The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

turttl2bition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

H.OtrSE OF COMMONS-(THIS EVENING.)

( Continued from. our First Edition.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr.
ELLIOTT,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not give
his assent to the second reading of this bill. He would
not enter into the case referred to by the hon. member
for Finsbury. The legislation in that house ought not
to be regulated by any single case which might be ad-
duced. If the power of appeal were granted, it would
entail additional expense on the informer.
Sir DE LACY EVANS quite agreed with the opinion
of the Attorney-General. He should oppose the second
reading of the bill.
After a few words from Mr. DUNCOMBE, the house
divided, when the numbers were—
For the second reading l7
Against it 9l

Majority
The bill was thus lost.
PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

On the motion of Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE this bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
the 20th of April.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL this bill
was postponed in consequence of the absence of the
Attorney-General for Ireland until next Wednesday.
LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill, and
all the clauses were agreed to. The house then resumed,
and the bill was ordered to be reported on Friday next.
DERBY ELECTION COMMirriLEE.

Mr. lii GRAM brought np the report of this com-
mittee, which was to the effect, that the committee,
having deliberated, came to a resolution declaring Mr.
tforsfall not duly elected, and giving his seat to Mr.
neyworth, who was duly elected, and ought to have
been returned as a member at the last election. They
Also struck off the poll the names of thirteen voters, all
of whom they found to have been bribed by the pay-
ment of 2/. The committee were df opinion that
this bribery had been carried on without the know-
ledge of Mr. Horsfall. They also proved that bribery
had been prevalent at several elections in Derby, and
recommended that the parties proved to have been bribed
before this committee should be disqualified from the ex-
ercise of the franchise. On the motion of the hon. mem-
ber the evidence was ordered to be laid before the house.
CATHEDRAL APPOINTMENTS BILL.

This bill was considered as amended, and ordered to
be read a third time.
INDEMNITY BILL.

This bill then passed through committee, and on the
house resuming, was ordered to be read a third time to-

morrow.

GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH,

Sir G. B. PECHELL called the attention of the
house to the operation of the Public Health Act, 1848,
and to the system of legislating by means of pro-
visional orders issued by the General Board of
Health to the several cities, towns, and dis-
tricts. The hon. member complained loudly of II
the proceedings of the General Board of Health,
in reference to local boards, and contended that there
was no necessity for continuing the general board. The
general board did nothing but obstruct the operations of
local boards, or perform some trifling act for the sake of
keeping up their salaries, and the sooner it was abolished
or rendered more useful and effective the better. The
board acted, by way of provisional orders, in dealing
with towns or cities, under local authorities, but it was
always impossible to ascertain what was meant or what
was required by a "provisional order." He had ascer-
tained, by returns made .up to June last, the Board of
Health Act of 1848 had been applied by provisional
orders to 71 towns—to 66 by order in Council, while
23 were under consideration for a provisional order,
and 6 for an order in Council. To twelve towns, which
included Birmingham, Whitehaven, and Cambridge, the
General Board of Health reported it was not expedient
to apply the act. Portsmouth, Bromyard, Worcester, '
and Swaffham had been the loudest in their complaints
against the conduct and proceedings of the General
Board of Health. The board had attempted to apply the
act to Bromyard, because their officer had reported that
while he was there on a mission of inquiry, three persons
died, but so far from that being proof of the unhealthy'
state of the town, it appeared that each of those
persons who had so died was 83 years of age. (A
laugh.) All these towns had petitioned against the
conduct of the General Beard, and he really did think
their case was well worthy the attention of the house.
He therefore called uon the Government to institute
an inquiry into then matter, and, to facilitate that
inquiry, he would move for the following returns, viz.:—
Returns of all places which have petitioned the General
Board of Health for the application of the Public Health
Act, 1848, with the dates when such petitions were re-
ceived, distinguishing the towns where provisional orders
have been confirmed, and whgre orders in Council have
been issued, with the dates of such provisional orders
and orders in Council, stating whether an original or
an amended order, with the dates of any such
amended orders that have been issued to such towns ;
of the towns that have been struck out of the schedules
of the. several confirmatory bills in Parliament, with the
dates when they were so struck out, distinguishing
those towns whose provisional orders have subsequently
been confirmed by Parliament ; of the names of any
places to which inquiries have been directed with the
view to the application of the Public Health Act, with-
out any local application for the same ; of the places which
have sent memorials to the General Board complaining of
the manner in which the Public Health Act has operated,
or of the manner in which it is proposedlby the General
Board to apply the same to their town ; with the number
of petitions for the amendment of the said act which have
been presented- to this house ; and, account of the ex-
penses of applying the Public Health Act by provisional
order, and order in Council, with the total amount
expended in the application of the said act, distinguish-
ing the expenses of each preliminary inquiry, and of the
printing and publication of the several reports and state-
ments sanctioned by the board in relation thereto.
, Mr. LASLETT seconded the motion, and, as mem-
ber for Worcester, he could state that it was the opinion
of the inhabitants of that city that the Board of Health
Act had been introduced into their town under false
pretences. The inhabitants of Worcester were opposed
to act under the General Board of Health, and unless
the house instituted an inquiry into the case, the Board
of Health A ct would remain a dead letter so far as Wor-
cester was concerned.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH did not rise to defend all
the acts of the General Board of Health, though
he thought the operation of the Health of
Towns' Act had conferred great benefit upon
the public. That act was passed for the purpose of
placing the water supply and sewerage of large towns
under efficient local management ; and he believed the
General Board of Health, in carrying out the provisions
of the act, had acted in the capacity of a select committee
on a private bill. Before the act passed, the water sup-
ply or sewerage of large towns could not be improved
without the authority of a local act. Now, a local act
cost, on the average, 2,4001., while a provisional order
under this act only cost 1021. ; but to bring this
motion to an end, he would readily admit that there
were great defects in the details of the existing law, and
the whole matter, but more especially the case of Wor-
cester, was under the anxious consideration of the Go-
vernment, with the view of devising some plan for re-
moving those evils and defects complained of.
Lord SEYMOUR was glad to hear the last observa-
tion of the right hon. baronet. There was no doubt
that the law was grossly defective, and required imme-
diate amendment.

After a few words from Mr. EVELYN,
Mr. HENLEY understood that it was intended to
revise the constitution of the Board of Health ; he
thought that was a most desirable object to obtain, and
the sooner an attempt was made to accomplish it the
better.
.

Mr
"WHALLEY complained of the mode in which
the private business of the
expenses of those house was carried on. The
e proceedings were excessive; and the
machinery grossly
the evils at the fg. defective, and that was the root of all
BROTHE?Lof legislation in local matters.
it was
laugh )resumptive
"'l:ON denied this assertion, and said
it. (A la
in a young member to make
Mr. HUME, as an old member, could confirm what
bad been stated. The
i proceedings on private bills were ghly defective, and calleloudly for amendment.
(Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
The report of the Southampton Election Committee
having been read,
Mr. H. HERBERT, the Chairman, stated that the
committee had committed a witness named Bower f.
refusing to make the declaration of a Separatist p-roer
a mate.s-
scribed by act of Parliament. The witness was a
rial one for the inquiry, and as he refused to makeaooath, or the declaration of a Separatist, there was no
alternative but to hand him over to the custody of the
Sergeant. He had now to move that the Speaker do
issue his warrant to keep him in custody, and do direct
the Sergeant to bring the man before the committee
from time to time, as they might require.
After a few words from Mr. HUME, who thought the
legislation of the house upon the taking of an oath was
wrong, the motion was agreed to.
NORWICH AND CHATHAM ELECTIONS.

Mr. MACKENZIE moved that Sir Wm. Jolliffe be
added to the select committee on Norwich petitions.
Mr. A. STAFFORD took the opportunity of request-
ing the house to suspend its judgment on the Chatham
case. He gave an unqualified contradiction to the
charge made against the late Board of Admiralty in con-
nection with the Chatham petition.

CRIME IN IREL .
Mr. movIYI'MAHONed for a AND
return of the number
of
ga ma es in which bills for murder or manslaughter
a police, yeomen, or military, have been pre-
sente.,d to grand juries in Ireland since the year 1820,
Specifying in each case, whether the bill was found true
or ignored tood also specifying the locality in which the
loss of life k place, and the number of persons killed ;
and also whether the parties against whom bills save

been found have been convicted or acquitted by the
petty jury.
Agreed to.
BLACKBURN ELECTION.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the report, to-
gether with the proceedings and evidence on the Black-
burn Election Committee, be printed. .
Agreed to.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (REPAY-
MENT OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND)
BILL.

On the question that this bill be committed,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said there were grave objections
to the principle of the bill. It proposed to capitalise the
interest of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, but he
could not consent to that until he had been satisfied that
there had been no misappropriation of that fund.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
when they got into committee, which would be the
proper place to make it in, he should be prepared to de-
liver a statement of the objects and principle of the bill.
Mr. HUME objected to place a tax of 296,0001. upon
the Consolidated Fund, and suggested that the bill
should be referred to a committee up-stairs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
bill would not in any way affect the taxation of
the metropolis or the coal tax ; but its simple
object was to decide the department that should have
the management of the fund. The public was paying
1501. a-day as long as this bill was delayed from
being passed. The case stood thus :—A sum
of 895,0001. had been borrowed for the improvements
of the city of London, and upon that sum 134,000/. of
interest had been paid. Now this bill was to enable the
Government to save to the public the payment of
that interest, by paying off the original debt
out of the balances which stood to the credit
of the improvements which have been carried out
in the city, and were now in the national ex-
chequer. The absolute liability at present was
895,0001. for principal, and 134,0001. for interest ;
but the Westminster and Southwark improvements
which had been carried out by loans were likely to get
into the same favourable position as the City improve-
ments, and it was therefore proposed to take the
maximum charge upon the Consolidated Fund
at 1,216,0001. The assets which would be derived
from the revenues of the London-bridge approaches
fund would yield about 1,240,0001., and by making the
arrangement which the bill proposed, would save the
public 1501. a-day.
Six o'clock arrived before the discussion closed, and
the Speaker, therefore, declared the house to be ad-
journed.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DA r. )

SOUTHAMPTON.

The committee resumed its sittings at 11 o'clock this
morning ; Mr. Sidney Herbert in the chair.
At the kitting of the committee a witness of the name
of Bower, who refused to take the usual oath yesterday,
was brought in, and being asked by the Chairman if he
still persisted in his refusal to take the oath,
Mr. Bower said he had conscientious scruples, founded
on the New Testament, against taking any oath what-
ever.

The Chairman said that in that case all the committee
had to do was to report the fact to the house, and it
would be for the house to deal with the matter as it
thought fit.
The witness having refused to take any oath whatever,
although he was neither a Quaker, Moravian, nor Sepa-
ratist, he was commited to the custody of the Seljeant-
at-Arms until the pleasure of the house should be known.
The committee then adjourned for the purpose of re-
porting the refusal of the witness to the house.
On the committee re-assembling,
Several witnesses were called and examined, the sub-
stance of whose evidence was that Mr. Andrews, the
Mayor of Southampton, at the time of the election of
1852, had been seen conversing with voters, attending
public meetings, and in the case of a voter of the name
of Oakley, that he had said to him that if he voted for
the Liberals it would be all right.
- The committee adjourned shortly before 4 o'clock.