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

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
he admitted to this description of reward, and he would
suggest to the Government that this should be the ex-
tension of the rule.

The Duke of RICHMOND 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 bravery. 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 medal. It would b©
extending the rule too far to do so, and he thought he
could prove it if he had the papers.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, seeing that the High-
way Rates Bill was down on the raper 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 important character.
The paper of the day contained no fewer than 22 dif-
ferent Bills at various stages, which had only just come
up from the other House. It was impossible 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 consequence were passed 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 he 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 he liked
with the Bill.—(Much laughter, amidst which the Noble
Lord left the chair.)

Lord REDESDALE then moved, as an amendment,
that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Their Lordship then divided whe❑ there appeared—
For the amendment ... 23
For the motion
Majority against the motion —6
The Bill was sc2ordingly thrown out.
The Inland Post (Colonies) Bill was read a second

The Military Ballot (Suspension) Bill, after a few
words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, was read 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 WICALOW moved that clause 8 be
struck out of the Bill, which was agreed to.
After a desultory conversation on an additional clause
proposed by Lord Monteagle, and opposed by Lord
Beaumont, the Marquis of Lansdowne, 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 in a superior court
was absolutely necessary in 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 be 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 he had some such power
as this.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE and the Marquis of
CLA.NRICARDE 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 he 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 tcn
o'clock.