The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

MISSION BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this Bill
passed thr.ugh Committee.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
VICTORIA PARK BILL.

This Bill was read a third time.
FACULTY OF ADVOCATES IN SCOTLAND.
Thc +Earl of ABERDEEN asked if any communication
had taken place between the Government and the Faculty
of Advocates in Scotland on the subject of the attendance
in their Lordships' House of a member of the faculty as
assessor on the hearing of Scotch appeals?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to
reply that such communication had taken place, but no
decision had been come to.
PETITIONS.

The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented several peti-
tions in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several
petitions with a similar prayer; also a petition from
Brompton in favour of the continuance of the Crystal
Palace. The Noble Marquis declared himself warmly
in favour of the prayer of the petition.
Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions in fa-
vour of the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented upwards of twenty
petitions in favour of the preservation of the Crystal
Palace; among them was one from the inhabitants of
Kensington.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from
Edinburgh with a similar prayer.
Lord KINNAIRD presented petitions from Dundee
and Arbroath with a similar prayer.
Lord BROUGHTON presented a petition in favour of
the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
On the motion for bringing up the report on the Smith-
field Market Removal Bill,
Earl GRANVILLE then rose to move certain amend-
ments on the report of the Select Committee on this Bill.
His object was to obtain the omission of certain clauses
which bad been inserted in the Bill by the Select Com-
mittee, and the insertion of certain clauses which the Com-
mittee had struck out. He did not mean to impugn the
conduct of the Committee, but he must just say one word
on the mode of its constitution. It was a Committee
of five; and one of the five was either a Whig Member
of the House, or a Member of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and yet there was only a majority of one against
the view taken of the Bill by her Majesty's Ministers.
The clauses to which ho objected were those which di-
rected compensation to be given to the corporation of the
city of London. He thought that those clauses must
have been introduced inadvertently by the Committee;
and were, as he had already stated, only carried by is
majority of one. The Committee then thought
that there was no reason for retaining the optional
clauses of the Bill introduced by the House of
Commons, inasmuch as the corporation of London
had declared that it had no interest in Smithfield-
market, and had declined the option of managing the
new market, as tendered to them. Now, he thought
that it would be fairer to the corporation that the
compensation clauses should be omitted. and that the op-
tional clauses should be re-inserted. He hoped that no
member of the Committee would feel that be was acting
unfairly by them when he endeavoured to reverse their
decision; for, if their Lordships, on referring a Bill to a
Select Committee, were to be bound not to deviate from
its report, there was no occasion for having further
stages in the Bill. They would, indeed, be stultifying
themselves by such a decision, especially in such cases as
the present, where the report was carried by a narrow
majority of one. The other plea offered against his mo-
tion was, that the corporation had a charter, and that
their Lordships ought not to meddle with the vested
interests which they enjoyed under it. Now the corpo-
ration had stated that they had no interest in Smithfield-
market, and that they had not claimed compensation in
the House of Commons on that account. When he re-
minded their Lordships that the Bill had been passed by
a large majority in the House of Commons, and that it
was the universal opinion in both Houses that Smithfield-
market, as now conducted, was a public nuisance, he
thought that they ought not to pass the Bill in its pre-
sent state—which would insure its rejection in the House
of Commons during the present session—but:that they
should adopt his amendment, and restore the Bill to
the condition in which it was when it first reached
their Lordships.
The Earl of POWIS observed that these clauses had
been adopted by the Committee after due deliberation.
We considered whether the demand for compensation
was just, and, upon mature consideration, we thought
that the corporation had a claim to it. The judges had
been called is three times upon the point, and in conse-
quence of the opinion which they gave the compensa-
tion clauses were inserted in the Bill. If the reports of
your Committees are to be set aside in this manner, of
what value are they ? It would be a mere mockery to
sit in Committee hereafter. With respect to the privi-
leges of the House of Commons, of which these clauses
were said to be an infringement, there was plenty of
time, if the House of Commons would not waive the ob-
jection, to bring in another Bill this session and remove
the nuisance of this market. If you take away
markets in this way, without compensation either to in-
dividuals or corporate bodies interested in them, you
will do much to shake the security of all private pro-
perty.
The Bishop of OSSORY (we were told) also defended
the report of the Select Committee. The market
yielded 5,000/. a year to the corporation. He therefore
ceuld not understand how it could be said that the cor-
poration had no interest in it. He had said in the Com-
mittee that if compensation were not given he should
certainly feel himself bound to vote against the Bill.
The present would be the only instance in which corpo-
ration property was ever taken without compensation.
It had been said that Smithfield-market was a nuisance;
but their Lordships seemed to be unaware how much
had been and could be said in its favour.
The Earl of LONSDALE observed, that ever since
he had been in Parliament he had entertained but one
impression as to the nuisance of Smithfield-market. He
thought that the corporation of London ought to suffer
the penalty which it deserved for not having claimed
compensation, if it had any claim to it, in the House of
m 07.3 a alku
monthforits
until
Commons. This market had been voted a nuisance by
should
ldulwdou
both Houses of Parliament, and, instead of giving the
they removal,
rather corporationfi n them any c 5
o3P
re-
move it.—(Elear. hear, and laughter.)
The Earl of ELLENBORO UG II observed that when
he first came into their Lordships' House he had taken
the part of the corporation of London on this matter.
He recollected well that as he was leaving the House on
that occasion the late Earl of Liverpool stopped him and
said, " Let me, as an old Member, give you, who are a
young one, a little piece of advice. Never have any-
thing to do with the corporation of the city of London.
Its members are the greatest jobbers I have ever known
in the whole course of my political life."—(Cheers and
laughter.) The recollection of that anecdote would pre-
vent him from voting on either one side or the other on
this occasion.
Viscount SIDNEY stated that, as a member of the
Committee, ho had been of opinion that no case for com-
pensation had been made out by the corporation. He
should therefore give his vote in favour of the amend-
ment of the Noble Earl opposite (Granville).
The Marquis of SALISBURY considered that Par-
liament could not fairly or safely abrogate the charter
under which the city of London had for so many centu-
ries enjoyed the advantages resulting from this market,
without giving adequate compensation.
The Earl of HARROWBY supported the recommen-
dation of the Committee.
Lord BEAUMONT said, that when the Committee
declared the preamble of the Bill to be proved, the
charter was ipso facto abrogated. As to compensation,
the erased clauses of the Commons provided the amplest
compensation that the city could lay fair claim to. Do
not let it be forgotten that the charter was granted for
the public good, and not fur the private benefit of the
corporation purse.
Lord COLCHESTER considered that it would be a
dangerous precedent in a constitutional point of view to
withhold adequate compensation from any individual or
corporation deprived by an Act of Parliament of char-
tered rights.
Lord REDESDALE supported the compensation pro-
posed by the Lords' Committee.
Lord CRANWORTH said, that in point of fact and
of law, the corporation of London was entitled to no
compensation at all. It so happened that the charter, as
it was called, under which the corporation claimed, was
in reality an Act of Parliament of the reign of Edward
111. Had it been merely a Royal charter the corpora-
tion chartered would have been long since liable to have
its charter abrogated upon scire facial, as having alto-
gether failed to carry out the purposes for which that
charter was granted, and f)r having converted that
which was designed for a public good into a public nni-
sauce. All that the corporation could ask of Parliament
was to be equitably placed in the same position that it
was in before the passing of the Act, and this was am-
ply provided for by the clauses introduced by the Com-
mons, and now proposed to be restored.
Atter a few words from Lord BATHURST, which
were not heard in the gallery,
Earl GRANVILLE replied, and their Lordships then
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion of Lord Granville 59
Against it ... 15
Majority ... —44
Sections 37, 38, and 39, were ordered to be restored
and stand part of the Bill.
The report was then received.
THE LAND-TAX.
The Marquis of SALISBURY moved for copies of
any correspondence between tho Commissioners of
Landstax and the Boards of Revenue on the subject of
the land-tax from the year 1845 to the present time.
Agreed to.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Earl GRANVILLE moved that this Bill be read a
second time.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, that when he

addressed their Lordships on this subject on a former
occasion he was induced to hopo the Government would
reconsider the measure. He believed that, in conse-
quence of those observations, an alteration had been
made in one of the clauses to which he had more parti-
cularly called their attention; but the Government could
hardly be aware of the extent to which the revenue
would be affected by the inconsiderate manner in which
that clause had been framed. It would involve a loss for
the first three years of 120,0001. Then by the Bill
future pensions were to be granted on an average of the
last five years, to be determined by the Board of Trade.
In his opinion it would be better, in framing Acts of
Parliament, to ascertain distinctly what were a man's
rights, and not to leave them, except in cases of extreme
necessity, to any baard or any man at his discretion to
determine what they should be. No Bill touching on
financial matters should be p ,rmitt,d to pass the House
of Commons without the strictest inquiry as to its finan-
cial operation.
Earl GRANVILLE believed it to be utterly imprac-
ticable to have introduced a Bill, previous to the difficul-
ties of working it being ascertained, which would not
have required renewed legislation. It was true that
Mr. Fiulaison had shown it would have been cheaper to
have continued the present system than to wind it up,
but that continuance was impossible, because it implied
not only an advance from the Treasury, but increaaed
contributions by the seamen themselves, and that in-
crease they rejected. The object of the Government,
when they found that the old system trust be wound up,
was that the seamen should be put as much as pos-
sible in the same situation as they would have been in
had they continued under the old system, either as re-
ceivers of pensions or contributors, or rather in a better
situation.

The Bill was then read a second time.
The Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill and the Charitable In-
stitutions Notices Bill went through Committee.
The Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amend-
ment Bill and the Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland)
Bill were read a second time, the latter Bill with a view
of being amended.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSSE, certain returns
relating to arterial drainage under the Board of Works
in Ireland were ordered.
Their Lordships then adjourned.