The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-11 00:00:00

tli"!ng )ensit 6.1)611.640a In this country. It teas unjust
'45 Dia,enters of Eeglano should he texsd to sup
Part the reinieters of no Peesbyterians is Ireland; who
wsre a fas r nnar b;
Mr REYINOSLTSI also oppon d ‘tles venn which he
bail yvv~ obi-t-ints.ile on policy seal principle.
sur. V. SCULLY said, in at liedl he weole question
of the endowment of the three. Churches had uenereone
coesideration he was not prepared to withdraw this par-
ticular mean
C ARTER opposed the grant.
Mr. KERSHAW trusted that the time would shortly
arrive when this scramble far public money for religious
Purposes would terminate. He could see no utility in
ranting this sum of money to the Presbyterians of Ire-
Ettld- The only effect of the endowment was to cheek
Private contributions for the support of the Presbyterian
Ministry.
Alter a few words from Captain JONES, the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the vote ... ••• 57
Against it ... ••• ••• 34
Majority ... ••• —23
The vote of 6 5521. for •the Concordaturn fund
(Iceland) for oharit'sblo purposes, and for the minister
nf St. Matthew's Chapel, Rio send, his salary, and
allowance
to clerk and sexton, was egresd to after an
°Pnosition from Mr. ANSTEY, which was with-
%waren.
G,?n the vote of 10.7451. to defray the charges of the
nerel Board of Health,
Mr. lIUME me:whined that the power enabling one-
tenth of the inhabitants of towns to petition the 'board
to send down a surveyor to inquire into the sanitary
con-
eiti s
sn of was at present frecriently abused. He
did not think the initiatory step of requesting inspection
should be taken until it had received the. sanction of at
least two public meetings. He (Mr. Hume) was not pre-
Pared, however, further to oppose the grent.
Mr. ELLICE called upon the Government to look
Closely into the working of the board, or it would do a
great deal of mischief in the country.
,* Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said the present Act of Par-
liament would come under revision in two years, and
could therefore be readily amended. Ho would not
enter into any details; but he would say that, as a
general rule, he could not admit the mismanagement of
the board.
Viscount EBRINGTON said some of the imputations
against the board were owing rather to the deliberate in-
terference of Parliament than to the board itself. The
average amount of these preliminary expenses was very
trifling, say about 1201, compared with those of a private
Uhl, which was usually not less than 2,0001. for large
Places, and which in same cases amounted to tens of
thousands, while the results obtained were of the most
trunortant character.
Mr. HUME complained only of giving the power of
bringing down a surveyor to one or two of the rate-
Payers. It led to jobbing and abuse in a variety of cases.
Re had no confidence in the management of the Board
of Health as regarded discretion, after the disclosures
that had taken place.
Sir B. HALL said the only proof of the Metropolitan
tihsterment Act having pasted into a law since 1850 wes
mat appointment of Dr. Southwood Smith as an addi-
nal commissioner. The Act was inoperative, and the
e.l.CPeisse of the Commission, 2,400/. a year, ought to be
"lePensed with.
The vote was then agreed to.
4730/. for the Encumbered Estates Commission
Court.
Mr. FRENCH protested against the vote, but he
WoLuld not divide on it e.s it involved the salaries of the
'jai persons connected with the court.
The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
statementie.. of the Hon. Gentleman, that the Government
i7l Suddenly resolved to continue the Act under which
intention
court was constituted, surprised him. That
.01itention was announced three months ago, and it was n
avoidahle under the circumstances.
ti„tir• HUME asked how long these courts would con-
tote supersede the courts of law?
N &PIER said the court was created for the pur-
rt see of facilitating the sale of encumbered estates, and
witwbui.i.at present impossible for the law courts to deal
es,,t4o subject. There were twenty millions'- worth of
rea7:.°B at present undisposcd of. In moving the second
etat'elng of the Continuance Bill, he (Mr. Napier) should
4" the course intended to be adopted.
sho'r u• HUME wished to know why the courts of law
evu'u not be freed from the present processes which
Qented their operation in the case of encumbered
etntesn
Mr. FRENCH maintained that the decision of the
"ernment, as regarded the continuance of the Bill,
Was sudden and ustonished the greater part of their
esUpporters from Ireland. One of the ablest pamphlets
4.4111:tt the measure, in fact, was, he understood, written
4,l,tegal member of the Government.
7 `,B vote was then agreed to. So also were
4',!601. for lighthouses abroad; and
,u,200e for the census.
3,i31.32!. for, building chapels for the embassies abroad.
k • tTANSTEY objected to the vote.
ortEr. "UME thought the vote was an extraordinary
up‘ Mr* On THOMPSON said there were in all expended
alltp. the erection of a residence for the British Arabes-
laaeor a.
Constantinople, from 1543 to 1850, 83,765/.
witi,:as, therefore, not surprised that 3,0001. and up-
kestind: Should be expeeded on a chapel for this costly
Votker'l4•.A. HAMILTON had nothing to say to the
that had been passed. As respected the vote
under consideraion, the chapel at Constantinople had
alon destroyed by fire some tune ego, and the sum of
Ste.
s°,l. of this vote was for the erection of that chapel
at_ bu!e accommodation of the English residents in Con-
untieepie.
ember
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
er -see (n. English residents at Para was much more
auonneiderable than was supposecl—e,ertainly more than
I.4tut; and the chapel was bait for their accommodation
er than for the embassy. He bad no objection to
Pest
uPone the vote.
forZr• KEOGH said this was a case of economical re-
Th'unen which he would take the sense of the House.
The Right Hon. Gentlemansaid there were 300 riser-
eh
thtliati in "era; why did they not build a chapel for
eniselves?
f 14e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER in-
trtned the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that Pere was
ea: Part of Constantinople in which the British embus-
,n°r dwelt; he had thought ho only deferred to the de-
eofte.the Committee in proposing the postponement of
the
sir a few words Irons Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Hume, and
trr.R. Willoughby,
by Mr. WILLIAMS said no advantage could be gained
-nnstponing the vote. It was a question of principle.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
P9stponed the consideration of the vote, and commence
th it when next going into supply. He now moved
use Chairman report progress.
Mr. ANSTEY objected to the motion for reporting
Progress, He wished to go to a division on the vote
Law, for he believed the opponents of the vote had a
Majority—a position he doubted whether they would
hold when it was again brought on.
Mr. G. THOMI'SON thought, instead of postponing
the consideration of the vote, it would give more satis-
laction if the vote itself were postponed.
The question was then put, and the Committee die
'tided, when there appeared—
For reporting progress ... 92
Majority for reporting progress ... —BO
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House
resumed.

NEW ZEALAND BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
On clause 74 being proposed,
kr. GLADSTONE wished to know if Government
Intended to make certain amendments to the clauses,
rui how that would affect the amendment his Hon.
gFriend had to propose. He wished to know who should
'give precedence?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the most convenient plan
!ould be for the 74th clause. to be amended, and when
the question be put, that the clause so amended stand
part of the Bill, the Hon. Gentleman could make his
riatement. •
After some further discussion,

Sir W. MOLES WORTH proposed to move to omit
all the words after the word " and," p. 20,1ine 36. The
reason why he suggested this amendment was, because
it was proposed to transfer the management of the waste
lands
sembly of New Zealand. He desired that the No re
Zealand Company should not have any augmen-
tation of their strict legal charge on the waste
tglda of New Zealand. By the Act of 1847 the New
Zealand Company were entitled to the suplus of the
land_ purchases, after the expenses of emigration were
ntisfied. He desired, in any alteration that might be
ode, to restrict the New Zealand Company to their
I(tellcharge. rhe New Zealand
.Company. objected to
tilil plan, stating they
a hid, in addition to a legal claim,.
that
claim—and that the Colonial-office recognised
it " moral claim. The New Ze,dandCompqny contended,
tile transfer
1141. fla to. the General Aseembly from the Colo-
Zell
_, 1: ee was made, that the moral claim of the New
theet Company would n o'u bc. remcoarinisgetdh;istthrearneffo:re,
to cepstn wished Parliame'nt, in
make
der its moral and legal claims together, and to
set, its moral claim a legal c
w eted beclaim,
, , Y giving them one-fourth of the
produce of the
which 'could be
lore Lands. Now, he contended that the New Zea-
title e°rnP
to en-
any had no moral claim strong enough
th them to Acts of Parliament for anything beyondhaet atria legal claim. Had some documents which ho
to Lnoved for been forthcoming, he should havei been
a% hotter position to prove that the New Z4alanc. Co.m-
L. Pod no moral claim to the advantage they sought.
be °46, the company obtained a loan of 100,0001. to
tbi tlPPtied to purposes of general utility, with
ap Ire) sibition, that no part of the money should be
prPhiliektiz % 0 the payment of their debenture debt. This
pee" 4 )11 was distasteful to the company, and the corn-
eta, 201)11 afterwards obtained another Act, which
dCred t hem to apply half the borrowed sum to the
.Renar debt. Not contented with
this . gii of the debenture
an -El' I other concessions, the company in 1846 obtained
re °ther ,
Itst ant 1 Act, excusing them from the payment of into-
It -,ewpowering a further advance of public money.
eh* - , tiso provided, if the company surrendered their
toter to the Crown, and if the
shouldpowers of the company
`hid thereby
revert to the Crown. that the Crown
-;- 6 bound to satisfy any liability of the company
suirhrer 43:re
d „ Doe to
.the settlement at Nelson. Notice of
Came lie ;:er, of the charter was be
given, and the Crown .
might 1 e‘..a to the Nelson settlement for any claims they
distin 1"e
" the
ei ey
~.thnlee.:4
b:fooirssepany. Now, he contended it was
at the, ti duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Act of he on rarlictroent C oented to support Ell
liable
•to the Sett which
was
render the Crown
quiry.. But the anent, to have
to made doe in-
I.ever ',obtained pro imeellor of the Exchequer had
halo infil Cou,nu , Per information as to the New
r" Y a liabilities. In 1846 it papor of