The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 20.

Their Lordships assemblel at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons requested a conference
on the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill.
The Earl of ROSSE presented several petitions from
the Irish clergy, praying fur an increase in the number
of Irish bishops.
Lord BItOUGHAM presented a petition from Mr.
Romington Mills, complaining that although he resided
in the county of Surrey he had been chosen as sheriff of
London and Middlesex, and had been obliged to pay the
fine. He should move an amendment to except persons
in this situation in the Corporations Bill.
_ HUNGARY.

The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then asked if there
was any intention of recognising Kossuth and the Hun-
garian rebels. A Noble Friend of his had said he thought
the Hungarian insurrection not unjustifiable. He thought
any innovation unjustifiable, and six years ago he had given
an opinion contrary to the Hungarian Constitution. The
Noble and Learned Lord then read the opinion, in which
he denounced the Hungarian constitution in most ener-
getic language. The Noble and Learned Lord concluded
by saying that Prince Metternich had introduced such
improvements in the constitution as to entitle him to the
character of a great reformer.
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE answered in such a
low tone that not one single word that he uttered was
audible in the gallery, and therefore it is impossible
even to guess at the purport of the answer.
INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL reported from the conference that
the Commons agreed to all their Lordships' amendments
except two; for disagreeing to which they had given their
reasons. He moved that the amendment and the
reasons be printed, and that the subject be taken into
considPration on Thursday next.—Agreed to.
EDINBURGH AND_NORTHERN RAILWAY

BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LUNACY.
Lord MONTEAGLE drew the attention of the House
to the dictum of the Lord Chief Baron, that no keeper
of a lunatic asylum was authorised in keeping any per-
son in custody who was not dangerous to
himself or to others. The great majority of those persons
who were detained
to themselves or to others ono whit more than their
Lordships themselves were dangerous to themselves or
to others.—(A laugh.) Great confusion (had resulted
from this dictum, many parishes had given
notice that they would no longer keep
paupers in lunatic asylums, and many speculative
solicitors would institute actions which would lead to
most painful results. He hoped that the letter of the
Commissioners of Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor on this
subject would be laid before the House.
Lord BROUGHAM considered the subject as one of
great interest. It was quite clear that if the Learned
Judge did say what was represented a motion for a new
trial was inevitable, and their Lordships might be
called upon to decide judicially, and therefore it would
be improper for their Lordships to give an opinion on the
question; but he would advise no :speculative attorney
to bring an action, because he would most probably be
saddled with the costs, but nothing could be done until
next Michaelmas term.
SLAVE TRADE.

Earl NELSON presented a report from the Committee
on the slave-trade.

PETITIONS.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented several pet
tions complaining of agricultural distress.
STOCK IN TRADE BILL.

The Earl of GRANVILLE moved the second read-
ing of the Stock in Trade Bill.
The Earl of Al ALMESBURY opposed the Bill, on
the ground that it pressed unequally on the landed in-
terest.
Earl GRANVILLE said that this Bill was of very
great importance to the public at large, and assured the
Noble Duke that the subjecting stock in trade to an
assessment for the poor-rates would be of very trifling
advantage to the agriculturist, and that it would also
create great agitation in the manufacturing towns.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that his motive in
opposing the Bill was, that he did not see any necessity
for it, as the present Act would not expire until the
middle of next session.
After a few words from Lord MALMESDURT and
Earl GRANVILLE,
Lord STANLEY said that he considered that Go-
vernment should take the initiative step to obviate the
necessity of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL said that as the present Act would
expire next year, he considered that the Government
should anticipate that event particularly, in order that
the country should know their intentions relative to this
measure, and more especially, as notices had been circu-
lated throughout all the parishes in England respect-
ing it.
The Bill was then read a second time.
WAR MEDALS.

The Duke of RICHMOND said that be wished to
ask if the Government would consent to extend the
general orders of the Admiralty and Army, by adding
actions both by sea and land, and to which war medals
shall be granted. The Noble Duke then entered into
the particulars of the several actions that the army and
navy of this country had been engaged in, and which re-
flected high honour on this empire i.n the eyes of the
surrounding nations, such as that of Egypt under Sir
Ralph Abercrombie, and others. He, therefore, hoped
that Government would confer medals on these brave
and meritorious soldiers and sitilois.
Earl GREY said that the question had long been un-
der the consideration of the Government, and that from
all the evidence they had heard, they had come to the
decision that great discrimination should be observed in
the case of conferring medals, particularly as that this
discrimination tended to set a great value on them.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the complaint
of the soldiers who had fought in the East Indies, and
on the Peninsula, was, that medals w ere denied to them,
while they were granted to the men engaged at Water-
loo; but to that he should say, that the Committee who
bad sat on that matter, and most of the naval and mili-
tary officers he had conversed with on it, were of opinion
that the nicest discrimination should be exercised, and
that the great honour conferred by th ose medals was not
through their coming from Parliament, but as being dis-
tinguished honour conferred by their Sovereign, which
should not be abused by being made ;Indiscriminate. It
was for that reason that theywere appreciated so highly,
while the orders of other nations we re considered in a
very insignificant light. He did not know how they
could be brought under the notice of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to be recommended to the Crown for distinc-
tion, excepting for some general seri rice performed by
them, or by the general rule of their Lordships' House
of 1847.

Lord COLCFIESTER said that some line of distinc-
tion ought to be drawn with regard to the persons who
were to be considered worthy of thos.o honours. Ho
thought it might be admitted that, as the question of an
extension of the rule regulating this. matter had been
entertained, the individuals who had ret:eived the thanks
of both Houses of Parliament were the proper persons in
favour of whom that extension shouted be made. The
men, for instance, who were present and distinguished
themselves at such actions as the capture of Monte
Video, or the second expedition to Copenhagen, under
the Earl of Cathcart and Lord Gambier, ought surely to
be admitted to this description of reward, and he would
suggest to tilf Government that this ;should be the ex-
tension of the rule.

The Dude of RICIIMOND said that there was a
great deal of difference between orders and medals, An
order might be given to a Secretary of the Treasury for
performing his duty in a politic manner, but a medal
could only be given to a man for risking his life in the
service of his country. He wished there were more
medals, and that the mere thanks of Parliament was not
a sufficient reward for valour and bravtiry. If they al-
lowed the colours of a regiment to be, emblazoned with
the scenes of its actions, it was clear that they thought
those actions worthy of being recorded. Extending
orders, he thought, was mischievous, but not medals.
Indeed, he was not sure whether any man who was in
the company ought not to have a medial. It would be
extending the rule too far to do so, aitd he thought he
could prove it if ho had the papers.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, seeing that the High.
way Rates Bill was down on the paperr for Committee,
asked the Noble Lord who had charge of it, whether
it was the intention of the Government to bring in a
Highway Rate Bill distinct from any on Turnpike
Trusts.

Lord GRANVILLE said he could not give any po-
sitive pledge on the subject, but most probably such a
Bill would be introduced next year.
The Small Debts Act Amendment Bill was read a se-
cond time and ordered to be committed, on the motion
of Lord CAMPBELL. _ _

Lord STANLEY observed that at this advanced stage
of the session, as it was the case last year, they were
discussing hurriedly Bills of a most impc.rtant character.
The paper of the day contained no few er than 22 dif-
ferent Bills at various stages, which had only just come
up from the other House. It was imp4ossible that they
could now receive the attention which they deserved,
and he must again protest against the hasty way in which
the Bills of great col:sequence were pazsed through their
Lordships' House.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of the
County Rates Bill, which was agreed to after a short
discussion, in which Lord Redesdale complained of the
Bill having been considered, at each of its stages in the
House of Commons, after twelve o'clock at night.
The Petty Bag Office Indemnity Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on the motion
of Lord Campbell.
TITLES OF RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved that the House should go
into Committee on the Titles of Religious Congregations
(Scotland) Bill, which he said had been approved by all
religious classes in Scotland, including the Episcopalians.
Lord REDESDALE opposed the motion, on the
ground that there was not time to discuss its provisions
this session.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the Bill ought to
be more considered in Scotland than time could have
permitted as yet. When they were legislating for Scot-
land, the law of which country was different to that of
England, they ought to be doubly particular on this
point. The Noble Lord concluded by saying that ho had
no amendments to make, and by moving that the Noble
Lord report the Bill, and that it be read a third time to-
morrow. _ _ _

Lord REDESDALE, amid much laughter,moved that
the Bill be reported this day six months.
Lord SHAFTESBURY said the Noble Lord was out
of order; he could not so move while he (Lord Shaftes•
bury) Was in the chair ; he would, however, leave the
chair, and the Noble Lord might then do what ho liked
with the Bid.—(Much laughter, amidst which the Noble
Lord left the @hair.)
Lord REDESDALE then moved, as an amendment,

that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Their Lordship then divided when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 23
For the motion
Majority against the motion ...
The Bill was ac2ordingly throtNn out.
The Inland Post (Colonies) Bill was read a second
time.

The Military Ballot (Suspension) Bill, after a few
words from Lord ELLENBOROUGU and the Marquis of
CLANRICAIIDE, was real a third time.

On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, the Commons
Inclosure (No. 2) Bill passed through the Committee.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion that the report on the Poor Relief
(Ireland) Bill be brought up, a discussion ensued as to
the admission of amendments, in which several Noble
Lords took part, and
The Earl of WIC.KLOW moved that clause 8 be
struck out of the Bill, which was agreed to.
Atter a desultory conversation on an additional clause
proposed by Lord Nlonteagle, and opposed by Lord
Beaumont, the Marquis 01 Lans lowne, the Earl 'of
Wicklow, and the ,Marquis of Clanricarde, the clause
was agreed to.
Lord MONTEAGLE then moved other clauses, to
enforce the audits of the accounts of the union, to pre-
vent sub-letting of tenements, and to recover the rates in
the superior courts, in pursuance of the recommendation
of the Irish Poor-law Committee.

The first two clauses were agreed to.
On the third clause the Noble Lord contended that
this provision for recovering the rates i❑ a superior court
was absolutely necessary iu law, and having been re-
commended by the Committee, after a careful considera-
tion of the point, he could see no reason why it should
not be incorporated with the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the remedy by a supe-
rior court should only be resorted to in very urgent
cases, and this general power would, in his opinion,
be productive frequently of much hardship, or even
injustice.
After some discussion, the clause was agreed to in a
modified form.

The Earl of LUCAN moved a clause to remove the
liability of the landlord for the arrears of the tenant.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the great inconvenience
that would arise from exempting the landlord from this
liability, was the placing the burden of the arrears of
rates on the shoulders of the rate-payers. That was an
opinion held only by some; but however it might be, the
clause of the Noble Earl did not meet the difficulty, be-
cause it only prevented an action from being brought.
The Earl of LUCAN said that his object was not that
the arrears should be given up, but that the proprietor
should b 3 exonerated from the liability that he would
otherwise be subject to in case the tenant went away,
which would be the case if this clause were not introduced
into the Bill.

The clause was then adopted, with a verbal omission.
The Earl of LUCAN then proposed another clause,
which was also agreed to.
Lord MONTEAGLE proposed, that in the event of
the new unions, it would be advisable that they should
be smaller; and also, that in the intended arrangement
of boundaries, that they should be made conterminous
with the property.
Lord LUCAN proposed that the landlord should have
power to eject any tenant who should be in arrear of
one year's rates, because the proprietor, without this
clause, would be subject to rates for which he should
not be held responsible, unless ho had some such power
as this.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE and the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE opposed this clause, on the grounds that
it would be giving the landlord an arbitrary power.
Lord STANLEY said that the landlord should be
protected against the dishonesty of his tenants, who,
particulary at the present time, when they were fleeing
the country, would subject the landlords to be com-
pletely ruined.
The clause was then agreed to, on the proviso that
the landlord should pay the rate before he ejected the
tenant.

The report, after some discussion, was agreed to.
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
the Summary Convictions and Indictable Offences (Ire-
land) Bills were read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned at half-past ten
o'clock.