The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-25 00:00:00

ettntina glut.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1851.

In the House of Lords last night,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for the papers
relating to the trial of JOTEE PERSHAIID, at Agra, went
into a lengthened statement of the services which 'TOTER
PERSRAUD had rendered, and complained of the unfair
treatment which he had suffered from the Indian Go-

vernment.
Lord BROUGHTON defended the conduct of the Indian
authorities, and consented to produce the papers.
The Registration of Assurances Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.
The Commons met at Twelve, when the Prevention of
Offences Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion for the third reading of the Smithfield
Market Removal Bill,
Mr. STAFFORD protested against the measure.
Mr. HUME moved that it be read a third time that
day six months. On a division, there appeared—
For the third reading ••• 81
Against it... ... ..• 32
Majority in favour of the Bill ~. —49
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Sir GEORGE GREY moved the second reading of the
Church Building Acts Amendment Bill.
Mr. HUME complained of the manner in which it was
attempted to hurry the Bill through the House. He
moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the amendment.
Sir B. HALL said the Bill was intended to increase the
patronage of the Bishop of LONDON.
Mr. PLUMPTRE would support the second reading,
but did not approve of the clause giving the measure a
retrospective operation.
Sir R. INGLIs supported the Bill, and defended the
Bishop of LONDON.
After some further discussion the debate was adjournedlu
to Friday, and the House adjourned until Six o ock .
In the evening sitting,
Mr. DISRAELI gave notice that on Monday next he
would move resolutions to the following effect, as an
amendment to the second Bill upon the paper for that
night:—" That, according to the estimate of the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, there will be a surplus of
revenue over expenditure amounting to about 2,000,0001.;
that in this revenue is included 5,000,0004 sterling, de-
rivable from the property and income tax, respecting
which an inquiry is now going on before a Committee
which may lead to important modifications of that tax;
and that in this provisional arrangeme,,t it appears to
the House more consistent, with a due regard to public
credit and the exigencies of the public service, not to
make any material sacrifice of income in effecting such
changes as might otherwise be deemed advisable in
other branches of taxation."
Mr. M. Gessoef moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the working of the system of warehousing
toreign goods in bond in Manchester, as it affects im-
porters, dealers, and consumers of goods liable to Cus-
toms duty, residing in Manchester and the neighbour-
ing towns; also, as to its effects on the Customs revenue,
and to report to the [louse as to the expediency or
otherwise of placing Manchester on en equal footing
with all bonded towns in the United Kingdom. The
Hon. Gentleman said that the CHANCELLOR of the Ex
CHEQUER had declared his intention to deprive Man-
chester of the privilege of bonding unless the whole of
the expenses were defrayed by the town, whereas in every
other bonded port in the kingdom they were defrayed
by the Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion. No other conditions hed been imposed on
Manchester than those which were imposed on every
inland town in the kingdom.
Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion.
Mr. CARDWELL contended that Manchester should
not repudiate the only condition upon which the privi-
leee of bonding had been extended to it—a condition
equally enforced against every inland town in England
which claimed a similar privilege.
After some observations from Mr. HUME, Mr. T.
EGERTON, Mr. LAISOUCHERE, Mr. BROTHERTON' Mr.
bPOONER, Mr. HEYWOOD, Mr. KERSHAW, and Lord
GALWAY,
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it ... ... 65
Majority ...
... —l5
Mr. FREWEN then moved the following resolution

" That it is desirable to extend the jurisdiction of the
Central Criminal Court to the whole of each county on
the Home Circuit." Should the resolution be oarried,
he did not propose that it should be acted upon this
session.
Sir G. GREY considered it undesirable to pledge the
H use on the subject, and
Mr. FREWEN consented to the motion being negatived
without a division.
Mr. H. HERBERT moved the following resolution:—
" That this House will, on a future day, resolve itself
into a Committee, to consider of an Address to her MA.
JESTY, praying that she will be graciously pleased to ex-
tend the same measure of relict to the depositors in the
late Rochdale, Scarborough, Tralee, and Killarney
Savings Banks as has been already extended to the de-
positors in t e late Cuffe-street. Dublin, Savings Bank."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not admit
the principle that, all loss's incurred oy the failure of
savings banks must be borne by the revenue, and should
therefore oppo‘e the motion.
Mr. REYNOLDS was so fully convinced of the moral
liability of the Government, that it was his intention to
ask for the remaining ten shillings in the pound, and for
the interest also, at the rate of five per cent.; so tat
the sooner the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER paid the
money the better for the public purse.
Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion.
Mr. HUME also supported the motion.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr.
SLANEY,
Colonol THOMPSON said he believed that in equity
these depositors had an indefeasible right upon the public
_

.£ g. d.

626 3 9
1,080 19 9

417 2 6
744 16 0
767 11 7
590 11 3
941 8 7
560 10 0
457 7 0
494 4 7
537 2 6
712 0 8