The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,

Mr. G. CUBITT called attention to the regulations
which had been made in other diocesses, and expressed a
hope that the present measure would not prejudice the dio-
cesan arrangements of the country generally.

Sir G. GREY said the present bill would not in any way
prejudice the general question.
The bill passed through committee.
MUTINY (EAST INDIA) ACT REPEAL BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The bill passed through committee, with some verbal
amendments.
WALMER VESTING BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 24 inclusive were agreed to without dis-
cussion.
On clause 25,

Mr. COX proposed to have the sum of £480,000 substi-
tuted for £700,000; and he did so chiefly for the purpose of
enabling the First Commissioner to state his opinion on the
subject, the right hon. gentleman not having had an oppor-
tunity of doing so in the committee upstairs, on. account of
being chairman.

Mr. TITE said the question lay within a narrow com-
pass. Neither sum would be wanted, and th© only object
in putting the sum of £700,000 in the clause was to give the
Metropolitan Board of Works better borrowing powers. It
was estimated that the coal and wine dues would realise
£2,400,000 in the course of 20 years.
Mr. COWPER said he had no objection to the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Finsbury, and he believed the
present sum had got into the bill by mistake. He
thought it right that the maximum borrowing power of the
Metropolitan Board should be reduced to £480,000.
Mr. DOULTON complained that the amendment of the
hon.member for Finsbury should have been proposed with-
out notice; and he thought if it were carried that it would
interferevery
much with the progress of metropolitan im-
provements.

An Hort MEMBER moved that the house be counted, but
upon taking the numbers, 40 members having been found
present, the motion failed.

Mr. DOUL'FON resumed—The hon. member for Fins-
bury and the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget that a
large sum would be realised from the sale of land conse-
quent upon the new street; and he thought it was not
treating the Metropolitan Board well to limit the sum in the
manner proposed.

Sir J. SHELLEY said at the time of discussing the
Thames Embankment Bill it was distinctly understood that
no charge should be made upon the rates, but that the whole
cost should be defrayed out of the coal and wine dues. He
would support the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Clauses 26, 27, and 28 were also agreed to.
On clause 29,
Mr. COX moved the omission of the clause, as both it and
clause 30 gave very great powers to the Metropolitan Board.

Mr. COWPER said the clause gave the rates to the Me-
tropolitan Board as a collateral security for the wine duties,
but he wished it to be understood that he was not respon-
sible for the clause.

Sir J. SHELLEY could not support the clause, as it was
a departure from the original understanding that there
should be no charge upon the metropolitan rates for the
Purposes of the embankment.
Mr. DOULTON supported the clause, the object of which
was to confer easier borrowing powers upon the Metropoli-
tan Board.

Mr. TITE defended the clause on the same ground.
Lord R. CECIL hoped the clause would be maintained
as it stood. He thought, in constructing a work of such
magnitude, they should be cautious how they pressed upon
the poorest of the community in the shape of an additional
burden on the coal duties.
After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to,
as were the remaining clauses, and the bill passed through
committee.

The house resumed.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION

BILL.

On the motion that this bill as amended be considered,

Mr. BASS moved that the bill be recommitted, with aviow
to the insertion of the provisional order respecting Rhyl.
Mr. PAULL seconded the motion.
After some discussion, the house divided—
Ayes
Noes
Majority
The bill was then recommitted, and passed through com-
mittee.

LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS)

BILL.

The an.endments to the bill were considered and agreed to.
SIR ROBERT HITCHAM'S CHARITY BILL.

This bill passed through committee after some amend-
ments.

RUTHIN CHARITIES BILL.

This bill passed through committee with some amend-
ments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2)

BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.

On clause 1,

Mr. HENLEY objected that that was the first time it
had been attempted to make a man and his wife and twenty
legitimate sons and daughters, if he had them, liable for
the maintenance of a bastard child. He did not think that
could be intended. He also objected to the removal clause.
Mr. HERBERT said the clause was copi3d verbatim
from the English Act.

Mr. HENLEY—Then an I can say is that the English
Act is very bad.

Mr. C. TURNER objected to that portion of the clause
which rendered a whole family liable to removal from
Ireland to England because one member might have become
liable, and moved an amendment embod, ing his objection.
Mr. HARVEY LEWIS considered the amendment so
reasonable that the committee could not hesitate to adopt it.
Mr. H. HERBERT said his object was to assimilate the
law of England and Ireland. He had adopted the law of
Ragland as applied to Ireland, to be applied by
Ireland

towards removals to England. The amendment would
render the bill inoperative.
After some discussion, in which Sir B. Leighton, Mr.
Vivian, and Mr. I. Butt took part, -
Mr. VILLIERS said the right bon. gentleman had over-
looked the law of settlement. The question was not what
advantages were to be conferred upon Ireland, or what evils
were to be done to England, but simply what the law of
settlement was. By the law of settlement, every child born
in England had a settlement, unless it could be proved that
such child had derived a settlement from its parents. And
it was the consequences which followed from that law that
were now complained of. He would support the clause, be-
lieving thatwhatever objections could be urged against it had
still greater force if directed against the law as it now stood.
He did not mean to say but that some few es ils might here
and there arise from the proposed clause; but at the
same time nothing could be more proper than that the
same law should exist both in Ireland and England. The
right hon member for Oxfordshire seemed to thing that the
proposed law was a bad one, but the objections which had
been urged should rather be directed towards obtaining a
change in the law of the two countries. He would support
the clause.

Mr. COLLINS thought the effect of the bill would be to
give a great advantage to the children of Irish parents over
those of English parents.
Mr. M'MAIION thought it would be better to have a
law of settlement in Ireland, as it would be a remedy for
the fearful evictions which took place in that country.
Mr. LOCKE deprecated the proposition of the hon. mem-
ber who spoke last, as, if there was one thing in Ireland
which was worthy of imitation, it was the simplicity of its
poor law. He would, therefore, support the clause, if for
no other reason than that it might bring about an assimila-
tion of the poor-law system in both countries.
Sir 11. BRUCE supported the clause as it stood, and was
opposed to the introduction of the law of settlement in Ire-
land.

The committee then divided—
For the amendment 73
Against
Majority
Mr. HERBERT moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, in order that he might consider what he would dc
with the bill.

Mr. MaGUire urged the right hon. gentleman to aban-
don the bill, and complained of the decision to which the
house had come.

Mr. M'MAHON recommended that the bill should be
proceeded with.
Mr, HENNESSY hoped that it would not, and declared
the English members, when dealing with the poor, had one
law for England and another for Ireland.
Sir B. LEIGHTON denied that it was so, and maintained
that more leniency and consideration were shown to the
Irish poor in England than to the English poor in Ireland.
Mr. C. TURNER repeated the statement, and urged
that it was impossible to establish identity between the two
systems so long as the circumstances of the two countries
remained so different. His whole desire was to do justice to
both.

Sir J. TROLLOPE remarked that the English law of
settlement was that which pressed most heavily on the Irish
poor, and not the law of removal. It was to the former,
not the latter, that they should direct their attention.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
Sir 11. BRUCE obtained leave to introduce a bill relating
to Prisons in Ireland, and the bill was read a first time.

Lord RAYNHAM obtained leave to introduce the three
following bills to amend the Nuisances Removal Act
for England, 1855, with respect to the eeizure of diseased
and unwholesome meat ; Bill to prohibit Unqualified Per-
sons from the Practice of Midwifery; Bill for the Preven-
tion of Accidental Poisoning.
The house then adjourned at half-past eleven.