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

THE SUN,

censpulsory cl tuse for that purpose which should compel
the closing of the churchyards on a particular day
named, and he would not tnrow upon the Secretary of
State the invidioas tack of compelling them. He also
highly approved of their giving no compensation in the
ease of those burial-grounds. The Government was
uudoube-eily in earnest on the question, and the Bill
would contribute to the welfare of the metropolis.
Lord SEYMOUR said it certainly was desirable to
close the graveyards in the metropolis as soon as 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 oat 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, repealing
the present Act, and giving the Secretary of State power
to prohibit metropolitan interments. So far he quite pc"
proved of the measure, not, perhaps, in all its details,
but undoubtedly in its principle.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir B. HALL concurred in thanking the Government
for bringing in this Bill to repeal the Act of 1850, and
tukine the question out of the hinds of the Board of
Health.--(Bear, 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 lave.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday, at twelve o'clock.
ME fROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.
The House then w,mt into Committee on this Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON said several places in the neigh-
bourhood of the metropolis suffered from want of
efll3ient sewerage, and ho should propose a clause to
place them under the Public Health Act, exempting
them from the Commissioners of Sewers, aqd 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 bow much in new works and management;
and what is the state of the Victoria sewer; an 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.—(Hear, hear.) Last year the ex-
pense of management had amounted to 35,0001.
out of 84,0001., or about 40 per cent. l—(Elear, hear.)
At the same time there was an increase of deb,, 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 pass this partia
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., ot which 34,000/. 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 25,000/. 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 EBRINGTON 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
for 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.—(flear.)
Mr. R. STEPHENSON said that nearly the whole of
the expenses beyond the original estimates fur 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 lite 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 sower through
Crown property,. but the reason for that was, that if they
had done otherwise the effeot 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 ZEAL AND GOVERNMENT BILL.

On the motion for reading this Bill a third time,
Sir W. MOLES WORTH 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 passirg 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 1847, 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 laud 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 had 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. MOLESWORTH moved the omission of the
land clauses.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the Hon. Baronet
had pressed the omission of these clauses on precise'y
the same grounds which he had advanced in Com-
mittee, and which he (Sir J. Pakington) had then
combatted.—(Hear, hear.) Ho regretted, therefore,
that the Honourable Baronet should have thought
it necessary again to re-open the question. He
thought 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—ho 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. Tnat 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 company. 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 pro Dosing 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 demsion 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 away those
hopes which they had led the colony to entertain in
reference to these important concessions. He reminded
them that in the petition which was presented to the
House that evening from New 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 he 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-
mentnmi of these concessions was a great evil, and would
endanger
tnhgeerthequestion altogether, he must say that he
Gladstone)
ascendancy o f
hadthe
thosemost
p rpiehrefiepclte
s uponfaith in
whicht he success
00l
colo-
nial
pass
ai
muchasls
a legislationhbeatdteornteo. p
os
s Theyhtoptio beledooua g conducted. He thought it
ought
measure tri re eo
oolfleteht that eki kind dt
they than
hadto
refused to make those inamendmenptosh
ciwuheinc wwearse, stohastrongly
ill urgedwhteh t tha former measure
wasoe
sa badof t
the
one,anyd called pTo
the
eei
ncr conse-
ch
quence
ocolonists themselves, al-
though had stmt
hohaeseteateodthreemcooleo
remonstrances an
measure Hon Friendb
viewed hen t
hwea
as freehst
re to
wasad mai t thatgreat
boon.th iof 1850,
had made allegations of the suppression of facts.
New Zealand Company, and of obtaining the aid of of
Parliament in consequence, whereas, if these facts wore
known, the company never would obtain this measure.
If they postponed this measure for 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 be incurring a grave
responsibility if they wilfully declined that information
which was at their command. The Hon. Member for
Cockermouth had himself admitted man
that
tof these statevere-
ments. (Here Mr. Agby denied he had
done so.) After the statement made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Southwark, it was their bounden duty to go into
the case. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not admit the bar-
gain of 1847. He 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. Ile cordially supported the motion of the Hon.
Baronet.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had spoken under a misconception 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, out of which he was sure they
would come at all events as clear as the iiiB4 jon, Gen-