The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT:

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at twenty minutes past
twelve o'clock.
ATTORNEYS, SOLICITORS, PROCTORS, AND
CERTIFICATED CONVEYANCERS BILL.
The committee on this bill was resumed.
Clause 19 was struck out and clause 20 was agreed to.
Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of clause 21.
The committee divided, and the numbers were--
For the clause
Against it 34
Majority —2B
The clause was therefore struck out.
The remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to.
Mr. MOWBRAY moved the following clause :—" All
persons who, previously to the passing of the act, shall
have been duly admitted and enrolled attorneys and soli-
citors of the court, of the counties palatine of Lancaster or
Durham, or either of them ; or who shall be admitted and
enrolled attorneys of the High Court of Chancery, and in
her Majesty's superior courts of law at Westminster, in
pursiance of the provisions of this act, without
further examination, upon the payment of such
fees and duty as by law required, provided always that such
admission and enrolment be perfected on or before the first
day of Trinity Term, 1861."
The clause was read a second time and added to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN was then ordered to report progress and
the house resumed.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that the bill had passed
through committee in a manner somewhat hurried, without
he would venture to say many members of the house know-
ing what was new in the bill, and he hoped the hon. gen-
tleman who had charge of the bill would consent to halve it
reprinted. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS said the bill had passed through comnait-
tee very unexpectedly, and he would advise his hon. friend
who had charge of the bill to adopt the suggestion that
had been just made.
Mr. MURRAY said he had no objection to the course
proposed.
The bill was then ordered to be reprinted.
VOTES FOR DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,

Mr. HENLEY expressed a hopo that the hon. membso,
would withdraw the bill. It was quite clear that the mea-
sure would not become law during this year, as it could not
be said to be a very urgent bill. Under these circum•.
stances, he moved that the house go into committee on the
bill that day three months.

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL quite concurred with
the right hon. gentleman that at that period of the session
there was no prospect of the bill being taken by the House
of Lords, and he hoped theywould not be pressed to proceed
further with the bill this session. (Hear.)
After a few remarks from Mr. BUTT,
The order was discharged, and the bill withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT

ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Upon the motion for the further consideration of this bil'

in committee,

Mr. BRADY contended that the operation of the mea-
sure was unjust to some parishes, and that it gave powers
to the Board of Works of a most arbitrary character, which
they ought never to possess, and which might be exerted
most prejudically to the parishes. Under these circum-
stances he felt it his duty to resist by every means in his
power the progress of this bill. He moved that it be con-
sidered a second time this day six months.
Colonel FRENCH seconded the amendment. He
thought it unnecessary they should waste their time in
considering a bill which they could not hope would pass
the other house this session.

I`h
. HENLEY supported the amendment, adopting the
view of the last speaker. The hon. gentleman then went
through the amendments on the paper, and asked the house
would it be useful to consume time in discussing them there
when they could not be considered in another place.
Sir G. C. LEWIS pointed out that this was substantially
a private bill, and had been fourteen days before a com-
mittee of the house, and the promoters and opponents had
been at::great expense in supporting and opposing it, all
which expense, time, and trouble would be thrown away if
they refused to consider it. He thought, if there was no
serious objection to the principle of the bill, they might pass
it this session.
Mr. TITE stated he brought the bill in last session, and
it had been fully and fairly before all the vestries, and their
suggestion and objection had been fully considered. The
bill had been 14 days before a committee, who had heard
about 30 counsel in reference to it, and the bill was neces-
sary to facilitate the operation of the metropolitan board.
Mr. LIDDELL suggested that the supporters of the bill
should ascertain whether the other house would consider
the bill if it passed this house.
Mr. LOCKE supported the bill in its entirety.
Mr. E. JAMES thought they ought to go into committee
and see if it was practicable to get through the bill, and do
so if possible, and thus show that the house was prepared
to perform its duty.

Mr. MALINS said, seeing the consideration and sifting
the bill had had, and its great urgency, ho thought the
house would do well to consider it.

The motion for the consideration of the bill in commit-
tee was then put, and the houSe divided, when the numbers
were—

For the motion
Against it l3
Majority for the motion —sB
The house accordingly resolved itself into a committee of
the whole for the consideration of the bill.
On the motion that clause 1 stand part of the bill,
Mr. BRADY repeated his arguments against the bill,
and moved that the chairman leave the chair and report
progress.

Mr. AYRTON opposed the amendment, pointing out
that every one in the metropolis had an opportunity of being
heard before the committee.

Mr. MALINS suggested that the hon. member making
the motion should be satisfied with the result of the last
division.

Sir G. C. LEWIS hoped this system of opposition would
not be continued. The question of whether the bill should
be considered or not had already been settled, and he in-
vited the house not flather to discuss the question, but
divide on it at once.

The committee divided on the motion to report progress,
when there appeared--

Ayes
Noes
Majority —92
The question was then put that the clause should be read
a second time, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it .
Majority —B4
The clause was accordingly lost.
Mr. SHERIDAN said he felt it his duty again to move
that the chairman report progress, as he felt that the pre-
sent proceeding was an attempt on the part of the metro-
politan members to impose taxation upon the whole of the
country.

Viscount ENFIELD appealed to the hon. member for
Dudley not to persevere in his motion for reporting pro-
gress.

After a few words from Sir J. SHELLEY and Mr. DEEDES,
the motion was negatived without a division.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved an additional clause with re-
spect to the parish of St. Paul, Covent-garden.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the clause, which was even-
tually negatived without a division.

Mr. HUBBARD then moved the following clause :
" No order for payment of any sum of money shall be
made by any district board upon any parish or place enu-
merated in schedule (B) to the act firstly above re-
cited, except for the amount of expenses actually incurred,
or about to be incurred, within each parish or place re-
spectively for which a general rate or a lighting rate
may, under the one hundred and fifty-eight and one
hundred and sixty-first sections of the said act, be raised
and levied, or for an amount of sewerage expenses equal to
the outlay incurred or about to be incurred on behalf of each
parish or place, or for an amount named in a precept from
the Metropolitan Board of Works as charged upon the
specific parish or place ; and if any dispute arise as to what
are expenses or outlay incurred within or on behalf of any
parish or place, the parish or place on which any order
shall have been made for payment may, within two months
after the service of such order, appeal to the Metropolitan
Board of Works, which shall hear both sides in open court,
and whose decision upon the matter shall be final.
Mr. AYRTON thought the clause would in effect
exempt the St. Katherine's Dock Company from the pay-
ment of its proportion of the rates, and he therefore should
oppose its addition to the bill,
Sir F. KELLY said the question raised by this clause
was whether each parish should pay its own portion of ex-
penses under this bill, ir whether a number of parishes
should be formed into a district, and a general rate be
levied thereon.

Sir J. SHELLEY said the question was a simple one.
The present bill did not make any alteration in the mode
of levying rates by the Metropolitan Board of Works, but
the amendment of the hon. member opposite proposed alte-
rations of a very extensive nature. He objected that such
an extensive alteration in the system of taxation should be
smuggled in at the present stage of the bill. He thought
it the duty of the house to support the recommendation of the
select committee up stairs and reject the clause.
Mr. SHERIDAN supported the amendment.
Mr. HUBBARD said ho was asking for nothing novel
or unjust in the amendment he proposed. He was sur-
prised that he should be charged with smuggling in the
amendment.
After a few words from Mr. E. JA.NEs and Sir F. KELLY,
The committee divided on the question that the additional
clause be read a second time, when there appeared--
.. 8
Ayes
Noes
Majority -106
The clause was rejected.
Mr. CAVE moved an addition to the clauses of the bill
exempting all property which at the time of the pass-
Lag of the said first recited act was not liable to