The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

mr, SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEII/4TING, JULY 16, 1853.

SRARE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)

LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

BRITISH RAILWAYS.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)
THE INDIAN ARMY.

Closing Prices
Yesterday.

Busine49 done
this day.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved for copies
of the oath taken by the directors of the East India
Company—of the bye-law of the company prohibiting
the directors from deriving pecuniary advantage from
their patronage—of the bye-law preventing theta from
using their patronage as a remuneration for votes—of
the establishment of a regiment of infantry in the service
of the company, and the annual charge thereof—of the
rules by which officers are appointed to the several ranks
on the formation of a new regiment in the service of the
company, and other returns relating to the charges for
the Indian army. His object in moving for these re-
turns was to render the Government of India Bill as
perfect as possible. He took the opportunity of stating
the objections he had to the bill, which resolved, them-
selves chiefly into a feeling against, the powers given to
the Crown, and into a strong objection to the contem-
plated increase in the Indian army.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the increase of the In-
dian army was a measure approved of by Lord Dal-
housie, and other competent authorities. He would not,
however, object to the production of the papers, which
were ordered accordingly.
POLLING AT ELECTIONS BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the second
reading of the Polling at Elections Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN suggested that as her Ma-
jesty's Government was pledged -to bring forward a
general plan of Parliamentary Reform next session, the
bill should be withdrawn, on the understanding that its
principle should receive careful, and, as he was then
advised, favourable consideration from the Cabinet.

Lord GREY, Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and the Marquis
of LANSDOWNE, having spoken in favour of the principle
of the Bill, and Lord DONOUGHBIORE having protested
against its extension to Ireland,
Lord SHAFTESBURY acted on Lord ABERDEEN'S sug-
gestion, and withdrew the measure.

The Summary Jurisdiction Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed.

The Pimlico Improvement Bill went through a com-
mittee.

The Land Revenues (Ireland) Bill, and the Taxing
Officers' Common Law Business (Ireland) Bill were seve-
rally read a second time.

The Juvenile Mendicancy Bill was read a third time
and passed.

Tlie Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from ministers of the Gospel at Calcutta, of various de-
nominations, expressing their gratitude that so much
had been done to dissociate the East India Company
from all connection with idolatrous practices ; but much
remained to be done, as they had heard that another
custom prevailed, by which, when the Governor-General
or other officers of distinction were travelling through
the country, offerings which were paid for out of the
public purse were made to such shrines as they ap-
proached. These things were not stated in the Parlia-
mentary returns, and they prayed that a searching in-
quiry might be made into the allegations contained in
the petition. •
On the motion of the noble earl the petition was re-
ferred to the select committee on Indian affairs, and
their lordships then ajourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)

ACCOMMODATION OF ASSISTANT-SURGEONS
IN THE NAVY.

Mr. BRADY asked the Secretary of the Admiralty if it
was the intention of the Board of Admiralty to make any
further provision on board her Majesty's ships for the
better accommodation of the assistant-surgeons in her
Majesty's navy, in accordance with a resolution passed by
this house on the Bth of April, 1850?
Mr. OSBORNE stated that in consequence of the reso-
lution of the Bth April, 1850, the Board of Admiralty
issued a direction contained in circular 65, laid before the
house, and dated 17th July, 1850, by which they had
directed that assistant-surgeons who had served more than
three years should be allowed to mess with the officers.
Mr. BRADY thought that the first three years after
completing their studies was precisely the time when
young men ought to have the benefit of mixing with pro-
per society. He would, therefore, put the further ques-
tion, whether the Board of Admiralty intended to keep
these young men, who had not served their three years, in
their present position ?
Mr. OSBORNE said that when these persons had passed
their examinations, they would bo conceded cabins where
space permitted.

DUTY OF SHIPS OF WAR TOWARDS MERCHANT
SHIPS IN DISTRESS.
Mr. HUME moved an address to her Majesty for a copy
of the Ordinance of the French Government of the year
1827, article 100, respecting the duty of ships of war of
France in giving assistance to merchant vessels in distress ;
also, copy of or extract from the orders by the Secretary
of Marine of the United States to the ships of war of that
Republic, as regards their conduct and assistance towards
merchant ships in. distress.

Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to giving a copy of
the Ordinance of the French government upon this subject.
As to the order of the Secretary of Marine of the United
States he had not a copy himself from which to furnish the
hon. member. (Hear.)
DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
Col. DUNNE wished to ask the Under-Secretary to the
Treasury, why a return relating to the Armagh and other
drainages in the county of Galway (ordered May 30) was
not been laid on the table of the house ; and to ask a simi-
lar question as to returns relating to the harbour of Tralee,
also ordered May 30 ?

Mr. WILSON said that the returns mentioned in the
first branch of the hon. member's question had only arrived
that day. As the hon. gentleman (Col. Dunne) might be
aware, it was only recently that those matters of drainage
had been under the control of the Board of Works for Ire-
land, hence there had been some difficulty in obtaining the
returns. With regard to the second returns mentioned,
they were so extremely voluminous, that tune had not yet
transpired to complete them ; they were, however, being
proceeded with as speedily as possible.

OATHS TAKEN BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir G. GREY said that without referring to what had
taken place in former Parliaments, it was well known that
.1, bill had been lately introduced for the purpose of remov-
ing the disabilities imposed upon persons of the Jewish
faith by the oath to be taken by members of Parliament
as it now stood. That bill, after receiving the assent of
this house, had been rejected elsewhere. Subsequently a
bill had been proposed in the other house of Parliament
by a noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst) of great
weight and ability, the object of which was to simplify
and alter the oaths taken by members. This bill, how-
ever, bad not become law. The noble lord the member
for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) had stated that
it was not the intention of Government to bring the sub-
ject under the consideration of the house in any shape dur-
ing the present session. In that determination he (Sir G.
Grey) perfectly concurred. He wished, however, to ask
the noble lord—considering the unsatisfactory state of the

law upon the subject—whether it was the intention of the
Government next session to amend the law relating to
this matter, either by a separate bill or by a provision in
the bill which was to be brought in for the general amend-
ment of the representation of the United Kingdom.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the state of tho law
with respect to the oaths taken by members of Parliament
was such that no one could consider it satisfactory. As
the house was aware a trial had taken place upon the at-
tempt of a gentleman to take his seat without taking the
oaths as they at present stood. One of the learned judges
upon that trial declared that he thought that the oath
could be well taken without the addition of the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." Another learned judge
stated that it would be much more satisfactory if Parlia-
ment would settle this question, by declaring its opinion
upon the oaths. Since then the noble and learned lord
(Lord Lyndhurst) to whom reference had been made, had
proposed to the other house to put the law with regard to
this question upon a better footing, but that proposal had
led to no satisfactory result. He (Lord J. Russell) thought
it was not advisable, considering the state of business and
the vote of the other house, to bring the question forward
again during that session. He should, however, certainly
think it his duty to submit the question to the house in
the next session of Parliament. Whether this were done
in a separate bill or as part of a larger measure for amend-
ing the system of representation, he should not bring for-
ward a bill for the relief of the ews specially, but to place
the oaths taken by all members upon a simple footing,
doing away with the ridiculous intolerance and practical
absurdity at present existing. (Cheers.)
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT BIRMINGHAM.
Lord D. STUART wished to call the attention of the
noble lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department
to the treatment to which prisoners had been subjected by
the governor of the borough gaol at Birmingham. It ap-
peared that the noble lord had sent an inspector of prisons
specially down to Birmingham, who had made a report
upon the matter. His report stated that a great deal of
cruelty had been exercised towards the prisoners. He
(Lord Dudley Stuart) understood that a counter statement
had been made to the noble lord (Palmerston), and he
therefore now wished to ask him whether he was prepared
to give any further information upon the subject?
Lord PALMERSTON said it was quite true that in con-
sequence of representations made to him, he had caused
this matter to be looked into and a report to be made. He
would abstain from characterising the proceedings which
were disclosed in that report further than to say that they
appeared to him to have been perfectly illegal, and ex-
tremely cruel and unjust. He was about to submit a case
to the law officers of the Crown, in order to ascertain what
steps could be taken upon the subject.
EARL FITZWILLIAM AND PETERBOROUGH.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that, in pursuance of the
statements and prayers of petitions which ho had on former
evenings presented from inhabitants of Peterborough, com-
tpiloani ins
fogr of
thatthe
boroughinterference h
,e woofu
would
Earl
nFi tz
Mondaywil li a
nme
xitn
moteelec-
for the appointment of a select committee to inquir
the whole subject. He believed that he would be able to
make the a
motionquestion of privilege.thefirstthing Monday, the petitions
involving
THE SIX-MILE-BRIDGE AFFAIR.
_ On the question that at its rising the house adjourn to

Monday, -
uestion of which he had given
—Whether it is the intention of Government to
notice the
ee d
against the Rev. John Burke and the Rev. Michael
Mr. FILES put tho q
proceed
Roman Catholic priests, who have been reported by
excited the people, an
an election committeedotfe thhaivsehtoaukseea—ptahret
ifnortmheerritoet, h
aa
nv
de
trjohuielty
h
wlatterie
hto e
occurred
e edxacti t
se di thex.
mi
Ipee.
bo g
e, to, takeen th e part22d id
an
yo
thef
1852, which, by destroying the freedom of election,
rendered void the return of the two knights of the shire
elected to serve in Parliament for the county of Clare at
the general election of 1852.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that he might, without
offence, complain of the course which the hon. gentleman
pursued on this occasion, because, having merely given
notice of his intention to put a question, he entered into the
details, and opened an elaborate discussion on the subject.
It was said that it was a long lane that had no end, and
he trusted that the longest bridge, even the Six-mile-bridge,
would come to some end. (Laughter.) The subject had
been discussed many times in both houses of Parliament,
and the decision of the house had been taken upon it.
Her Majesty's Government had, as was known, intended
to institute a prosecution for the conduct pursued in the
Six-mile-bridge affair, and the Irish Government was in-
, formed that such was the desire of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. But the Irish law officers to which the Irish
Government referred the matter, judged differently, and
the Government, after considering the grounds on which