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

EVENING, AUGUST 1, 1851.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 31.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat upon tho Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES (IRELAND)
BILL.

Lord REDESDALE brought up the report on this
Bill.

PETITIONS.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented several
petitions from places in Ireland in favour of the Eccle-
.

siastical Titles Assumption Bill.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several petitions
in favour of the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND)

ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third read-
ing of this Bill. '
After a few observations from the Marquis of Donegal
Lord Beaumont, and Lord Monteagle, the Bill was read

a third time and passed.
MERCANTILE MARINE ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this Bill was

passed through Committee.
STOCK-IN-TRADE BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of this

The Earl of MALMESBURY did not intend to op-

lose the third reading of the Bill, but he could not stif-

ker it to pass without-a
few observations. This Bill was
regularly introduced every year, and passed almost as a
matter of course. Yet it was clear that stock in trade
was liable to be rated to the poor-rates, but that the
difficulties in the way of rating it were such that
it was necessary to introduce this Bill every year.
The consequence was, that the burden of maintaining
the poor tell upon the real property of the country.
All the ameliorations which had recently taken place
had been for the benefit of persons engaged in trade,
and who, by this Bill, were also exempted
from the burden of maintaining the poor, and
it was the duty of the Government to propose such
alterations in the law of parochial settlement as would give
to the landed interest that relief from parochial burdens
to which they were entitled. A Bill regulating parochial
settlement had been promised by the Government, but
had not been brought forward; and he should like to hear
from some member of the Government a reason why

this Bill had not been brought forward. The agricultu-
ral class had by free trade suffered a depreciation of their
property of 15 per cent., and yet the burdens of the poor
fell exclusively upon that class.
Earl GREY said that a Bill on the subject of paro-
chial assessment had long been drawn up, but it could
only be introduced into ate other House of Parliament,
and there had been no opportunity during the present
session of introducing it with any prospect of passing it,
for there was no subject on which such a variety of
opinions existed as on the law of settlement, yet
he acknowledged that there was no law which
stood in greater need of amendment than that law. He
would not, however, refrain from reminding his Noble
Friend that year after year the proportion of these bur-
dens borne by the landlord WAS rapidly diminishing,
and that great relief from these burdens had been already
afforded to the landed interest.
The Marquis of SALISBURY expressed a hope
that the Bili to be introduced upon that subject next
session would not be ono of a merely temporary

character.
After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
The Bill was read a third titno and passel
THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having muved the third
reading of this Bill,
The Earl of MALMESBURY said be thought they
would not he treai.ing the other Houae fairly by sending
down to that House a Bill of that importance, with not
less than ninety clauses, within four or five days of its
close of the session. He believed that thoir Lordships
would not give assent to a Bill brought before them

under similar circumstances.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed a hope the
their Lordships would assent to the Bill, which he
looked upon as ono of a very valuable character, and
the merits of which had already been fatly canvassed.
He thought it likely that the other House would adopt
the measure; and he further believed that their Lord-
ships ought to pass it whatever might be its fate else-
where.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that he thought
her Majesty's Government must have been guilty of
what he should call inexcusable carelessness in not
having brought forward that measure at an earlier
period of the session. Why, he would.ask, had it not
been introduced in that House during the first three
months cf the session, when their Lordships had had
little or no business of any kind to discharge?
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that as a member of the
Commission that had inquired into that subject, he could
state that the Bill had not been brought under the con-
sideration of the Government until after the commence-
ment of the session.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that he thought
his Noble Friend whe had preceded him had taken
blame to himself, and that if the Commission had been
as diligent as it ought to have been, the Bill could
have been brought before Parliament at an earlier period
of the session. Ho believed that if the House of Com-
mons were to do their duty to their constituents, they
would not pass the measure during the present session.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COM-
MITITE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this Bill, said that as considerable arrears had
taken placo in the appeal business before the Court of
Chancery it had been thought desirable to increase the
judicial staff for dealing with that business. The means
which had at first been suggested for carrying out that
object had led to considerable difference of opinion; but
after much discussion and consideration the present Bill
had been brought forward, and had been fortunate enough
to receive the approbation of all those whose attention
had been directed to the subject. The main object of
the Bill wee to create new judges for hearing appeal
cases, and it would also provide that those judges should
be members of the Judicial Committee. The duties of
that Committee had become exceedingly important, and
it had therefore been thought desirable that its members
should receive the aid of the new judges when these
judges should not be engaged in the Court of Chan-
cery. The Bill did not deal with the general question
of the administration of justice in that court, and their
Lordships were no doubt aware that a Commission
which had recently been appointed was at present en-
gaged in investigating that important subject. He was
authorised to state that a Noble and Learned Lord (Lord
Lyndhurst, we believe), on whose opinion the House de-
servedly set a very high value, decidedly approved of
the Bill then under their Lordships' consideration, and
that it had also met with the approval of another Noble
and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham, we believe) then
absent from indisposition. All those legal gentlemen,
who had given an opinion upon the subject, had also
expressed themselves in favour of the measure. He
trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would see no
reason to refuse their assent to the second reading of the
Bill. He would take that opportunity of correcting an
erroneous impression which very generally prevailed, to
the effect that
hardly any attempt had been made in re-
cent times to improve the administration of justice in the
Court of Chancery. The truth was that for a period of
more than 20 years the attention of the heads of that
court had been constantly directed to that subject, and
that a series of great improvements had been the result of
those labours. In the year 1824 Lord Eldon, who had
at that time been
.Lord Chancellor, had caused a Com-
mission to be appointed for the purpose of inquiring ge-
nerally into the practice of the Court of Chancery, and
that Commission, which had consisted of between twenty
and thirty legal gentlemen of the highest distinction,
after an inquiry which had lasted two years, had pro-
duced, as the result of its labours, an immense folio
volume, containing a vast number of most useful sug-
gestions. In the year 1827 Lord Lyndhurst had suc-
ceeded to the office of Lord Chancellor, and that Noble
and Learned Lord, after having directed his attention to
the report of the Commission appointed under Lord
Eldon, had in the year 1828 issued a number of orders
for expediting and cheapening business in the Court of
Chancery. In the year 1830 an Act had been passed
for the purpose of improving th© jurisdiction of that
court, and also for the purpose of amending the prac-
tice of the court in regard to commitments for con-
tempt. That latter measure, which was known as Sir E.
Sugden's Act, had very much mitigated the severity of
the law in relation to those commitments. In the year
1832, Lord Brougham had become Lord Chancellor, and
in the year 1833 that Noble and Learned Lord had is-
sued a great number of orders for improving the practice
of the Court. There had been issued altogether, since
the Great Seal had been committed to Lord Lyndhurst,
not less than between 500 or 600 orders for the accom-
plishment of the same object. In the year 1840, Lord
Cottenham had issued an additional number of those
orders. Since that time three or four
.ActsofParliament
had been passed for the purpose of diminishing the ex-
pense of suits in the Court of Chancery, and of facilitat-
ing the transaction of business in that Court. When he
(the Lord Chancellor) had last year been raised to the
office which he had then the honour to fill he had issued
30 or 40 orders; and he believed that no one was more
justice
ought than he was that the administration of
ought to be improved to the utmost pea:able extent. A
committee, consisting of seven or eight legal gentlemen,
had some time since been appointed for the purpose of
inquiring into the best means of improving the ad-
ministration of justice in the Court of Chancery; and
to that commission there had lately been added, on
the recommendation of the House of Commons, two lay
gentlemen, whose labours, in co-operation with those
of members of the legal profession, would, he trusted,
lead to the most valuable results. Much, no doubt, still
remained to be done for the improvement of the Court of
Chancery; but the complaint that nothing had hithertp
been done fur the attainment of that object was utterly
unfounded. He believed that the only ground for sur-
prise was that so much had been done in that way, in
spite of the great complexity and extent of the interests
with which the Court of Chancery had to deal. All the
former commissions which had inquired into that sub-
ject had been authorised to deal merely with the prac-
tice of the Court, while the present col 'emission would
also address itself to the jurisdiction of the Court, with a
view to ascertain what alterations might with advantage
be effected in that jurisdiction. He believed that the
Bill then before them would be productive of consider-
able advantpge, by adding to the appellat a force in the
Court of Chancery, and by enabling the Lord Chancel-
lor to give more of his attention than he c Duld heretofore
have given to the business which cams before their
Lordships. He trusted that, under these circumstances,
they would have no hesitation in assenting to the second
reading of the measure.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he believed it was well
known that although his Noble and Learned Friend then.
absent from the House (Lord Lyndhurst
i) approved of
the Bill as far as it went, be regarded t as merely a

small step in the right direction. There was one ifnpor-
tanitpoint to which he (the E,3.rl of Aberdeen) wished
to call the special attervion of their Lordships. Moro
than two-thirds of the appeal cases which were brought
before the House came from Scotland. Now under all
the circumstances of the case it was surprising how well
the cases were disposed of, and he believed that the de-
cisions with respect to them had given on the whole
very great satisfaction. But still the state of appeals
from Scotland was not altogether unobjectionable. He
had no doubt but the Noble and Learned Lord en the
woolsack would do all that could be done to effect reform
in that particular branch of the administration of justice.
The mode in which the English judges had adminis-
tered the law on appeals from Scotland, it was admitted,
had given general satisfaction to that country. But
there was one point particularly to which he wished to
direct consideration, and that was the manlier in which
appeals in some instances stayed execution of the sen-
tence. He beUeved that up to some years ago the same
was the case n England; but in Scotland the fact of
appeals stopping the execution of the sentence gave en-
couragement, in many instances, to the entering of ap-
peals. He thought the suggestions which he had thrown
out were worthy the Noble and Learned Lord's con-
sideration.
Lord CRANWORTH said he did not think they could
venture to make any change in the practice of an appeal
from the Court of Session, Scotland, to that House,
without great danger; and more especially as the admi-
nistration of justice in that place had been acknowledged
to give unmixed satisfaction in Scotland. His own ex-
perience fully satisfied him that the general principles of
the laws of different countries differed much less than
was supposed. The appeals from Scotland, as now con-
ducted, gave general satisfaction, and he did not think
any great change could be effected with advantage. Com-
plicated inquiries into property, and the administration of
justice with respect to important and varied claims,
would alvvay bo tedious and expensive, and that was no
reason why they should not do all they could to make
such improvements as the circumstances of the case
permitted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in briefly replying, ob-
served that not long since a deputation from Scotland
had waited on him on the subject of the anomaly of the
law between the two countries in the matter of appeal,
but all the suggestions which had been made by the Fa-
culty of Advocates and others had been inefficacious to
afford a practical remedy, and so matters stood as they
had been. The suggestion, however, of the Noble Earl
with respect to the staying of execution was worth at-
tention, and should receive his serious consideration.
The Bill then before the House would cause a great im-
provement in the administration of justice in the Court
of Chancery here.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
bo committed.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of the above Bill, the objects of which he briefly
stated. One of the objects of the Bill was to secure
medical advice and assistance to poor persons in places
where the present state of the law would leave them
totally unprovided unless a certain amount of local sub-
scriptions should have been contributed. It was proposed
to put all the medical charities under the supervision of
a central board, and to constitute the Poor-law Commis-
sioners that controlling power. The country was to be
subdivided into districts for the purposes et the Act.
The motion was understood to have been put and
agreed to.
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
Lord MONTEAGLE begged to ask a few questions
of a Noble Earl whom he saw in his place, or his Noble
Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on a
subject of the greatest importance, and upon which it
was fitting some more definite information should be
conveyed to the House than ha.l been already laid before
it. His questions related to interments in the metropo-
lis, a matter of so much consequence that her Mujesty
had alluded to it in the Royal Speech at the close or last
session. After referring to the Act of last session, and
a report describing the unwholesomeness and dangerous
condition of some of the churchyards of the metropolis,
the Noble Lord asked his Noble Friend opposite (the
Earl of Shaftsbury) what had been the cause of the de-
lay in carrying out the Act—what steps had been taken
to put the Bill of last year in force, or whether matters
were to be lett iu their present position?
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he felt very deeply
the delay which had occurred between the passing of
the Act referred to and its being carried into full opera-
tion, because the statements made of the condition of
many localities in this vast and crowded metropolis were
by no means exaggerated. Every day's experience con-
vinced the Board of Health of the wisdom and practical
utility of the measure which had been carried. The
Board of Health had been charged with neglect and de-
lay, but he could fully rebut that accusation by a brief
statement of the progress of their proceedings since the
Act first passed. On the very day it received the Royal
assent the board had met to take proceedings under it, and
they had published advertisementsgiving all the necessary
notices to parties interested, in order that they might
not be taken by surprise. They had extended the time of
notice from six weeks to two months. Some members
of the board had then gone to Paris, for the purpose of
obtaining all the information they could on the subject,
and had then put themselves in commnnication with the
cemetery companies of London, as required by the Act ;
but these companies had refused to give them any docu-
ments or any information by which they might arrive at
an estimate of their probable valuation. They had sub-
divided the metropolis also into districts, and made all
the arrangements necessary for carrying the Act iota
operation. On the 23d of November the board had pre,
pared a full scheme for bringing the Act into force,
which they had laid before the Treasury. Every one
had approved, not only of the necessity, but the practi-
cability of the plan suggested, which involved the ex-
pediency of the inamedatto purchase of all the ceme-
tsries. No reply had been received to that proposal
until tile 22d of January, upon which a correspond-
ence had taken place, and on the 20th of March the
board had received permission to proceed as they had
suggested, but they were recommended to purchase
the cemeteries not altogether, but separately: They had
then served notice on one of those companies, and the
most tedious proceedings which the Act sanctioned had
bean adopted, and these were at the present moment
going on. Up to the moment at which he was address-
ing their Lordships the awards had not been made. In
the meantime the board proceeded to take estimates for
new cemeteries, and on the 28th of April were commis-
sioned by the Treasury to purchase ground. On the
13th of May the board applied to the Treasury for per-
mission to contract a loan from the Guardian Assurance
Company, and obtained their permission, but they did
not receive the answer of that company till the 18th of
June, when they declined to lend any money to a body
whose existence was limited to a period of five years. On
the 9th of June permission was obtained to negotiate a
loan with the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, but
no answer was received till the 24th, when they said the
security was not sufficient. On the 3d of July copies of
the letters from the directors of the Royal Exchange So-
ciety were sent to the Treasury. On the 10th a final an-
swer was received from the directors, and was forwarded
to the Treasury. Not a moment, he undertook to say, had
been wasted by the board. The proposal made by the board
was that they should have a commission with a permanent
existence and complete control over all funerals. The
Government altered that plan by referring that part
of the proposal to the Board of Health, and by intro-
ducing a clause with respect to the second part, which
left the plan open to the objections of the Royal Ex-
change Company; and yet the board were told that it
was in consequence of their neglect and of the crudeness
of their scheme that all these difficulties had occurred.
He was never more surprised in his life than he was
when informed that a high authority in the Govern-
ment considered the scheme .a bad one. He declared
solemnly that he had never heard from any member of
the Government that they considered the scheme a bad
scheme. Tho board had communicated the difficulties
the very instant they were brought to their knowledge;
and he maintained that it was not owing to the board
that the delays had occurred. He did not care one
straw for any attack made on himself in consequence of
the part he had taken in administering the Act, but he
must say, in defence of his two colleagues, Mr. Chad-
wick and Dr. Southwood Smith, that he never knew two
more diligent, upright, and intelligent men than they
were. They had not been defended by those who could
have spoken on their behalf, and he felt for them what ho
did not feel or care about as regarded himself. In justice
to himself, to his colleagues, to the board, and to the
public, he maintained there ought to be laid on the
table a full and authentic copy of all the correspondence
on the subject, and then it would be seen whether the
Board of Health were justly to be blamed.
The Earl of CARLISLE did not mean to enter into
the merits of the question, because he was not cognizant
of all the different negotiations and transactions which
had taken place between the Board of Health and the
Treasury. With reference to any expression which
might have fallen from the high authority referred to by
the Noble Earl, he was willing to hope that some misap-
prehension existed, because he knew that the members
of the Government generally were most anxious for the
success of this measure, to which they themselves had
been parties. For himself, he bad stated his deep re-
gret that circumstances had hitherto prevented a more
rapid progress being made. He needed not to acquaint
the Noble Earl of the circumstances which had interfered
with public business in the other House, and which had
prevented the introduction of various measur
would have
oneave
t on
this subject, among others—
been otherwise
ovesome
ef introduced.th He
difficulties,
believede
tthhoant
gahDhi
ell
fcalculated
Noble
m-
Earl would not think it calculated to remove age he
dif-
ficulties, was actually in progress through the other
House. With regard to the board, it was well known it
had most obnoxious duties to perform—that it had to
aliattentio
amntooulnst of
ehes, and per-
hapsbe the e d
no membersothr
urraend c
da considerable obloquy,
point
ito uhtadin defectso
e
but that obloquy, he was convinced, it had incurred in
consequence of the straightforward discharge of the du-
ties entrusted claimromHeedrridor,nobtuth
for
persofiotns could have been found who would have more
exemption from
zealously devoted themselves to the management of
all those interests with which Parliament had entrusted
them.
The Earl of HARROWBY thought the Government
were to blame for not having come forward to defend
ther.w were
rmememberss t of
afe
nt
dhGes Board
in
nnf tt er awl theirt
thl,,L
to
de
carry"sbheilpi7oefuldto tut, hhs eee
Act, but he had good reason to believe that other mem-
bers of the Government had takes opportunities, not to
promote the measure, but to throw difficulties in the way
of it. He wished to know whether there would be any
objection to the production of the Treasury minutes on
the subject.
Earl GREY said that the Noble Eerl had pronouncerl
a severe ceoeust. on some members of tne GoverntmAii,
but he submitted that such charges ought not to have
been made, except at the proper time—after notice, end
with full information on the table. With regard to the

production of the minutes, he could not give a positive
answer without communicating with the members of
the Government in connexion wifh the board. He did I
not think there would be any objection to the produc-
tion
of them, but thought that, if produced, other papers
would require to be produced at the same time. No I
ono was more persuaded than he was of the good inten-
tions of the members of the board, but he doubted
whether, in their eagerness to accomplish a great re-
form, they had not a little too much neglected minor
advantages which might have bean immediately ob-
tained. Upon that point he was not prepared to offer
a positive opinion.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought the explanation of the
Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) fully
acquitted him of any charge of having neglected his
duties. .

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose to move for a return of
the names of the inspectors appointed under the Act of
last session for the inspection of collieries, together with
the districts and salaries assigned to them, and the in-
structions issued for their guidance. Ile believed that
under that Act thirty inspectors had been appointed;
that salaries had been assigned to them—their districts
marked out, and that they had for some time been occu-
pied in the discharge of their duties. As the Commit-
tee had recommended that the greatest publicity should
be given to all information regarding the management
of mines and collieries, he wished to know if Govern-
ment were prepared to produce any, and to lay on the
table this session whatever information they had re-
ceived on the subject in the shape of reports from the
inspectors.
The Earl of CARLISLE said he had no objection to
the motion. The inspector; were to report at the end of
a year, but that period of time had not elapsed since their
appointment. The Government, however, anxious to ob-
tain no much information on the subject as vesible, had
directed the inspectors to prepare a general report
from the date of their appointment to the 24th June.
Two reports had been received, and two more were ex-
pected in a few days. He had no objection to lay the
two which had been received on the table. He was
happy to say that considerable good had been effected
since the appointment of the inspectors. The proprie-
tors of mines and collieries had received their visits with
great goodwill, and had promptly complied with their
suggestions.
Earl NELSON presented petitions in favour of the
preservation of the Crystal Palace.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Ecclesiastical Property Retention (Ireland) was read
a third time and passed.
The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then presented a pe-
tition from the Associated Law Society, praying that
the salaries of the judges might be paid out of the Con-
solidated Fund instead of out of the Suitors' Feo Fund.
Adjourned.

110 USE 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
Zurther 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 NA AS, on daft other hand, hoped Government
would persevere with the Bill.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE declined to accede to the
appeal which had been 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'CULLAG II retorted that the 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
magistrate 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
were so much in 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, ho 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 raagistraey would submit to it.
Captain SCOBELL 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 sist©r kingdom. He should,
therefore, oppose it, even at the expense of sacrificing
the Bill, v: inch was ~therwite a very ..et'ul one.,
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was understood to nay that
in Ireland a single magistrate never exercised the power
of imprisoning for twelve months.
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the clause. It would bo
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 oonsent
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 a petition from l‘larylobone,
signed by 14,000 persons, against the removal of the
Crystal Palace.
Several petitions were presented to the same effect.
Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition from Liver.
pool in favour of the Church 13ui.ldings Extension Amend
ment Act.

THE NEW lIOUSE.
Mr. GREENE said he was instructed by
Dr. Reid
co 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 C A_PITULAR ESTATES
MANAGEM.ENT (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 unbeconei
pressing ard.
should, therefore, take the sense of the House upon the
question that this Bill be read a .second time this day six
months.
ht that before they went on with
Sir 13. HALL thought
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 parfticular bishop, but for the
Church in general. The s&shemeof
the Bill was in
his opinion a far better scheme than the one
rs'
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 Hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
Mr. CARD WELL objected to pressing the Bill at this
late period of the session. He ag reed with the principle
of the Bill, as it would tend to it icrease the revenue of
the Church, and to throw that re venue 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 F 'riend, the Secre
bill . tar
fory
for the Home Department, could apply to this
his Right Hon, Friend had not been in the House since
it had been brought forward.
Mr. CARTER gave a qualified support to the Bill,
which he considered required considerable improvement
in various details affecting lessees.
Sir T. COLELIROOKE doubted the propriety of
' passing a Bill of this kind, w ithout its having some defi-
nite principle laid dow as to the conditions on which the
comenmicetion of fines should be invade.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the objections to
the Bill appeared to be against its details, and not
r! sdinP of s;2l
ageinet its principle; e eel en by colA
BM it Was hardly fair to discuss the clauses. The prin-
ciple was, to enable parties to effect ten enfranchisement
of holdings, if they so desired; se that there might be
an actual sale and partiug with the property. The DM.