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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT BILL,

The LORD CHANCELLOR 17;uglat 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. He 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 SPEAKER 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.
CHELTENHAM 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, anT
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 based objection were denied by the promoters, who
asserted that the amount of water abstracted from the
Thames would be infinitesimal. Under these circumstances
he 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 go 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
—3O

Majority

The motion was-accordingly negatived.
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 a :second time that day six months, by Mr.
LOCKE, 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
collie 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 injury 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
the space it question and other parts of Westminster
with a view to making arrangements suitable to the public
buildings in the neighbourhood.