The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAIVIENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented petitions from
Hull, and Cowes, Isle of Wight, against the opening of
public-houses on Sundays.
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the com-
mittal of this bill explained that its object was to assi-
milate as much as possible the bankruptcy law of Scot-
land with that of England, and to make better provision
for the prevention of fraudulent bankrupts in Scotland.
Lord BROUGHAM did not think that the bill went
to the root of the evil which existed in the Scotch
bankruptcy law. It only applied little provisions to the
great defects in the law, and he was afraid it could not
prevent the practice which now prevailed amongst
Scotch traders, of giving one creditor an unjust prefer-
ence over others. He admitted, however, that the bill
was, on the whole, a step in the right direction, and he
was prepared to give it such attention and support as
the importance of the subject demanded. Then there
was omitted altogether the public examination of the
bankrupt, and he thought also that it was most desirable
that that the question of certificate should be left to the
decision of the court, and not to the creditors. Whilst
a commission was sitting and inquiring into the ex-
pediency of an assimilation of the bankruptcy law of
England and Scotland, he did not think that was the
proper time for carrying through a change in the law
which was not more urgent now than it was six or seven
years ago. He did not think that a delay of six or seven
months could make much difference to the people of
Scotland. This bill was not going in the right direction
in some respects. Petitions bad been presented by the
mercantile community, in favour of his larger and more
comprehensive measure, and as that had been referred
to the commission, he did not see why this bill should
not also be referred to it. (Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if he for a
moment supposed that the pushing on of this measure
could in the slightest degree interfere with or damage
the larger measure of his noble and learned friend for
improving the bankruptcy law of Scotland, or in any
manner interfere withithe inquiry before the commission,
he would yield to the suggestion of his noble and learned
friend for postponement. But he would appeal to his
noble and learned friend himself if he could say that this
bill interfered in the slightest degree with his bill. The
object of the present bill was to make better the provi-
sions of the texisting bankruptcy law of Scotland, but
this would not prevent the larger measure of his noble
and learned friend from being considered at a future
time. (Hear.)
The bill then passed through committee.
BATTERSEA PARK BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE BILL.
The bill passed throingh committee.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 3) BILL.
On the motion for the secen I reading of this bill,
The Marquis of SA_LISBURY objected to some of
the provisions of the bill, and hoped that the Govern-
ment would give a pledge to alter it in committee.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that it would be impos-
sible for him to give smeh a pledge at the present time
in the absence of the noble lord who had charge of the
bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY repeated his objections
at great length.
The Duke of AR,G7YLL replied ; and the bill was
then read a second time.
LAND IZEVENUES BILL.
This bill passed threet:gli committee.
COINAGE OFFENCES (COLONIES) BILL.
Lord STANLEY (of .Alderley) moved the second
reading of this bill.
After a few remarks from Lord MONTEAGLE, the bill
was read a second time.
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
The amendments in this bill were sported and agreed
to.

PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL,

The amendments in this bill were reported and agreed

COLONIAL CHURCH REGULATION BILL.

The Bi'hon of OXFORD moved that this bill should
be committed pro fornia, with a view to its being recom-
mitted on Thursday, and some amendments introduced,
when the discussion might be taken.
Lord REDESDALE took objection to some of the
provisions of the mill._

The Bishop of OXFORD gave a brief explanation ;
and the bill was then committed pro fcr na.

METROPOLITAN BUILDING- ACT FURTHER
AMENDMENT BILL.

This bill was read a third time arid passed.
LA W OF LANDLORD AND TENANT IN IRE-

LA NI).

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE laid on the table a
bill on this subject, and briefly stated its provisions. He
said the subject had excited much interest in Ireland. The
draft of the bill he now submitted was prepared by Sir W.
Somerville, assisted by other gentlemen, in the winter of
1931 ; but circumstances had prevented its being laid
before Parliament. It was based on the soundest princi-
ples ; it violated no rights, and introduced some important
amendments into the law. It was meant to deal with the
whole subject. There were already four or five bills before
that and the other house on the same subject ; and it was
most important that the question should be dealt with
generally. His bill contained fewer clauses than were
contained in the Leasing Powers Bill, now on their
lordships' table. It was a merit of his bill that it con-
tained no novel or original principle. The great princi-
ple embodied in it was, that the rights of both parties
should rest on contract, that those rights should be in-
violable, and that easy remedies should be provided.
The details were divided into five heads—relating to
leasing powers, rights of tenants, rights of landlords,
compensation for improvements, and the procedure by
which these rights and compacts were to be enforced.
All questions would be referred to the decision of a
single tribunal, the assistant-barrister, with power of
appeal. He hoped their lordships would compare this
with the other bills before them. The subject was so
important that a single false step would be fatal to
the rights of property in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) In
the two bilis on their lordships' table, there were
enactments which they would be astonished to find
there. One was a provision making landlords liable
for improvements made by tenants without their con-
currence. In the Leasing Powers Bill there was a pro-
vision by which a tenant for life might wholly defeat all
the provisions of the settlement. This showed the ne-
cessity of closely looking into the details of these mea-
sures. He made no complaint about the lateness of the
session—he was ready to sit on till winter if necessary ;
but it was important that they should not pass bills on
this subject without examining them most minutely.
They must show the people of Ireland that they were
under the same law as the people of England. (Hear.)
The Earl of DON OUGHMORE hoped that the Go-
vernment would allow all the bills to go before a select
committee, so that a properly considered and carefully
weighed measure might he produced..
The bill was then read a first time.
SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
The Earl of ABERDEEN moved the first reading of
this bill, which had been brought up from the Commons.

Agreed to.
The noble earl fixed the second reading of the bill for
Friday next.
The house adjourned at a few minutes after 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
EDINBURGH AND CANONGATE ANNUITY
TAX ABOLITION BILL.

-- -
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from 7,000
inhabitants of Edinburgh in favour of the bill.
Mr. J. B. SMITH presented petitions against the

The LORD-ADVOCATE moved the second reading
of this bill. This tax had been first levied in 1661,
for the support of the town ministers of Edinburgh,
to supply the withdrawal of the revenue of the Bishopric
of Orkney. The tax had, however, led to bickerings
and ill-feeling, and the matter having been considered
by a select committee of the house, they recommended
a settlement of the tax, which was substantially
the same in all its parts as the bill now laid upon the
table of the house. The tax was levied upon house
property, with an exemption of the College of Justice,_
the judges, barristers, and attorneys, to the amount of
6 per cent. The number of ministers at the present
time receiving was 18. The proposition of this bill
was to reduce the tax from 6 to 3 per cent., to abolish
the exemption of the College of Justice, anti to reduce
the number of ministers from 18 to 15. The tax will be
made a regular municipal tax, and paid into the Conso-
lidated Fund ; and to make up for the reduction of the
tax, the revenue of the Deans of the Chapel P.,oyal which
now amounted to about 1,5001. a year, and were enjoyed
by the Principal and the Professor of Biblical Criticism
in the university, would be after the death of the pre-
sent holders paid to
,the account of the tax,
and he believed that in a short time the revenue
would amount to 2,2001. In the meantime, until the
falling in of these Deaneries of the Chapel Royal,
an additional one per cent. would be charged. The
stipend for each minister would be 5001. a year. This
proposition was almost the same as that of thee latethe bill,
hGol,-
vernment, and he hoped the
whousehwiodul,ldif not settled,p as
and settle a much-vexed question,
must inevitably give rise to great agitation and ill feeling.
Mr. J. B. SMITH moved as an amendment
inendernnetnhst, on the
t
the
bill be read a second time this day si
ground that it was to impose a
tax
on dissenters
ntersThtoe
support churches which they did not frequent.
hon. gentleman went into a
variety of statistics, to
show that the churches, for the support of which this tax
was to be levied, were empty and unattended, and that
the persons on whom it was levied,
reallyHe con-
attended other
churches which they supported themselves. _
tended that there was no right to appropriate the re-
venues of the deans of the Chapel Royal to the
purpose of supplying the tax ; they were not
ecclesiastical property, though they might have
been so before the abolition of episcopacy, but then
they at once became national property. The
proper way of dealing with this question was to return
to the state of things which existed before the year
1806: to repeal that act, which was obtained by fraud,
and to reduce the number of ministers to six, which was
all that the town of Edinburgh was originally liable to
maintain.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment., He
condemned the proposed tax as being one for the
maintenance of religious doctrines ,to Which the
majority of the people were opposed ; and
he
teas satisfied the Government would not obtain
any honour in the country by giving the bill
their countenance. He trusted that so detestable
a bill would not receive the assent of the house.
Mr, IVIACAULAY supported the bill on the same