The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-28 00:00:00

NAVIGATION-LAWS.

Lord STANLEY moved that a return be from timo
to time laid before Om House of the petitions presented
for and against the navigation-laws.
SANITARY BILL FOR LONDON.

In answer to a question from a NOBLE LORD,
The Earl of CARLISLE said that the Commissioners
of Sewers had some most important sanitary measures
under their consideration, among others a measure
for the supply of the metropolis with water, and for
preserving the Thames from further pollution. He
trusted he should shortly be enabled to submit a mea-
sure for doing away with the burial of the dead in tho
metropolis.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PREVENTION BILL.

The Duke of BEA.tiFORT moved the second read-
ing of this Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL opposed the Bill, on the ground
that its provisions were complicated, contradictory, and
too restrictive. If enacted they would be productive of
great hardship to persons who might be individually
nlameless. For instance, one of the clauses provided
that in caves where it apse red there had been any ex-
cessive cruelty used to dogs the " owner" of the doe,
should be liable to a penalty. This assumed the owner
was in all cases the person who would act cruelly.
Another provision was that any person, man, woman, or
child, riding in dog carts, were subject to penalties. Why
the very object of the greater number of these carts was
to follow pursuits, by the aid of these docile animal:,
which includes riding, and as for children riding them,
be had often seen his own children riding in them "with
the greatest delight.—(A laugh.) The second clause was
all that was needed, and sufficiently comprehensive to
meet the case.
The Duke of BEAUFORT said if the second read-
ing wag agreed to, be bad no objection to modify or omit
the clauses alluded to by the Noble and Learned Lord.
The Earl of MINTO objected entirely to this species
of legislation. As to cruelty, the Noble Duke must not
suppose that it was confined to the poor,'"ast this Bill ap-
peared to presum, it was. Did the Noble Duke' never
see very heavy men riding on very little horses?—(Bear
and a laugh.) Had he never seen men urge their horses
at their very highest speed, when after the hounds? If
not, the Noble Duke had been more fortunate than he
had been.—(A laugh.)
Lord REDESDALE opposed the Bill.

The Bishop of OlFOrtb supported the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR pbt the question, and,
as we understood, declared the second reading carried.
A conversation ensued, in which Earl GREY and the
Earl of MALMESBURT opposed the Bill, on the ground
that it would be ineffective as to its main object, and at
the same time revive all the odious machinery of public
informers.
The Duke of ARGYLL supported the Bill, because it
would reach the cruelties of the higher as well as the
lower classes.
The Earl of CARLISLE wished to know how the
question before the House stood with respect to the
second reading of the Bill ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had already
declared the second reading carried, as there were no
non contents when he put the question.
The Earl of CARLISLE asked what had become of
the amendment that• the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had not had any
such amendment proposed.
Lord GREY understood his Noble Friend the Earl of
Minto to have moved it.

The LOUD CHANCELLOR repeated that he had
not heard it, and that he declared the second reading
carried.
The Earl of MINTO observed that he had moved
such an amendment as Lord Grey stated, and it was
seconded by his Noble Friend behind him. However,
as the Bill could be opposed at a future stage, he would
not then raise any objection to the Lord Chancellor's
decision.
After a brief conversation the subject dropped.
Lord REDESDALE laid on the table a BM to feel-
Mate the union of turnpike trusts, which was read a'
first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Moo-
day next.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

'l/4—EWS PAP INUSE OF COMMONS, Aprz7 27.
AKER took the Chair shortly beforc Four
~:zW A-'22 ' .%r ' :":?: W WRIT FOR SHEFFIELD.
i -)-",-.. .
~ lit, ion of Mr. TUFNELL, a new writ was
I'IC 0. 44:9# t 4 c for tho borolgh of Sheffi i
eld n the room
'<-:it•"' ' or-iltr,3!" rge Ward Esq.. who had accepted the
igeeltr. bi-' rd of her Iviajesty'3 Chiltern nundrf.ds.
..dti,b_sir.lo
Mr. HE WORTH presented a p4ition from Leicester
bl iiTATOcingth3 Clergy Relief Bill.

Mr. HENRY presented a petition from Churchtown,
Lancashire, in favour of a diminution of the number of
beer-sbops, and complaining of their evil tendency.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT presented petitions from
places in Wiltshire in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. CL AY presented a petition from Hull is favour
of the Clergy Relief Bill
Mr. MOSTYN presented petitions from several parts
of Wales against the alteration of the Law of Marriage
Bill.
Mr. COWAN presented petitions from Edinburgh and
other places in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN presented several petitions in
favour of the diminution of the number of beer•houses ;
also several petitions from Middlesex and Huntingdon
against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY presented petitions in favour
of the Bill; also a petition from the Committee of
Supply of the County of Bute against the Lunatic
Asylums (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. G. THOMPSON presented petitions from Gla-
morgan and other places in favour of arbitration in the
case of international disputes.
Mr. COBDEN presented several petitions in favour of
the Clergy Relief Bill, and also petitions in favour of a
reduction of the national expenditure from different
parts of Yorkshire.
Mr. HUME presented petitions from Fife against the
Marriage Registration Bill; also a petition fron Montrose
against the Scotch Lunatic Asylums Bill ; and peti-
tions in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill.
TREATMENT OF IRISII PAUPERS AT CORK.
Mr. STAFFORD wished to know whether, with re-
gard to the statement which it appeared from one of
the papers that the Hon. Member for Cork had made
last night, that the corporation of Cork had voted one
hundred pounds to transport all their paupers
to England, the Right Honourable Gentleman
the Secretary of State fur tlae Home Department had re-
ceived any information of such illegal conduct on the
part of the Cork authorities.

- Sir G. GREY had received no information whatever
on the subject.
Mr. FAGAN had stated that the authorities of Cork
had voted 1001. to cart all tho paupers out of the place.

POLICE RATE.
Lord DUDLEY STUART wished to put a question
to the Right Lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary with
regard to the metropolitan police. By the Police Act
the Government was authorised to advance 95,0001. out
of the Consolidated Fund towards the maintenance of
the metropolitan police force, whenever the metropolitan
parishes should have paid a sum equal to 6d. in the pound on
the rating towards their maintenance. In 1847 the ma-
gistrates of Middlesex had re- assessed the county at
7,700,0001., instead of 6,200,0001., which had been the
assessment previously ; cons( quently 35,0001. more was
levied towards the police rate, under the new assessment,
before the Government could advance the 95,000/. In
answer to representations made to the Goverment on
this subject, it had been stated that it was the intention
of the Government to introduce a Bill authorising
it to make the advance when the rate should be
fivepenco in the pound, instead of sixpences.— (Hear.)
He wiel:ed to ask his Right Hon. Friend, although cir-
cumstances may have made it necessary to impose this
burden on the ratepayers of Middlesex during the last
year, whether it was likely to be permanent? He trusted
that an explicit answer would be given to this question,
in order that the irritation which had been excited on
this subject might be allayed.
Sir GEORGE GitEY said that the sum drawn from
the Cotriolidated Fund for the support of the police force
was 90,000/. usually, and last year it was 98,0001.
When this force was first instituted a rate of eight-
pence in the pound was levied. That was sub-
sequently reduced to fivepence, but afterwards in-
creased. to sixpence, in the hope of increasing the funds
so as to raise a surplus. Last year circumstances had
occurred which compelled an increase of the force, a
proceeding which was conceived to be necessary nut
only by the Government, but by the whole of the metro-
polis. The expenses had consequently been increased,
and however severe the pressure might be felt, he was
assured that his Noble Friend would see the reasonable-
ness of it. In some future time he anticipated that
surplus would be created; but ho thought that it would
he unfair that the rate-payers should reap all the advan-
tage. At any rate he could hold out no present hope of
a reduction of the imposition.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

In reply to a question from Mr. HUME as to the time
for taking the Navy Estimates,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he was desirous of deferring the consideration of
the estimates in the Committee of Supply till the Ist of
May, but it might come on to-night.
Mr. HUME said that this was no sufficient answer to
his question. He thought that it was hard, not to say
injudicious, on the part of Government to oblige Hon.
Members to enter into the consideration of the esti-
timates at eleven o'clock at night, when there had been
no opportunity whatever of considering the papers upon
the subject. He was aware that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had a notice on the paper, and he thought
that considering the debate to which that motion might
give rise, it was, to say the least, unfair to force the con-
sideration of the navy estimates.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged to remind his Hon.
Friend that this seas only a vote on account, and such as
was usually allowed to pass without discussion. On
Monday night he proposed to take the third reading of
the Rate in Aid Bill; and it was quite impossible for
him to say to what discussion it might lead, and con-
sidering that without this vote the public service could
not be carried on, he trusted that his Hon. Friend would
not feel that the Government had in any
.way taken the
House by surprise.