The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-01 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 31.
Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

The House then went into-Committee On this Bill.

---
Mr. SCULLY urged the Government not to proceed
further with this Bill, and moved that the Chairman do
now leave the chair.
Sir R. FERGUSON also thought it was a waste of
time to go on with the Bill.
Lord NAAS, on the other hand, hoped Government
would persevere with the Bill.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE declined to accede to the
appeal which had bee❑ made to him, and insisted that
the Bill was one of great importance to Ireland, while
its principle had been twice adopted, once last year and
once this. _ _

Mr. M'CULLAGH retorted that tho adoption was
agreed to without discussion, and he therefore contended
that the Bill ought to be delayed for another session.
Mr. CONOLLY was favourable to proceeding with
the Bill.

Mr. B. OSBORNE thought on public grounds one
ma4istrale was not sufficient to adjudicate in the cases
which this Bill provided for.
Sir H. W. BARRON was a supporter of the one ma-
gistrate clause, because it would assist the poor man in
obtaining justice. At present the magistrates in Ireland
ware so much iu debt that they were unable to leave
their homes, and the consequence was a virtual denial of
justice to the poor man, who often arrived in the police-
court to find only one magistrate in attendance; and, as
by the existing law his case required two, he was com-
pelled to put up with the trouble and expense of a post-
ponement.
Mr. WAKLEY considered the clause was atrocious.
No one man ought to have the power of imprisoning
another for twelve months in the manner which the Bill
provided, and he trusted the clause which gave the power
would be expunged from the Bill. The existence of
such a power was only calculated to inspire the poor
with feelings of hatred towards the rich.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was a useless waste of time to discuss the details before
the Committee had decided whether they would go on
with the Bill or not.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE said the Government were not
acting friendly towards the magistracy of Ireland in
placing the onus on them of deciding singly in the cases
embraced by this Bill. In England neither the people
nor the magistracy would submit to it.
Captain SCOI3ELL recognised no distinction between
Ireland and Great Britain. Now he knew of no statute

which gave such a power to a single magistrate in Eng-
land, and in these days of Liberalism he saw no reason
for extending it to the sister kingdom. He should,
therefore, oppose it, even at the expense of sacrificing
the Bill, which was otherwise a very useful one.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was understood to say that
in Ireland a single magistrate never exercised the power
of imprisoning to: twelve months.
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the clause. It would be
a great inconvenience to the people of Ireland to force
them to put off their cases from time to time until they
could secure the attendance of two magistrates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be a pity to sacrifice the rest of the Bill for the
sake of the clause, and if the Committee would consent
to proceed with the Bill, he would on the report with-
' draw the second section of clause 10, which gave the
objectionable power to one magistrate.
After some further discussion the proposal of the
Government was assented to, and the motion for leaving
the chair was withdrawn.

The Bill then went through Committee, and the
House having resumed, the Chairman reported accord-
ingly, and the report was ordered to be received to-

morrow.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS' REGULATION
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 3) BILL.
This Bill was passed through Committee.
CROWN ESTATES PAVING BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 4) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
The House adjourned at Quarter-past Three o'clock
until a Quarter-past Five.

The House resumed at a Quarter-past Five.
Sir B. HALL presented al petition from Marylebone,
signed by 14,000 persons, against the removal of the
Crystal Palace.
Several petitions were presented to the same effect.
Mr. CARD YELL presented a petition from Liver-
pool in favour of the Church Buildings Extension Amend-
ment Act.

THE NEW HOUSE.
Mr. GREENE said he was instructed by Dr. Reid
to intimate that any deficiency, in ventilation which had
been experienced in the new House was not owing to
any failure in the apparatus, which in fact had not yet
been fully prepared.
THE EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES

MANAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to going on with a Bill
of this importance at so late a period of the session. The
attempt to smuggle it through was certainly very suspi-
cious. He thought it was unbecoming, to say the least of it,
for the Government to persist in pressing it forward. He
should, therefore, take the sense of the House upon the
question that this Bill be read a second time this day six
months.
Sir B. HALL thought that before they went on with
this Bill they ought to have an explanation from the
Government of what was the real opinion of the Com-
missioners who had been appointed to inquire into the
subject, since the Bill was certainly not founded on the
report which they had presented.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not see what objection there could be to the present Bill,
since every improvement which it proposed was not
for the benefit of any particular bishop, but for the
Church in general. The scheme of the Bill was in
his opinion a far better scheme than the one
recommended by the Commissioners.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that, though he was fully alive
to the importance of putting all the bishops on a footing
of certainty and equality, still he hoped that those who
had charge of the Bill would not press forward with
indecent haste to carry this measure of so great im-
portance. It was said that it was only permissive.
Why that he thought was the worst part of it. It
should be borne in mind that there were two parties, the
lessor and the lessee, and by some of the provisions of
this Bill -the interests of the poorer lessee would be alto-
gether disregarded. He, therefore, thought it better to
postpone the Bill till next session.
Mr. SPOONER considered that the measure would be
useful, and agreed with its principles, but he objected to
the details of it.
Mr. MULLINS was perfectly of the same opinion as
the lion. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
Mr. CARD WELL objected to'pressing the Bill at this
late period of the session. He agreed with the principle
of the Bill, as it would tend to increase the revenue of
the, Church, and to throw that revenue into a common
fund.
Mr. ANSTEY hoped that the Bill would not bo with-
drawn this session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no pledge of his Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary
for the Home Department, could apply to this bill. for
his Right Hen, Friend had not been in the House since
it had been brought forward.

Mr. CARTER gave a qualified support to the Bill,
which ho considered required considerable improvement
in various details affecting lessees.
Sir 'l'. COLEBROOKE doubted the propriety of
passing a Bill of this kind, without its having some defi-
nite principle laid dow as to the conditions on which the
cominuniation of fines should b,) made. _ _

The SOLICIT6i-GIN—FTRAL said the objections to
the Bill appeared to be against its details, and not
against its principle; and on the second reading of the
Bill it was bardiy fair to discuss the clauses. The prin-
ciple was, to enable parties to effect an enfranchisement
of holdings, if they so desired; so that there might be
an actual sale and parting with the property. The mea-