The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-27 00:00:00

FUND.

Mr. John Mitchell
Mr. W. R. Sams Mr. Jules Benedict
Mr. Thomas Chappell Mr. A. Blumenthal
HONORARY TREASURERS.
, Mr: John Mitchell, 33, Old Bond-street
Mr. T. Chappell, 50, New Bond-street
Mr. W. R. Sams, 1, St. James's-street
BANKERS.
Messrs. Coutta and Co., Strand
Heywood, Kennards, and Co., Lombard-street
London and County Bank, Hanover-square
Who, as well as the honorary treasurers, have kindly con-
sented to receive subscriptions.
April 25th, 1800.

TEETEL —Mr. ESKELL, Surgeon-Dentist,
3(4, Regent-street, facing the Polytechnic, supplies his
PATENTED INCORRODIBLE TEETH, which can be
ma ched so clo . ely in shape and colour to those left in the
mouth, and are formed so exactly to nature, that the closest
observer cannot detect till difference, and in all cases they
restore perfect articulation and mastication. These teeth
are fixed from one to a comptete set upon Mr. Eskell's never-
failing and painless principle of self-adhesion, without ex-
tracting any teeth or stumps, or giving any pain whatever;
and being incorrodible they possess the superior advantage
of never changing colour nor decaying. Mr. Eskell's celebra-
ted Osseoplastic Enamel, po.t free for 30 stamps, for Stop-
ping Decayed Teeth, is a preparation which never changes
colour nor affects the colour of the tooth, and is free from any
Injurious properties either as regards the teeth or general
health. Its application is easily performed, and without
giving the slightest pain. Deficiencies of palate effectually
remedied. Loose teeth fastened. Teeth regulated. Disco-
loured teeth restored, &c. Hours 10 to 6. Consultation free.
Charges strictly moderate.-314, Regent-street, opposite the
Polytt.lchnic, London. Established 1847.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANC'BLLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. _ _

The Land Loan and Improvement Company's Bill, the
Lincoln Heath and Market Deeping Roads Bill, North
Staffordshire Railway Bill, and the Midland Railway (use
of railways in or near London) Bill, ;were read a second
time.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
Lord TEYNHAM introduced a bill for the extension of
the weights and measures bill, which was read a first time.
The noble lord also presented several petitions from Wool-
wich and other places in favour of the-bill.
CHURCH RATES. _ _

Earl DE GREY and RIPON presented a petition from
a place in Yorkshire in favour of the abolition of church
rates. _

The Earl of DERBY presented petitions from places in
Lancashire against the abolition of church rates.
MARRIAGE LAW.
, The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition
against any alteration in the law of marriage.
UNION OF.BTINEFICES BILL.
The Bishop of LONDON moved the second reading of
this bill. Its object was to remedy one of the principal
evils pointed out by a committee which considered the sub-
ject. There were a large number of parishes which had
once been very populous, hut had ceased to be so, though
they still possessed verty large endowments, the object for
which they had been made having ceased to exist. The bill
proposed that these funds might be made available for the
spiritual improvement of elle poor of an adjoining or poorer
parish. In the City of Lc natrion there were many such pa-
rishes, with populations -varying from between 800
or 900 persons, and it would be a source of
benefit if these large and wealthy parishes were made to
contribute for the spiritual relief of the larger but slen-
derly-endowed districts. Another of the benefits
the bill would bring about was an amalgama-
tion of various parishe as, and ensure the existence
of a parsonage house, and the residence in it of a clergy-
man, whereas under the• existing system the clergy-
man was compelled to :re side at a distance of some
miles from his parish, and in many cases the poverty of
the district was so great th at it was impossible for the
bishop to insist upon the, a rection of a parsonage house.
There were at present acts -of Parliament in existence by
which it was possible -to tax a rich parish for
the benefit of a poorer of to when the patronage of both
was vested in the same hands, but the state of things
in the City of London wa: r so complicat4d that the appli-
cation of those acts was r: mdered impossible. It was not
generally known that in the City, in spaces no larger
than Grosvenor-square, tl tee e was, in one instance, four,
and in another five churl :hos. By one of the provisions
of the bill it enabled the tal dL tg down certain churches. He
was aware that in this het was trenching on dangerous
ground, especially as there, -were such strenuous exertions
being made t• erect them. Ho was also aware of the out-
cry that would be made by' -persons who would look upon
the bill as one to destroy t) ie splendid specimens of the
genius of Wren and other g )at and eminent men, but such
would not be the case, for- , all those churches which had
any historical interest old still remain intact ; and
in any case where' one cl nt rch was taken down he had
no doubt another would Ito erected in a more populous
parish. Another objection .to the bill might be the removal
of the remains of the dead, which would produce infection,
as it was calculated that at Remst 48,000 tons of human re--
mains were under the city( 31fiu.rches. He assured their lord-
ships the bill provided forth te removal of the dead in a proper
and reverential manner aft(m an order in council had been
issued ; and as to the fear of infection, he thought the fears
on that head were somesthat; I exaggerated. It had been sup-
posed that the City benefice a were of a very wealthy nature ;
some, no doubt, were, but t 3 ie majority of them were, on
the contrary, very small. IV hat he should like to see was
that in the city of London. ti my should have small model
parishes, the duties of whi',ch would leave them leisure to
pursue theological learnin g. Looking at all the circum-
stances, ho hoped their I lordships would consent to the
second reading of the bill.
The Earl of CARNAR VON analysed several clauses of
the bill, which he consider led most objectionable, and said he
trusted their lordships wot tld not give their consent to those
clauses.
The Bishop of OXFOR_ r.) regarded many of the clauses
of the bill objectionable, am. t in particular that clause which
proposed to give a power to the commissioners to disturb
the remains of the dead, a n d to devote the consecrated
grounds in which they were tid to other purposes. He con-
sidered such an appropriatiota of those sacred spots as a vio-
lation of the contract entered into between the Church and
those who laid the rema ins of their departed friends in those
grounds, and he should ther afore oppose such a provision
in the bill.
Lord REDESDALE, the I IA _op of, EXETER, and the Earl
of DERBY made objections to some details of the bill, and
suggested that its operation t should be confined, in the first
instance, to the city of Lot don, in order to test the prin-

ciple.
Earl GREY thought the interests of the Church should
not be lost sight of in the provisions of the bill, any more
than the interests of other r ,arties concerned.
The Bishop of LONDC having replied, the bill was
read a second time, and ord Wed to he committed,
DIVORCE COURT BILL. 4,
On the motion that the , house resolve itself into com-
mittee on this bill,
Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to that clause of the
bill which proposed that tb a dissolution of marriage should
be confined to the decision of one judge, and proposed that
in so seriously important : matter there should be added
another judge, to assist the Judge-Ordinary, and that their
concurrent decision should th 3 necessary to give validity to
the dissolution and nullity marriage.
The LORD CHA.NORL OR read a later from Lord