.—(Hear.) Such an acreage of
cemetery already existed, and he therefore contended
that as this measure was defective in many respects
there was no necessity whatever for passing it.—(Hear.)
This, however, was far too important a matter to be dis-
posed of in a private Bill, and he insisted if the
wants of the public required further legislation, it ought
to be undertaken by the Executive Government.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving, as an amend-
ment, that the third reading of the London Necropolis
and National Mausoleum Bill be postponed till the Bill
introduced by the Government on Metropolitan Inter-
ments has been printed and in the hands of Members.
Sir JAMES DUKE seconded the amendment.
Mr. BAINES said, as the Chairman of the Committee
who had passed this Bill, ho was bound to resist the
amendment,--,(Hear, hear.) The Committee found
that a dangerous and scandalous state of things prevailed
in the metropolis, in reference to the burial of the
dead, and after a diligent and careful investigation,
extending over a period of many days, they came to the
conolusion that this Bill would remedy to some extent
the existing evil.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN MANNERS also concurred in believing
that the Bill, though introduced as a private measure,
would be found to present a practical, if not an entire,
remedy to the disgraceful state of things that existed in
London.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the condition of the metro-
politan burial-grounds was most abominable. Only
the other day, tor instance, a gentleman who had buried
a nephew in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes,
discovered a short time afterwards, that the body and
coffin had been disposed of to make room for others.—
(Hear, hear.) Nuw this Bill would go far to rid the
metropolis of such disgraceful proceedings, and he should
certainty give it his decided support.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord SEYMOUR supported the Bill, as did also Mr.
G oulbarn and Sir De Lacy Evane.
Mr. DRUMMOND opposed the second reading of the
Bill, but his objections had since been removed, and he
should vote for the third reading.—(Hear, hear.)
The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.
PETITIONS.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented three petitions from
Salford against the Militia Bill.
Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY presented similar peti-
tions from various parts of Lancashire.
Mr. JOHN ELLIS presented a petition from Loi.
tester against church rates.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON presented a petition from
a place in Ireland, praying that Peers interfering in
elections should be mada liable to transportation.—(A
laugh.)
Mr. JJRUMMOND presented a petition from a place
in Kent, praying for repeal of the malt tax.
Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented a petition from a
religious society called " The Victoria Park Fishermen,"
praying the House to take stops to assist them in
preaching the Gospel on Sundays in Victoria Park.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition against the
Charitable Trusts Bill.
CLERKS OF THE PEACE.
M. FRESHFIELD wished to ask her Majesty's At-
torney-General whether it was intended to propose com-
pensation to the clerks of the peace in Middlesex and
Surrey, and to the clerk of arraigns at the Central
Criminal Court in London, and to the criers of the
courts of sessions in Middlesex and Surrey, and Cen-
tral Criminal Court in London, for the loss of fees which
will be sustained by them in consequanco of the passing
of the Grand Juries (Metropolitan District) Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this
was a question, the solution of which necessarily de-
volved upon him, but ho should not be able to give an
answer until Monday.