The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-01 00:00:00

THE ITALIAN PROCLAMATION.

Earl RUSSELL said he had received an answer to the
telegram he had despatched to Sir J. Hudson with respect
to the proclamation referred to by the noble earl opposite
last evening. The answer he had received was that the
proclamation had been issued by the Lieutenant-General in
command at Leschera without the authority of his superior
officers, and, in the event of its not meeting with their
approval, it would be immediately suppressed. He was also
informed that it had become necessary to take some severe
steps to put down brigandage, but no unnecessary measures
would be adopted.
Earl DERBY said the answer of the noble earl was very
satisfactory. It proved that the document he had referred
to had had an existence (hear, hear), and such being the
facthe was fully justified in bringing it under the notice of
the house.

The subject then dropped.
GARDENS IN TOWNS PROTECTION BILL.

Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to set at rest all questions as
to the title of certain open spaces in the metropolis. As a
necessity for the bill, the noble lord instanced the state of
Leicester-square at the present time, which was a disgrace
to the metropolis. If the bill received the assent of Parlia-
ment these open spaces would be properly attended to, and
they would become that which they in fact ought to be,
ornaments to the metropolis.

Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to certain parte of the
bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also pointed out some
difficulties which existed on the subject.
... _

Lord REDESDALE said if the bill was read a second
time he should have no objection to refer it to a select com-
mittee.

The bill was then read a second time.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1, which proposed that a purchaser or mortgagee
should not be bound by implied or constructive notice of a
change or any other act affecting the title to the property
Purchased or taken in mortgage, unless a court should be of
opinion that the taking of such purchase or mortgage
amounted to fraud, or to such wilful neglect as amounted to
fraud.

Lord CRANWORTH objected to the clause on the
ground that it had already been rejected three times by the
House of Commons, and also because he did not approve
of constructive notice in certain cases.
Lord CHELMSFORD also opposed the clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took a similar view.

Lord ST. LEONARDS expressed his surprise at the
opposition of his noble friend on the woolsack, seeing that
his noble and learned friend had assisted him in the prepa-
ration of the clause. (A. laugh.) He (Lord St. Leonards)
had, to meet the views of his noble and learned friend, in-
serted some words of which he did not altogether approve.
The hardships which the present law of notice inflicted
upon purchasers and mortgagees were numerous, but if this
clause should he assented to a remedy would be provided
for the future. It was a subject upon which no doubt opi-
nions differed, but he was willing to frame the clause in any
way which would obviate the objections of his noble and
learned friends, while, at the same time, that which he had
in view was carried into effect.

The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in the desirable-
ness of correcting an evil the existence of which was on all
hands admitted. He did not, however, think that the pro-
posed clause furnished the required remedy, and he hoped
his noble and learned friend would reconsider it, with a
view to meet the difficulties which had been suggested.
Lord ST. LEOIgAILDS observed that he would be very
glad to have the clause so shaped as to meet what appeared
to be the common view of their lordships.
The clause was then withdrawn, and the other clauses
passed through committee.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SrFax.m. took the chair at four o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Some petitions were presented in favour of an amend-
ment of the Irish Poor Law, by Lord R. CECIL, from cer-
tain gentlemen in the West Riding of York, alleging that
the Government were in the habit of adopting means
to procure the absence of honourable members from
the house during debates, and praying the house
to take the steps necessary to prevent the continuance of
such a practice, and thereby to assert their own dignity.