The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-22 00:00:00

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR brought in a bill to confer
equity jurisdiction upon the County Courts in England
and Wales. Under the present circumstances a compara-
tively poor man might die possessed of £l2O, or even £l5O,
and he might leave behind him a widow and children.
Should disputes arise as to the disposition of property the
parties will be unable to get a proper settlement because of
the expensive nature of the procedure. Among other
cases were those consequent upon small mortgages.
During last session he had introduced a mea-
sure respecting small debts, especially referring
to the tally system. It met with great opposition, and he
abandoned it. Returns had been made, showing that the
number of persons actually imprisoned during the year
1863 on County Court process was 8,583 ; in 1862 there
were the large number of 9,373 ; but, in 1864, in conse-
quence of new rules introduced, the number was only
6,428, being more than 2,100 less than the number impri-
soned in 1862. Ile would on a future day introduce a bill
forbidding any citizen to be brought into the County Court
to recover sums for ale or beer. The noble and learned
lord then moved that the bill be read a first time.
The motion was agreed to.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SrBAKFat took the chair at 4 o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. WILLIAMS took the oaths and his seat on his election
for the borough of Truro.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Standing Orders were declared to have been com-
plied with in the case of several private bills.
The following bills were read a second time :—Barn-
staple Roads, Glossop Water, North Eastern and Cleveland
Railways ; North Eastern Railway (Pelew and other
Branches) ; Preston and Wyre Railway, Harbour, and
Dock ; St. Philip and Jacob's (Bristol); Southampton, Shir-
ley, and Woolston Gas ; Southport Improvement ; Weald
of Kent Railway ; West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway
and Cleveland and North Eastern Railways ; West London
Docks and Warehouses ; and Wragby Roads.
CHELTELNIIA3I AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE RAIL-

WAY BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Lord R. MONTAGU said that this was a very im-
portant bill, for it proposed to give powers to draw no less
than a million gallons of water daily from the Thames.
The inhabitants of Cheltenham no doubt had to complain
of the supply of water from the Severn, but at the same
time he did not think any case had been made for the
diversion of so large a body of water from the Thames, and
therefore diminishing the scouring power of the river,
which was so essential to the health and necessities of the
metropolis. He moved that the bill should be read a se-
cond time that day six months.
Mr. NEATE seconded the amendment.
Mr. DODSON said there could be no doubt that this
bill was very important. It proposed to take away a large
amount of water from the Thames, but this was to be dis-
tributed over a large area of land, and meet the wants of a
very large population. The facts upon which the opponents of
this bill basedsobjection were denied by the promoters, who
asserted that the amount of water abstracted from the
Thames would be infinitesimal. Under these circumstances
ho thought the proper course would be to allow the bill to
go to a committee, where its merits would be fully dis-
cussed.

Mr. HUTT said that the subject involved in this motion
had been overlooked by the Legislature, and the real ques-
tion at issue was, whether a commercial company should be
allowed to abstractany quantity of water from the Thames.
He considered it would be a great mistake if such powers
were conceded. He thought, however, that the bill should
be allowed to ga to a committee. (A laugh.)
_ _

Sir G. BOWYER, as one of the members of the defunct
commission of the Thames, quite agreed with the hon.
member the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. But,
notwithstanding, the hon. member was persuaded by what
had fallen from the hon. member (Mr. Dodson) to consent
to its being referred to a committee ; but he thought if he
had voted in conformity with the first part of his observa-
tion, instead of the latter, he would have been more con-
sistent. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. POWELL supported the motion for the second
reading of the bill, on the ground that the population of
Cheltenham, which amounted to between forty and fifty
thousand was left without an adequate supply of water ;
and he denied that the Thames would be deprived of any
amount of water that would be an inconvenience to the in-
habitants who derived their supply from that source.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion ... 88
Against ... ... ... ... 118
Majority ... ... —3O
The motion was accordingly negatiTed.
NEW CROSS ROADS BILL.

Mr. ANGERSTEIN moved the second reading of this
bill.

An amendment was moved to the effect that the bill
should be read alsecond time that day six months, by Mr.
Locxa, which was agreed to without a division.
THE PARLIAMENTARY BAR.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the President of the Board of
Trade, whether the members of the Parliamentary bar had
come to any agreement, that the practice before Parlia-
mentary committees should be open to the bar in general
on the same terms in regard to fees as prevailed in the
ordinary courts of law and equity.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that, from the inquiry which had
been made, it appeared that members of the Parliamentary
bar practising had a right to be governed by the same
practice that prevailed in reference to other members of the
bar, and were entitled to receive the remuneration to which
they considered themselves entitled for their professional
services.

THE SPACE BETWEEN BRIDGE-STREET, WEST-

MINSTER, AND PALACE-YARD.
Sir J. SHELLEY asked whether any decision had been
come to, and, if so, in what way it was proposed to deal
with the vacant ground between Bridge-street and New
Palace-yard ?
Mr. COWPER said that he considered it would be a
great injuiy to the public if the space in question were
filled up, as it would interfere with a full view of the House
of Parliment and Westminster Abbey. He had a plan
which would be submitted to the house for dealing with
tho space in question and other parts of Westminster
with a view to making arrangements suitable to the public
buildings in the neighbourhood.
CASUALTIES ON THE COAST.

Mr. KEKEWICH asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether his attention had been called to the large
number of wrecks which had lately occurred on the north-
-west coast of Devon and Cornwall ; and whether it was
the intention of the Government to establish a harbour of
refuge on that coast for the protection of the shipping ?

Mr. M. GIBSON said that there had been no doubt a
great many casualties on the coast in question, but he was
not aware that the present was a very exceptional year in
the amount of disasters. It was not intended by Govern-
ment to erect any harbours of refuge on that part of the
coast.

LIFE ANNUITY AND LIFE ASSURANCE BILL.
Mr. HODGKINSON asked under what circumstances
and why the order made on the 13th of February for
the tables which were on 10th February
table of the house, with reference to the GovernmentuaL f
e
the
Annuity and Life Assurance Bill of last session, was sub-
sequently discharged ; and whether, notwithstanding the
discharge of such order, it was intended that such tables
should be acted upon at the expiration of thirty days from
10th February, pursuant to the 6th section of the act, arc. ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the order was discharged because the tables were prepared
and would be shortly laid on the table, but they would not
take effect for 30 days after their introduction.
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE ANI) ART.
Mr. POTTER asked whether the report of the Depart-
ment of Science and Art for the year 1864 would be issued
previous to the estimates for the Schools of Art and the
South Kensington Museum being moved for ?
Mr. DODSON said that the report in question included
ths general report on the subject, and could not be laid on
the table before Easter.
ROYAL SOVEREIGN, PRINCE CONSORT, AND
ROYAL ALFRED.
AZ ELPHINSTONE asked the Secretary to the
IraltY if he
would lay upon the table of the house a
the alterations and repairs executed on the Royal
of
sZtel
na pii
of ber, Consort, and Royal Alfred, from the Ist
Lord e
pall6A till this time, and the cost of the same.
madet in the prince-7,A- report as regarded the alterations
reia,tiinsort and Prince Alfred was ready,
but the report
prepared. v° to the Royal Sovereign was not

OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS) .
Mr. DOULTON moved for a
select committee
the
übrto inquire
into the best means of prese •
g for
and open spaces in and around
metropolis. forests, commons,
metropolis. He contended that the proposed enclos
of Wimbledon Common would be an infringeme, ure
t on the
attractive c
rights of te pubter lic, b v
without an
y depriing it of its picturesque and
Alderman ROSE the public, by depriving it çf its Plre and
attractive character, y
seconded the motb ion.lic benefit resulting.
Viscount BURY defended the conduct of Earl Spencer
in regard to Wimbledon-common, who, he asserted, had a
legal right to make the alterations he proposed, but who
preferred having the subject submitted to a committee of
the house.

Mr. LOCKE advocated the principle of the public at
large contributing to the ornamentation of the metropolis
and the establishment of parks, for those who resided in
the country enjoyed the advantages of them when they
came to London.

Colonel NORTH objected to the conduct of Lord

Spencer.
Mr. JACKSON supported the other side.

_ -
Mr. COWPER considered that Lord Spencer was judi-
cious in allowing the subject to go to a committee, but he

differed entirely from the views of the hon. member for
Southwark (Mr. Locke).
After further discussion, in which Mr. Poacocke, Mr.
Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. Cox took part, the
motion was agreed to.
RECRUITING FOR THE ARMY.

Mr. O'REILLY called attentionto the present mode of re-
cruiting for the army, and moved an address for the appoint-
ment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. He
urged the expediency of putting the system of recruiting
upon a proper footing, looking at the way in which our
army was raised, and that the present was a fit time for in-
quiring into the snbject. He described the existing mode
of recruiting by crimps and recruiting sergeants, and the
extent of the desertion of recruits, which was carried on
by an organised system; and he pointed out the vicious
manner in which volunteering from the Militia to the Line
was sometimes carried on. He made various suggestions
for augmenting the sources of supply to the army
and for increasing the inducements to enlistment, by
modifying the term of service, by localising regiments—
that is, connecting them with particular counties or parts
of the United Kingdom,—and by increasing the pay of sol-
diers after long service.

Mr. CARNEGIE testified from personal knowledge to
the importance of connecting regiments with localities. He
supported the motion.

Colonel NORTH likewise spoke in favour of the motion.
He believed, he said, that recruiting for the army was
almost at a dead lock, and thought many of Mr. O'Reilly's
suggestions were well worthy of consideration.
After observations by Sir G. BowYER and Sir H.
VERNEY,
The Marquis of HARTINGTON denied that recruiting
was at a standstill ; on the contrary, it was going on
with remarkable regularity. He admitted the great
importance of the subject, but he did not think the ap-
pointment of a Commission of Inquiry expedient at the
present time. The subject had not been lost sight of : it
was under the consideration of the military authorities.
He admitted that there were evils in the system of re-
cruiting, but he thought the schemes suggested by Mr.
O'Reilly could not be relied upon. He discussed some of
these suggestions, and repeated that he did not think it
desirable to appoint a commission to consider this subject.
Sir J. FERGUSSON differed from Lord Hartington as
to the material of the army which was, he said, losing some
of its bone and sinew.

Mr. Scully and Mr. Whalley having made a few re-
marks, and Mr. O'Reilly a brief reply, the motion was
withdrawn.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved for a select committee on the
British establishments on the western coast of Africa. He
wished for an inquiry, he said, in order to ascertain whether
these settlements were well ordered and well regulated, and
whether they had attained their object, or had not rather
obstructed it. He referred to the state of the four settle-
ments, and the policy pursued by the Governors as fur-
nishing grounds for an inquiry. He said the settlements
were originally intended to protect the slave trade, and
explained the objects for which these establishments were
now maintained, one of which was the suppression of that
trade. He considered how far they had succeeded in check-
ing the slave trade, and the policy of incurring expenditure
for the other objects--the promotion of legitimate com-
merce, and the civilisation of the country. It was upon
these three grounds, he said, that he asked for inquiry.
The motion was seconded by Mr. CAVE.

Lord A. CHURCHILL supported the motion, Mr. Adder-
ley having, in his opinion, shown the necessity of an in-
quiry, for which resources would be at the command of the
committee.

Lord STANLEY thought that Mr. Adderley had done
good service in bringing this subject before the house. The
terms of reference to the committee should be wide, and
embrace the real question—namely, whether or not some
of these settlements served any useful object. The ex-
pense of these settlements was of less moment than the
responsibility thrown upon the Home Government by the
acts of Governors, in whose hands the question of peace or
war was of necessity left. He thought a prima fade case
was made out for an inquiry.

Mr. CARDWELL was happy to accede to the motion,
believing it was quite necessary that there should be an
inquiry, and he was not disposed to limit the terms of the
reference. The object of these settlements was not colo-
nisation, which was foreign to their purpose. Their main
object was to make them ancillary to measures for the
suppression of the slave trade ; to the abolition of barba-
rous native practices, and to;the introduction of legitimate
commerce ; and the inquiry of the committee might pro-
perly be directed to the question how far the settlements
were ancillary to these ends.

Tho motion was agreed to.
BOROUGH FRANCHISE BILL.

Mr. E. BAINES rose to ask leave to introduce a bill for
the purpose of extending the elective franchise in boroughs
in England and Wales. As he understood the motion was
not to be opposed ho should of course follow the custom of
the house in not making any observations on the merits of
the question: His object was to effect a moderate and yet
valuable and substantial extension of the franchise to the
class who constituted the great bulk of the people, but who
were now entirely excluded. He proposed to do that by
the simplest of all modes, ono proposed in the house on
high authority, viz.—the lowering of the borough franchise
from an occupation of .£lO to £6. Re hoped he might, with-
out provoking diarliceinn, ftek th.. Government and tho
house to consider one important question before the second
reading—it was, whether the last session of a Parliament
was not precisely that in which the question of an extension
and alteration of the franchise ought to be settled. (Hear.)
He believed it would be found that there were many rea-
sons in favour of that course. The country would be saved
the trouble and cost of a general election if the question
were disposed of at the close rather than the beginning of
a Parliament, because whenever a great extension of the
franchise took place there must be a dissolution, in
order that the new voters might exercise their privilege.
Therefore, in the interest of the country, of the Govern-
ment, and of Parliament, he appealed to them to consider
whether it would not be the wisest and justest course in
the present session to make an extension of the franchise.
(Hear, hear.) He moved for leave to introduce a bill on the
subject.

Mr. AYRTON, referring to the absence of the Govern-
ment at the moment, Mr. Brand being the only official mem-
ber present, said it was due to the country to take notice of
the condition of the House on this occasion. It was not, per-
haps, to be expected that hon. gentlemen on the other side
should grace the house with their presence at that time.
(A laugh.) It did happen, indeed, that a member of the late
Administration was present, but that was due to the accident
that a motion in which he was interested had just been dis-
posed of. It was natural, however, that there should be
some curiosity to learn the views of the Government on a
question of such importance. (Hear.) Not long before there
were some members of the Government present, but when
his hon. friend the member for Leeds rose they all fled from
the Treasury bench as if they were going to be reminded of
some crime they had committed. (A laugh.) No doubt it
must be most painful to them to see his hon. friend intro-
ducing this question, to which a few years ago they pro-
fessed to attach so much importance, and which they de-
clared they could not sit another hour on the Opposition
bench without endeavouring to settle. If there were any
members of the Government in or about the house they
ought to be in their places ; but even those who were in
attendance carefully avoided the Treasury bench. This was
a curious illustration of the way in which the Government
redeemed the solemn pledge on which they came into office.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. J. PONVELL observed that there were many
members deeply interested in this question who were not
present because they understood there was to be no debate.
He need scarcely remind the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets that it was on the second and not;on:the first read-
ing of a bill that the Government and other members dis-
cussed the principle of the measure, and declared their views
concerning it. He thought, therefore, that the remarks of
the hon. gentleman were uncalled for. (Hear, hear.)
At the same time, he trusted to hear a full statement of the
opinions of the Government on the next stage of the bill.
(Hear.)

Mr. E. BAINES explained that it was
stoop on both sides of the house
hear.)
thel7erfweeastlyteunhedenre-
discu.ssion that evening. (Hear,
LIBEL.
Sir
o gafor leave to
LOGAHWLENOF,
Sir COLEMAIVHOE'L
introduce a bill to amend the law of libel,
effectually securing the liberty of the press, said
for more
posal was that no indictment should be spermittedd his. pro-
of libel without the assent of the law officers of the Crown.
cases
Such a course would, he believed, prevent the powersre
indictment from being abused, and would not, at the ofsam
time, deprive our law of one of its most salutary provision:.
In cases of indictment, he further proposed that the defen-
dant should be admissible as a witness. He proposed also
to get rid of the anomaly at present existing, by which the
proprietor of a newspaper was liable for libellous or defa-
matory matter contained in the publication of speeches
made at public meetings, while no action could be laid
against the persons who made those speeches. By the bill,
therefore, the introduction of which he was moving, a per-
son who went to a public meeting, where reporters must,
as he knew, be present, and made such a speech, would be
liable, either by civil or criminal action, in the same way
as if he had published the libel in writing. Such clause,
however, would not affect the privileges of Parliament or
touts of justice. It might be said that there would be
cases in which such speeches would be made by men of
straw ; and although he would not deny the possibility of
such cases arising, the party injured would have the power
of proceeding against the offender criminally, if such a
cHeourse were sanctioned by the law officers of the Crown.
Proposed also allowing the plea of a belief in the cor-
rectness of a libel to be admitted as a defence. As news-
papers were frehad inserted a quently subject to vexatious actions, he
less than 20s dcalause providing that a plaintiff recovering
but also the Co niages should not only pay his own costs,
should not be awarded
of the defendant, and that his own'costs
above 40s. awarded if he did not recover damages
Leave was the, givensTto introduce the bill.
RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. WHALLEY obtained
tleave to bring in a bill to re-
peal so much of the act of
cap. 121, entitled "The itaiihe 27
wath and 28th of Victoria,
Act, 1864," as prevents the Boarcr Construction Facilities
of
Trade from proceeding