The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-05 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ings taken there can be any claim of damages
founded, and also that the pursuer had suffered severe
pecuniary loss. It was understood that the exhibition
of the picture did not pay ; and the notoriety which
it subsequently obtained from the defenders' proceed-
ings caused a large increase of visitors after the exhi-
bition was re-opened, which more than compensated
the pursuer for the temporary inconvenience to which
he had been put. The sole object of the defenders'
proceedings was the safe custody of the picture, until
the question of right should be determined.
The case went to trial on the following issues :
" 1. Whether, on or about the 31st day of January,
1849, the defendants wrongfully applied for and ob-
tained from the sheriff-substitute of the county
of Edinburgh the warrant set forth in a
schedule annexed, and wrongfully caused the same to
be executed, and the picture therein referred to to be
seized and removed from the custody or possession of
the pursuer, in virtue or under colour of the said
warrant, to the loss, injury, and damage of the
pursuer ?
"2. Whether the defenders wrongfully detained
and withheld the said picture, or caused the same to
he detained and withheld from the pursuer, from, on,
or about the said 31st of January, 1849, till on or
about the 17th day of Mirch following, to the loss,
injury, and damage of the pursuer ?"
Damages were laid at 5,0001.
On Saturday various witnesses were examined, and
counsel having been heard,
Lord Cowan charged the jury at considerable
length, after which they retired, and returned into
court with a verdict for the pursuer on both issues,
awarding damages to the amount of 1,0001., irrespec-
tive of solatium, which they did not take into consi-
deration.
The Solicitor-General took exceptian to a part of
the judge's charge, to the effect that the jury, in as-
sessing the damages, if they were of opinion that the
warrant was wrongously obtained, were entitled to
take into consideration the injury that the pursuer's
business had sustained, provided it had been proved
to their satisfaction that such injury flowed from
these proceedings
Counsel for the pursuer, John Inglis, Esq., and
George Young, Esq. ; Mr. James Lamond, agent.
Counsel for the defenders, the Solicitor-General
and E. D. Sandford, Esq. , Messrs. Inglis and Burn,
agents.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, August 4.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
CHANCERY REFORII.

The Earl of HARRINGTUN moved for certain
papers relating to reform in the Court of Chancery. Tho
Noble Earl in the course of his spoech contended that
the granting of law reform was absolutely neces,ary, not
only for the advantage of the suitors, but as a compensa-
tion to the landed interest for the repeal of the corn-laws.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE reminded the Noble
Earl that according to the rules of that House he could
not bring forward his motion without notice.

The Earl of HARRINGTON gave notice that he
would move for the papers to-morrow.

The Duke of RIC[III,IOND complained that a Bill
which had been sent down to the [louse of Commons
for doing away with a sinecure office had not been pro-
ceeded with, although three mouths had elapsed since it
had been sent down.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from Croydon for the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up
numerous Bills, which were respectively read a first
time.

Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition from Honi-
ton, praying for the retention of the Crystal Palace.
Lord BEAUII.ONr presented several petitions frcm
Yorkshire with a similar prayer.

The Earl of MAL AIES-BURY presented several
petitions with a similar prayer, but ho thought that if
any agreement had been entered into for its removal it
ought to be removed. He saw nothing in the architec•
tural character of it to call for its retention, and he
could not see what interest persons residing in the
country could have in its retention. Also a petition
from Worthing praying that that town might not bo in-
cluded in the Health of Towns Bill. He thought it
would be advisable that the town of Worthing should
be excluded from the operation of the Health of Towns
Bill.

The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Worthing, s!ating that the drainage
was most defective, that the smells and odours left upon
the beach in consequence of the defective drainage were
most offensive, and praying that Worthing might be in-
cluded in the Bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that the majority
of the rate-payers were against the Health of Towns Bill.
After a few words from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY and
Lord FOLEY,

Lord BEAUMONT said he was sorry to see that the
Board of Health was adopting a course which rendered
them generally unpopular. They ought to come forward
with a general Bill instead of adopting a bit-by-bit legis-
lation.
The Earl of CAB,LISLE explained.

The Earl of SHAF TESBURY said that it was no
fault of the Board of Health► that the system had been
adopted of which the Noble Lord complained.
After some further conversation,
The Earl of HARROWBY presented a petition from
Blackburn against the Bill, and praying that it might be
referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 2 A) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,

_
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petitim
from Hertford. praying to be exempted from the opera-
tion of the Bill. The Noble Marquis then proceeded to
oppose the Bill on general grounds, and particularly
with reference to its effect on the town of Hertford.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY protested against
the hasty manner in which the Bill had boen forced u?on
towns the populations of which were altogether oppcsed
to its application to themselves. In one case, both the
representatives of a town had voted against it, and yet
that very town was included in a Bill thus sent up to
their Lordships within three days of its prorogation.
The Earl of WALDEGRAVE rose to present peti-
tions from Bristol and Hull against the Bill, but Wai in-
formed that he could not do so consistently with the
rules of the House. Tne Noble Earl then proceeded to
oppose the Bill.
Lord REDESDALE said it would be gratifying to
the towns which were disinclined to receive the Bill, if
the Board of Health would not proceed further with
the Bill this session. At this late period it would be im-
possible to give it due consideration, and at all events all
the towns which objected to it ought to be excluded from
its operation.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY defended the applica-
tion of the Bill to Hertford. There was no town which
had greater need of sanitary reform.
Earl PO WIS urged the postponement of the Bill till
next session.

The Earl of CARLISLE admitted that there was somo
force in the argument with reference to the lateness of
the period, and was, therefore, inclined to recommend,
though with some reluctance, the exemption of Hem,
ford and Worthing from the operation of the Bill, But
there could be no objection to proceeding with the Bill,
if its operation were confined to those towns which did
not object to it.
After some conversation, _ _

The Earl of SHAF lESI%rRY consented to the ocurso
proposed, and
The Bill was read a second time.
EMIGRATION ADVANCES (DISTRESSED DIS-
TRICTS, SCOTLAND) BILL.
_ _

Earl MINTO moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE objected to the Bill,
because it was intended to divert funds raised last year
by the Government, under the sanction of an Act of
Parliament, fur the purpose of promoting the drainage
of lauds in England and Ireland.
After some further conversation,

The Bill was read a second time.
Lord MONTEAGLE said ho wished to ask the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies whether any in-
struction had been bent out to the Governor of the Cape
of Good Hope in respect to the constitution of thst
colony, subsequent to the papers already before the
House?

Earl GREY was understood to say that he was in
daily expectation of receiving a mail tram the Cape of
Goad Hope, and he thought that it would be extremely
inconvenient that ho should then make a statement with
respect to papers which he was not prepared to lay be-
fore the House.
METROPOLITAN INTERMENT BILL.

The Earl of CARLISLE haring moved the second
reading of this Bill,
The Bishop of LONDON said he regretted that some
comprehensive measure had not been introduced for the
prevention of intramural interment, but he thought
that no Bill ought to be adopted for the abolishing
that indecent practice without giving compensation
to the parties interested in the existing church-
yards. He was sure that their Lordships had no desire
to deprive the parochial clergy of the small pittance
which they received in the shape of burial fees, and
which formed in many instances their only livelihood,
without affording them some substitute for that loss. He
should take that opportunity of returning his thanks,
and the thanks of the clergy over whom he presided, to
the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for
his great efforts in carrying out sanitary improvements.
He had long believed—and the experience of every year
had only tended to confirm him in the impression—that
although they might build churches and establish
schools, they would do little good in the great towns
unless they could remove a considerable portion of the
evils which had sunk the labouring classes of this coun-
try into the lowest. depths of degradation, and which
had prevented them from obtaining access to the sources
of spiritual lire and consolation. He believed that one
of the most important objects that could engage the
attention of a Christian Legislature was the amelioration
of the physical condition of their poorer brethren, by
the improvement of their dwellings, and other measures
for extending their domestic enjoyments.
Earl GREY said, that he cordially concurred with
the Right Rev. Prelate in the tribute to the Noble Earl
opposite for his services in the cause of sanitary reform;
and he also concurred with him in regretting that some
effectual measure had not been adopted at an earlier
period fur the prevention of intramural interment; but
he hoped that their Lordships would withhold their opi-
nion as to the conduct of the Government in the
matter until the papers with respect to it should have
been laid before the House.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said ho feared that
the Bill would not effectually insure the objects for which
it had been framed. He wished to take that opportunity
of protesting against a statement which had been made
upon the subject in another place by a member of the
Government. It had been said that the Board of Health
had asked for a sum of money, with a view to promote
extramural interment; but he could assure their Lord-
ships that that Board had not only not made any such
request, but that they had entirely disapproved of the
means by which it had been proposed that money should
be raised for the purpose. The Government themselves
had thought proper to entrust to the Board the arrange-
ments for the adoption of a system of extramural inter-
ment, and ho could assure their Lordships that the
members of that Board had had no pleasing task to per-
form, in spending a very considerable portion of their
time in inquiring into facts of the most revolting cha-
racter, and in collecting evidence which, although it
might seldom be read by the public, could never be for-
gotten by those who had heard it. The Board had cer-
tainly thought that, under these circumstances, the Go-
vernment would have given them an honest and con-
scientious support, and would have helped to extricate
them from difficulties which were not of their own crea-
tion, instead of contributing to accumulate upon them
public odium.
The Earl of CARLISLE said he could not go into
the consideration of what had taken place in the other
House, not knowing the circumstances under which any
observations might have been made; but ho could cur-
te.inly say no intentionally disrespectful remark towards
his Noble Friend had been used by him. Indeed it
would be impossible to watch the course of the public life
of his Noble Friend, and not acknowledge how much
was duo to his exertions in the cause of sanitary reform;
and whatever were the result of the present Bill, he (the
Earl of Carlisle) could not forget what benefit his Noble
Friend and his colleligues had conferred on the cause of
the public health.—(Bear, hear.) Very few could be
aware of the great difficulties which existed in the way
of bringing that Act into operation. The public were
often disposed to urge upon Government to take up cer-
tain measures, and then when difficulties started up the
public were too often apt to become not only lukewarm
in their support, but oven opponents to the Government.
As to the present measure, notwithstanding all the diffi-
culties which surrounded it, the advantages in the end
would be found so great that it would ultimately be suc-
ceesful.
The Earl of HARROWBY said it did not appear to
the House what were the advantages to be derived from
that Bill. It would put the Board of Healthfee-ward as
a trading company, but the question remained to be
solved, was it desirable to put the Board of Health in
that position? He thought they should have a more
dibtinA statement of the advantage which were expected

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 5, 1851.