The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-04 00:00:00

were making their way to this room, the ladies, now
entering for the concert, were trying to invade the
banquerting hall, now metamorphosing into a con-
cert-room• The fair invaders had, however, to be
prevented until the necessary changes were made, and
which were indeed effected with marvellous rapidity.
The concert did not begin before half-past eleven
o'clock ; but who would not wait until morning to
hear the unrivalled band of the Conservatoire ?

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD
REFORM ASSOCIATION.
(EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.)
Sir,—On Wednesday the 30th, the House in Com-
mittee was engaged with the Petty Sessions (Ireland)
Bill; a fruitfuCsubject, in which it was as much as conld
be expected, to have proceeded from Clause 5 to " re-
porting progress to sit again to-morrow."
On Thursday the Second Rending of what is called
the " Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No.
2) Bill," from the Lords, was carried by 45 votes against
34; thus demonstrating that there was a struggle upon
the question. There is nothing a man of any experience
dill more certainly have learned, than that he may
easily he wrong; and yet he cannot give up the privi-
lege of risking being %% rung when he has done his best
to be right. It certainly was heard represented, and
from sources commanding respect, that there was some
great enormity in this Bill; which was confirmed by the
tone taken by its opponents, who called it an " attempt
to impose upon the laity a certain price for the lands
which they held of the Church, and that price was to be
arbitrarily imposed by the bishops themselves"—(Sea
Times report). The image raised by this description,
is that of an uWortunate representative of the laity as
the graver of Punch might portray him, crouching with
purse-strings open, and ready to disburse the sum com-
manded by a swollen biskop in pontificalibus standing
over him. But on looking into the Bill, nothing of the
kind appeared to be discernible. It was a Bill to au-
thorize a certain existing body, to wit the Church
Estates Commissioners whoever that may be, to give
their consent and thereby legalize the execution of
agreements voluntarily made between two contracting
parties, to wit an Ecclesiastical Corporation on the one
side, and the present holders of leases from it on the other.
It is certainly difficult to see in this, anything to justify
the description of it quoted above. Put what seems to
be the extreme case, that the Commissioners and the
Ecclesiastical Corporations should be found to be the
same flesh, and it only amounts to this, that the Corpo-
rations shall have the power of snaking a composition
with the lessees when they like 14 ena when they do
not like it, may leave the lessees as they are. This would
no doubt have a one-sided appearance; but after all it
gives the Corporations no power over the lessees which
they have not already. The lessees could in no case
force a composition without the Corporation agreeing
to it. So that all which results, is the absence of the
power which might be supposed to forbid the execution
of some of the agreements on which both parties were
agreed. This may amount to something, but not at all
to the thing stated in the description quoted. One of
the first necessaries of life, is not to get into the habit
of being run away with by misrepresentations. Some
men may like bishops, and some may dislike them; but
whether they like them or not, there is a fair play whose
prico is proverbially like that of rubies.
Much puzzle was attempted to be raised upon mention
made of certain Rules to be laid down for the guidance
of the Commissioners; and the line taken, was to con-
found these rules with something to which the lessee
was, will he nill he, to be forced to agree. Now there ap-
pears nothing to bear out this construction. The ob-
ject of the Rules, is to restrain the Commissioners from
giving their assent except upon terms fair to somebody
who has not yet been named; and that somebody is the
public. Suppose, for instance, it proved true, as ap-
pears to be suspected, that thero was too much of
corporal identity between the Commissioners and
the Bishops, and that the Commissioner-Bishops or
Commissioners and Bishops were found disposed
toj make aareements with the lessees having a ten-
dency to sacrifice the future revenues of the Church
for the interest of present incumbents,—which it
is not impossible they might be tempted to, among other
things as well knowing that the end would be a demand
on the public to come forward and pay for more Church
when wanted;—is there no visible use in Rules to pro-
vide something like a check upon such proceedings in
posse? The public must look to this, and not be run
away with by a simple misstatement, if it is one, of the
bearing of the Rules.
On Friday, from mere desire of information, like the
man in the play who asks his friend if he has such a
thing as eightpence about him, I took the opportunity
of the re-appearance of the Bill to ask whether this view
was right or not. And the result was, that it was de-
clared as distinctly as Parliamentary usages could make
it, that this and nothing else was the object of the Bill.
So that if it turns out to be anything else, we are all of
us deluded gentlemen; and we must in self-defence look
sharply after the future stages.
On Saturday the House met for a little more than an
hour, for the furtherance of business, principally of a
formal nature.

I am, Sir, yours very bincerely,
AN OLD REFORMEIL

London, Aug. 4, 1851.

SPORTING NOTES.

No. XCVIII.