The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took the chair at five o'clock.

„ HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL.
"n the motion for the commitment of this bill,
The
LORD CHANCELLOR explained the position in which the
measure now stood, and stated that although there
were some objections to the details, the judges approved
°JO the Principles of the bill. The great difficulty seemed
be with respect to the framing of the rules, but he
proposed that there should be a committee of the Privy
Council the judges and other great legal officers, to frame
those rules previous to the Court coming into operation.
d 6 had no doubt such an arrangement would be consi-
red satisfactory-
Lord CAIRNS said he had the greatest desire to see the
°hied of the present bill carried into effect ; but he had
srerY great doubts as to the propriety of pressing the bill
through
during the present session. There was a com-
plete absence of all detail to give an adequate notion as
nthe position of the courts after the change ;
d with respect to the framing of the rules the mode
proposed he considered a delegation by Parliament of its
duty to the Privy Council. The bill, he contended, could
built, and
into operation until the New Law Courts were
"ut, and therefore he hoped the motion for the com-
mittee would not be pressed.
„,,Lord WESTBURY also advised the withdrawal of the
b4l for the present session, but Lord PENZATLCE said if the
noble and learned lord on the Woolsack waited for the
completion of the New Law Courts before he proceeded
With the measure he would have to wait for about ten
Years. He supported the motion for going into committee.
After some further discussion, the House went into
enraittee on the bill, Lord CAIRNS intimating that he
'°llld oppose it on its next stage. The whole of the
clauses were agreed to after some amendments had been
made. and the bill was reported accordingly.

TRAMWAYS BILL.
This bill, the object of which was to regulate the mode
of construction and conducting of tramways was read a
second time, and referred to a select committee.

SEQUESTRATION BILL.
This bill passed through committee, and was reported,
With amendments.

IRISH LAND BILL,

...........__ __
This bill was brought up and read a first time.
Their lordships adjourned at five minutes to nine.

I-10 USE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY.
:Ile Speaker took the chair at five minutes to four
0 Clock.

THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time :
'4'...„tiantie Telegraph Company Bill, Burnham Tidal
xiti, arbour Bill, Dublin Trunk Connecting Railway
Exmouth Docks, Bill, Great Northern
411€1 Western • (of Ireland) Railway (Lease) Bill,
Great Northern and Western (of Ireland) Railway (West-
‘l)°. 11 Quay Line) Bill, Imperial Continental Gas Associa-
-11,
tat, -D!„
-1-',North-Eastern Railway (Hawes and Melmerby,
`fi.;:e') Bill, Preston, Longton, and Southport Railway Bill,
aikbill Gas and Water Bill, Sevenoaks, Maidstone, and
..Tunbridge Railway Bill, Tyne Improvement Bill.

TRAMWAYS BILLS.
Bingham
following tramways bills were read a second time :
Tirraingham Street Tramways Bill, Liverpool Street
~ranrivays Bill, Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport,
.Street Tramways Bill, and Portsmhuth Street Tramways

ROAD STEAMERS.
4r. COGAN moved an address, which was agreed to, for
copy of any reports made to the War Department by
°llioers sent to Edinburgh to examine Mr. Thomson's
Road Steamer," and to report as to its advantages for
Military
purposes.
THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Captain DAWSON-DAMER asked the First Commissioner
of Works if it was true that, in consequence of the want
i)f Plans of the flues, &c., of the Houses of Parliament,
t t!te persons in charge of the arrangements for the preven-
-I°4 of fire in the building do not hold themselves respon-
sible for its safety.
Mr. AYRTON said it was true that no plan of the flues
was •
in the possession of the Board of Works, but he could
4°t go the length of saying that on that account persons
!refused to be responsible for the safety of the building.
t was desirable that those plans should be in the
and he hoped very soon that such would be the
case.

_LEICE STER-SQUARE.
Captain DAWSON-DAMER asked the First Commissioner
Works if it was true that the continued state of
Leicester-square arose from a disputed ownership ; and,
111,80, "whether some steps could not be taken to ascertain
w4° was liable for the present condition of the square.
„..
AYRTON• said there was an Act to enable the local
authorities to take possession of open spaces, which did
11'4 appear to have an owner. The local authorities did at-
tempt
to take possession of the enclosure in Leieester-square,
but an owner appeared and established his right in a
curt of law. He had no power to alter the present state
authorities of the enclosure : that could only be done by the local
th
and then they must proceed by getting a
Private Act of Parliament passed, giving them the neces-
sary right to do so.