The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-15 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 14.

Th• SPRAYER took the chair at a quarter to Four.
NEW MEMBERS.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON (Vice-President of the
Board of Trade), took the oaths and his seat for the
borough of Manchester.
Lord EBRINGTON (one of the Lords of the Trea-
sury), also took the oaths and his seat, for the borough
of Plymouth.
Messengers from the Court of Chancery and the
Treasury brought up several returns and papers, which
were ordered to lie on the table.

NEW WRIT.
Mr. TUFNELL moved a new writ for the election of
a Member for the county of Sutherland in the room of
Mr. Dundas, who has accepted the office of her Majesty's
Solicitor-GeneraL
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time :
Lord Kinnaird's (Sir John Webb's) Estate Bill.
Spalding's Estate Bill.
Yeovil Borough Estate BilL

REPORTS.
The following reports on Bills were considered and
adopted::—
Billingsgate Market.
Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and Swansea and
Lougher Railway.
Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Junction
Railway.
Newry, Warrenpoint, and Rosstrevor Railway.
Tunbridge Wells Improvement.
York and North Midland Railway (widening and en-
largement).
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and

passed:—
Dublin and Kingstown Extension Railway
Forth and Clyde Navigation and Bowling Bay Improve-
ment.
MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON RAIL-
WAY.

Mr. HOPE moved the consideration of the report on
this Bill. The report was then considered and agreed
to without discussion.
CURTIS'S DIVORCE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
PLYMOUTH GREAT WESTERN DOCKS BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
WEXFORD HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
SLIGO SHIP CANAL BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CAMBRIDGE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
The report of the Committee on this Bill was con-
sidered and adopted.
BISHOP OF JERUSALEM'S NATURALISATION

BILL.
Mr. HODGSON moved the second reading of this
Bill.

After a few words from Mr. GREENE and Lord CLIY,
Dr. BOWRING opposed the Bill, and said that in his
opinion the appointment of a Bishop of Jerusalem of it-
self would lead to great dissatisfaction and disadvantage.
He contended that a reverend gentleman, because he had
been appointed to that bishopric, had no right to
come to that House and claim to be naturalised.
Mr. HUTT also opposed the Bill, because he thought
it was framed in direct opposition to the spirit of the
Act of Parliament at present in force on the subject of
naturalisation.
Lord JOHN MANNERS advised the Hon. Member
who had introduced the Bill to withdraw it.
Mr. BOUVERIE was also opposed to the Bill.
Sir W. JAMES said he should be sorry, if the
reverend gentleman really wished to avail him-
self of the privilege possessed by British subjects
to give any opposition to the Bill ; but as long as the
rev. gentleman was not about to reside in England,
he could not see why he should seek for such privileges.
Mr. HODGSON said that it was the first time he
ever heard any objection to the second reading of a
naturalisation Bill, and his Hon. Friend, before calling
on him to show his reason for such a Bill, should have
stated his reasons against it.
Mr. ESUOTT said that this case did not come within
the provisions of the Act, but still he thought that no
obstacles should be thrown in the way of the reverend
gentleman.
Mr. J. COLLETT moved that the second reading of
the Bill be posponed until that day week, as the
Government should certainly know the object of such
a Bill.
Lord CLIVE seconded the motion.
Mr. HUME regretted that her Majesty's Ministers
were not present to explain.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that it was desired that
the Swiss gentleman, who held office as Bishop of Jeru-
salem, should be Bishop of Jerusalem for England; and
in order to effect that, it was necessary to grant letters
of naturalisation. He saw no objection to such a course.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that there were some inaccu-
racies in the statement made by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. In the first place, the appointment of the
bishop did not rest with the British Government, but
with the King of Prussia. Under an Act which had
been passed power was given to the Secretary of State
to advise her Majesty under certain limits to grant letters
of naturalisation, and one was, that the party should
be resident in this country. He aid not know the
circumstances under which the present Bill was brought
forward, nor the advantage which the rev, gentleman
proposed to himself by wishing to be naturalised ; but
he presumed that it could be explained by the
Hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion.
He did not think the Bill should be passed as a matter
of course. Special reasons should be shown for grant-
ing this naturalisation. If those reasons were shown,
and appeared sufficient to him, he should not oppose the
Bill. The onus of proving these special reasons rested
with the promoters of the Bill.
Mr, ENV ART quite agreed with the opinions of the
Right Hon. Baronet who last addressed the House ;
he thought the proper course would be to have the Bill
printed; the House would then be in a position to judge
of the merits of the question.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place.
After a few words from Dr. Bowling° and Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE,
Mr. HODGSON consented to the postponement of
the question for a week.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the question should be
postponed, not merely for the purpose of having
the Bill printed, but that when printed, it should be
placed in the hands of some of the members of her Ma-
jesty's Government, in order to have from them a
statement of the course they would adopt with
reference to the Bill. He did not wish to see it
thrown out at once without any inquiry—
There could be no doubt that the rev. gentleman was
de facto the Bishop of Jerusalem. He would suggest
that the matter should stand over for a week, in order
that it might receive the consideration of the House.
Mr. HODGSON said as many Hon. Members had
expressed a wish to have further information on the
subject before tho Bill was read a second time, he begged,
by the permission of the House, to postpone the motion
until Friday.
Mr. COLLETT moved that the Bill be printed, in
order that the House might be in possession of the details
of the measure, but as the motion was not seconded it
fell to the ground.
Mr. HUTT reminded the Hon. Member that the
House was fully in possession of the facts, and that no
advantage would be gained by going to the expense of
printing the Bill.
Lord Kinnaird's (Sir John Webb's) Estate Bill was
read a third time.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. TEIORNELY presented a petition from Bury,
in Lancashire, praying for the abolition of the punish-
ment of death.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
Mr. B. ESTCOTT gave notice that on Friday next,
he would move for a return of all persons who had been
committed for vagrancy hi Ireland, or who had been
sentenced to transportation or subjected to any other
punishulent for the last twelve months.

WINDOW TAX.
Lord DUNCAN begged to put a question to the
fight Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
appeared from a circular he held in his hand that the
._etropolitan Buildings Act came into operation on the
.st July last, and by that Act certain penalties
were inflicted for not having a sufficient number
of windows in any cellar or building used
as a habitation. Now a party with whom
he (Lord Duncan) had been in recent communication,
had seven windows in his house, and by the Metropolitan
Buildings Act he should have eight. If he added an-
other window he would incur a duty of eighteen shillings
and a penny, and if he neglected to comply with the
provisions of the act, he would be liable to a penalty not
exceeding 20s. a day for every day he remained without
complying with the provisions of the act after due notice
had been given to him. Under these circumstances, he
(Lord Duncan) wished to know from the Right Hon.
Gentleman if such. a person would be exempted from
payment of the window-tax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
erswtohodo
was almost inaudible in the gallery, was
to complain of having received no notice of the Noble
Lord's intention to put such a question. He was not
aware of the particular provisions of the Metropolitan
Buildings Act, but he would make inquiry on the sub-
ject, and communicate the result on a future occasion.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. HUME moved that a message be sent to the
Lords, requesting a copy of the evidence taken before a
Committee of their Lordships respecting the working of
the poor-laws in Ireland.—Agreed to.
SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. BAILEY wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government if it was
his intention to bring forward on Thursday next
a distinct measure in reference to the sugar duties? The
reason he asked the question was, a great many Mem-
bers were desirous to leave town, and the Noble Lord's
answer to the question might to a great extent affect
their determination.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had stated on the
preceding evening that on Thursday next he would state
the precise day when he would bring forward his measure
relative to the sugar duties. He would name
the earliest day consistent with his public duties, but