The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-07 00:00:00

turb Mbltton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

NEWMARKET RACES.
(THIS DAY-BY EXPRESS.)

Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each. New T. Y.C.

...Nrr. Shelley's Millwood
2
Mr. Etwall's Passion filly

Five ran.

Sweepstakes of 10 sous. each, for two yrs old, &c
Lord Spencer's Glutton
Lord Lonsdale's Redshank colt
Lord Exeter's Tippet

Six ran.

The Town Plate of 501. Last mile and a dis. of B.C.
Itr. Sandford's Kimblesworth
Lord Orford's Ziska .

Five ran.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING JULY 3.
Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week.
Mal„ ~. 484 Males ... ... 643
Females ... ... 449 Females ... ... 634

Total

. 933

Total ... 1,277

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Room B.
COVENTRY, BANBURY, AND (=roux).

The Committee were occupied during the whole day
with the examination of Mr. Blyth, C.E., in support of
the proposed line, and Mr. R. Stevenson, C.E., in oppo-
sition thereto.
The Committee adjourned till eleven to-morrow.

Room D.

SOVTB YORILSRXR,E (DONCASTER AND

GOOLE).

Mr. Cubitt, C.E., and other witnesses were examined
in support of this line.

Room F.

READING, REIGATE, AND GUILDFORD.
The Committee met this morning at eleven.
_ _

The object of this proposed Bill is to enable the
Guildford and Reigate Company to construct a portion
of their line between Dorking and Gomershall, which,
in the original Act, it was stipulated should be made by
the Direct Portsmouth Railway Company.
Mr. David Salomons and other witnesses were called
iu support of the Bill.
The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-
morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP VI.

ON AND DORCHESTER (WIWI.
BORNE AND =I.IILNDTORD BRANCH).
Evidence in favour of this line was offered.
Captain Moorsow, C.E., was also examined with re
spect to the engineering features of the line.
The Committee adjourned till twelve tomorrow.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.

On the order of the day being read for going into
Committee on this Bill,
Mr. V. SMITH urged the Government to withdraw
the Bill, as no practical good could come from proceed-
ing with it at this late period of the session.
Mr. WALPOLE was surprised that tha Hon. Member
should have offered any opposition to the Bill. The Bill
was so framed as to do away with the objections which
were anticipated trom Hon. Members.
Mr. NE VVDEG ATE said that the Committee was a
truly impartial on., and the clauses in the Bill had been
agreed to unanimously.
Mr. HEATHCOTE thought that the House were
losing time in discussing a 13.11 which, at that late pe-
riod of the session, could not be carried out, and which
would not be entertained by the Parliament which would
su:ceed them.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER said that it was impossible
that such a discussion could be brought to a successful
determination in the present session. It was impossible
that they could get through the clauses this session, and
it would be better to leave this unprofitable debate at
once than waste two or three hours more in doinc, that
which could have no beneficial result, especially when a
dissolution of Parliament was so near at hand.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that it certainly was not in
his opinion desirable tnat the Bill should be forwarded
in the present session—for, even supposing that they
could bring it to a conclusion, it would be productive of
no beneficial effect.
After a few words from Sir G. GRET and Mr. HEN-
LEY, which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. WALPOLE said that nothing was further from
his intention than to press this Bill against the desire of
the House, but he thought it but fair that if this Bill
were withdrawn that tne other Bills upon the same sub-
ject should be also withdrawn.
Sir G. GREY said, that with regard to the Parliamen-
tary Elections No. 2 Bill, which was upon the paper for a
second reading, that Bill should be postponed until
to-morrow. There was some doubt as to whether it
would be advisable to proceed with that Bill during the
present session.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE said that it was not quite fair
to avoid the discussion upon this subject after the repeated
promises which had been made since the beginning of
the session to take the matter into the consideration of
the House. He thought that the termination of these
Bills with regard to the Parliamentary elections was most
unsatisfactory, and reflected very little credit upon the
House.
After a few words from Mr. B. ESCOTT and Mr.
CHRISTOPHER,
Dir. WALPOLE suggested that the Committee upon
this Bill be deferred until to-morrow, when the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government would declare what
his intentions were with regard to the other Bill.—(No.)
The CHANCELLOR or the EXCHEQUER said
that it was perfectly competent to the Hon. Gentleman
V o postpone his motion until to-morrow, for it was per-
perfectly impossible that it could come on.—(Laughter.)
kie thought that the course suggested was a very fair
one, and the Hon. Member could in the meantime decide
what course he should pursue with regard to it.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said, that after the principle of
this Bill had been admitted by the house, it was not quite
fair to the mover of the Bill to shrink from its discussion
in the present session. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought
that the Bill was one which ought to be passed as speedily
us possible. lie should in every way he could throw oh-
etacles in the way of other measures which were taken in
the place in which this Bill ought to be.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that this postponement was not the act of the Govern-
ment.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading
of the Bilt.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Sir G. GREY said that if this motion were persisted
in he should he compelled to oppose it.
Mr. T. S. DU.NCOABE said that the_ Bill was then
in the hands of the House, and if the Government wished,
they could, doubtless, postpone it till to-morrow.
After some turther conversation,
Sir JA MES GRAHAM proposed that the order of
the day for the second reading ot the Bill should be
postponed.
' -Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had already, in the ab-
aenee of his Hun. and Gallant Friend, the Member for
Westminster, assented to such a proposal. (Here Sir
de LIU Evans entered the Flou,c.) Now, however,
that his Hun. and Gallant Friend had come in he trusted
the second rending of the Bill would not be postponed,
but that his Ili
once to take the and
G
aise ofatlhlaent House upon the question.
Friend would proceed at
If his Ron,
they would know Gallantat
once
Friend would pursue that course
reform and who was °lontee who in that House was for
gisM•ertliSeTßAZllFieisitePuel3dßlEN bald he for one should
opposition, and in order that
the op,_nion of the liousieuroett he tested upon it he
proposition for
hoped the Right Hon.
Dor-
chester would withdraw his the 31-ember for
the second reading. adjourning
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his only et‘„„ t
• making that proposal was the absence of - r -14--„"; '°,4r
Gallant Gentleman who had charge of tthbedifici: anansa
now that the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman hea
he had no objection whatever to withdraw his in'
tion.—(llear, hear.) --- proped..
Sir DE 'LACY EVANS, in rising to move the
second reading ot the Bill, took occasion to thank his
Honourable Friend the Member for Finsbury for
having taken care of his interest in his absence. He
was in the House just before the discussion came on,
and he had merely gone out to have a conversation with
,s me of his constituents.—(Hear, and laughter.) It was
a rare °occurrence to see so large a House en a Wed-
ne-day's sitting, and on that account he felt he had no
right to adjourn the second reading of this Bill. He
should, therefore, p-rsevere in his motion for the
second reading of the Bill at once.—(Hear, hear.)
The object of the Bill was a simple one. It was
to alter the date at which it became necessary
for rates to be paid by voters, that is to say, the rates
Fiyable on the 20th of July would be those due in the
preceding month of October, instead of the preceding
4 h of April.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 67
Against it
Majority against it
POOR REMOVAL AMEN talk:NT BILL.
Mr. BODKIN moved the second reading of this
F; .., The Poor Removal Bill passed last year provided
that no person who had resided in a parish aye years
~.17.01tWiEllt to be removed. He did not object to
fill il•-• If j • ' s a provision, but in times of distress it
C• fizte0v.yro,pon the parishes, and was excessively
:: ,- - virvit, kola p Jur, whom it was meart to serve.
Ar if
.13;rt, 6O74n#y rs?ns . upon the parishes that they
- ' : -JO litto-d . 11 justice to their own poor; and the
Y.-, \ '',lA), a .. ..
.1/ig' as so to amend the law that the
~ - :.
...47/ aon•remonl poor, who were entitled

4..

THE

to relief through ;having resided in a parish five years
should be thrown upon the common fund of the union,
instead of upon the individual parishes. He was willing
to make the measure temporary.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER objected to the Bill on the
ground of its centralizing character.
Atter a few words from Sir William Jolliff, who
opposed the Bill,
Mr. SPOONER did not intend to object to the second
reacing of the Bill, but he thought it quite true that a
very great burden was laid on the towns, and that mea-
sures should be taken for the purpose of relieving them.
He thought it fair that those towns which were unions
in themselves should have the same privileges as those
which formed only a part of unions.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, that as the principle of
the Bill had been already so fully discussed he hid not
think it necessary to take up the time of the House by
further diNcussiug it. He would not oppose the second
reading, as he believed it would remove many of the
evils of the Bill of last session.

After a few words from Sir JOHN PAKINGTON,
Mr. FLOYER was opposed to the Bill. He believed
it would be found quite inoperative.
Mr. HENLEY supported the Bill. The evils which
at present existed in the law required a remedy, and
believing that the Bill would have the effect of removing
them he would support the second reading.
Mr. WAKLEY thought the Bill was necessary, but
from all he saw and heard they must come eventually to
a national rate for the support of the poor, and until
that was the case the poor would never be treated as
they ought.
Mr. BANKS was in favour of the repeal of the Act
of last session, and he was very happy to hear the Hon.
Member for Finsbury admitting that there were evils in
that measure. There were many attempts to amend
that Act ; and as the present measure proposed to
remedy some of the evils in it, he would not oppose it ;
but he thought it did not go far enough, and be hoped
it would be materially improved when it went into Com-
mittee.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK was opposed to the Bill, but
would not move an amendment.
The Bill was was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.