The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-18 00:00:00

TUESDAY

DIVORCE BILLS.

Maclean', and neathcote's Divorce Bills were read
a second tine,
WAREWORTH HARBOUR DOCK BILL.
This Bill vas also read a second time.
BUCKIZGHAWS COMPENSATION BILL.

Mr. ELTADT moved the postponement of this Bill
until Mondst) next.

Mr. BRO TUE RTON presented a petition, and begged
that the Bill slight be postponed, or altogether droppril,
for Members bad been continually brought down most
unnecessarily.
Mr. PLOW-3EN said that under the circumstances
he should more that this Bill be read this day six
months. _

Mr. W. PATEN explained that the only reason for
postponing the 3ill was the illness of the Noble Lord by
whom it ought t) be moved.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to inquire of the Speaker
whether this Wn4 a private or a public Bill? It appeared
to him that the tompensation contemplated by this Bill
was to be grantel out of the funds contributed by the in-
habitants of this country. If so, it was evidently a
public Bill, and lught to be dealt with accordingly.
The SPEAKIR said that the Bill had been brought
before the House some years ago, when one of his pre-
decessors, and as he thought correctly, had decided that
it was a private 811. With regard to the other portions
of the Hon. and learned Gentleman's inquiry, he might
say that as he umerstood the matter, the compensation
was to be given oit of the funds in the hands of the
East India Compaq,.
Mr.
treating it as a prvate Bill.
then assented to the propriety of
Mr. WRI°LEUSBONC:k.TTEN moved that the Bill be taken
into consideration 4n the Monday after Easter.
Mr. CHRISTOLUER suggested that that would be
Easter Motpday.
On the suggestiot of Sir R. INGLIS,
Mr. PLO WDENthen withdrew his amendment.
On the motion ofMr. BROTHERTON. the Bill was
then ordered to he I.rici a second time on Monday.
SMITHFIEL) ENLARGEMENT BILL.
Sir JAMES DUEE moved that the Bill be postponed
till a future day.
Mr. CHRIS I'OPEER was surprised to hear such an
announcement from the Hon. Baronet, and wished to
know what was the intention of the Government with
respect to this Bill in the event of the City persevering
with it.
Mr. C. LEWIS 81c1 that it was decidedly the in-
tention of the Governhent to oppose the Bill.
Mr. OSBORNE bait that he thought the Hon. Baronet
was pursuing a very knjurious course to his supporters
by continually postponing this Bill. He stood there to
advocate the plan of he Corporation, as the best plan
that could he adopted, but his hands were now com-
pletely weakened.
Sir J. DUKE said ttat he was in the hands of the
City authorities, and must abide by their decision.
The NU was then ntstpomei.

Mr. TUFNELL prelented a petition, very numerously
signed by the inhabitants of East Stonehuuse, against
the late Papal aggrcssim.
Mr. Muntz, Mr. Spo(ner, and several other Members,
presented petitions frog Birmingham and various other
places, prayieg the Muse to resist the Papal aggres-
sions.
Mr. REYNOLDS and lir. B. WALL presented several
petitionu from various 'laces against the Ecclesiastical
110,s Bill.

Mr. Cowan, Mr. Hon, Mr. Roche, and several other
Members, presented pettious, praying for the abolition
of the paper duty.
Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower
Hamlets against the Smthfield•market Remova Bill.
Mr. HENRY and surre other Members presented pe-
titions praying for the atolition of the window-tax.
Mr. CO BDEN present4d a petition from the inhabitants
of Falkirk and Airdrie, stating that the grosseet bribery
and corruption bad prevElled during and previous to the
late election. They stattti that not less than fifty houses
of entertainment had bees opened for tho corruption of
the voters, previous to the election, and they prayed that
this Hon. House would institute a sifting inquiry into the
circumstances.

Mr. COBDEN also pmented several petitions from
different places in Yorkshre against the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill.

Mr. R. PALMER presented a petition from the dis-
trict of Newbury, cumplailing of agricultural distress;
also a petition from the buchers of a place in Sussex,
against the removal of Smthfield-market.
The Earl of ARUNDEL, and SURREY presented a
petition against the Ecclesastical Titles Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition in favour of
the establishment of counts financial boards.
Mr. SCULLY presente4 a petition from the county
of Kildare, against the Ecc'esie.stical Titles Bill.
Alderman TIIONIPSON presented a petition from
the city of London, complaining of abuses in the manage-
ment of the Board of Customs, and praying for inquiry;
also a petition from the coal merchants of the City,
praying for the removal of Smithfield-market.
Mr. BANKES presented t petition from Dorset com-
plaining of the PapaLaggreision.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD pretented petitions from places
in Ireland against the Ecclesiastical 'Titles Bill.
Sir GEORGE GREY prEsented a petition from Nor-
thumberland praying for tle repeal of the income-tax
levied under Schedule D.—(lfear, hear.)
Mr. BLAKE presented a plitition from Galway against
the Ecclesiastical Titles 80, and praying that the
property and incense of the Established Church in Ire-
land might be made avuilablefor the purposes of charity
and education.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS pre*nted a petition from an
at Quebec and
individual cosmupNlaiDnilnocg oTita
f theletention of certain letters
BILL.
Mr. BARING WALL
gave notice that when the
should move that it be read a second time that day six
Bill came )n for second reading he
Sundaymonths. Trading
Mr. SCULLY moved for copies of all correspondence
in reference to the conduct st Thomas Young Prior,
Esq. (a magistrate of the county of Galway), with his
Exount et
hn
-issued 13,,, the said Thomas Young
Prior, Esq., in June last, for the committal of prisoners
ton;
jouf
lyIr,e11a8n5(01,; ournwd iathlsot,bao
cye lnl
fe an cnyy twh
ae r
rLa on rt ds
Lords Justices, in theLmie
cop
to the Bridewell of Clifden, it the county of Galway.—
Agreed to.
EXPENSES OF POLICE IN LIMERICK.
Mr. SCULLY also moved for a return of the number
and the expenses of the police force in several baronies in
the county of Limerick.--Agreed to.
PAYMENTS DUE FR9%I BISHOPS TO TUE
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
Sir B. HALL moved for a return of copies of all cor-
respondence or communications between the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners and the Archbishop of York, the
Bishops of St. Asaph, Bath and Wells, and Ely, in re-
spect of the sums due froia such Archbishop and
Bishops to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as set forth
in the third and last report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners of England, page 54—viz., from the
Archbishop of York £2,317 14 2
Bishop of St. Asaph
... 1,661 0 10
Bishop of Bath and Wells ... 3,495 0 0
Bishop of Ely ... ... 9,242 7 3

Total „. ....£16,717 2 3
with the dates of such correspondence or communica-
tion, and the periods when the several sums were in all
or part payable, and any minutes of the Commissioners
thereon.—Agreed to.
REMOVAL OF WESTMINSTER-BRIDGE.
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to know what measures had
been taken by the Government to carry out the recom-
mendations of two Committees of the House with re-
spect to pulling down Westminster-bridge and selecting
anew site for the erection of a new bridge?
Lord SEYMOUR stated that at the close of the last
session a Committee was appointed to inquire into the
state of the present bridge, and to consider whether an-
other bridge ought not to be substituted for it, and whe-
ther the existing site was in all respects the most desir-
able. On the last subject the Government received such
conflicting evidence that they were satisfied they wore
i not n. possession of sufficient information to enable them
to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It was, therefore,
determined that a Committee of Inquiry should be ap-
pointed to ascertain whether the present or any
the site
namweesel(d)f thatb Committee.
be
most Com convenient for a new
bridge, and in a few days he would be able to state
ASSUMPTION_ OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TITLES
mi