The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON' WEDNESDAY EVENINO, JULY 4, 1860.

THIRD EDITION.

Paid.

Closing
Frice.

lusinoss done

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

84 86
94i 95
lid d,
4i 41d1

6 61
75 80
70 75
63 73
ip

1 it 3,

1} 1 di
99i 1001 I
d par
d par
99 99}
101 104
21 22

271 281
90 92
.55 60
67 72
57 62
55 60
971 98
d d,
11 lid
101 11
10 91d
96 98
95 98
96 98
90 92
86 88
961 97
90 92
11 1 d

5 7

5 7

98 99
lid 1d
—d
94 95

I id

MAYS.

4* 44
1

2} 2i

2} lid
235 d
} 2-1 i

611 7i

19 Pi,
3st sob'

8 9
3ti 35
52 54

2 10

almost every clause in the bill was open to objection. It
had been said in the course of the debate that under the
present system the employment of a certain class of la-
bourers who were not able to perform a day's work, tended
to demoralise them—a statement which he denied, and con-
tended that giving employment to such a class prevented
them becoming paupers.
Mr. WALTER supported the bill, and denounced the
existing system. Ho said that the opponents to the mea-
sure contended that it would disparochialize different
parishes, but he contended that the question of highway
management was one that could be more properly confided
to a central board instead of to local authorities. Roads
were part of a great national system, and constituted the
great arteries through which the wealth and commerce of
the country flowed. He believed the manage-
ment of highways was most imperfect, and re-
ferred to his own neighbourhood, where these
roads had deteriorated considerably within the last 20 years.
The management of these roads in many cases were en-
trusted to parties who were quite ignorant of such matters,
and the very worst eoonomy that could be adopted would
be that of not securing good roads.
Col. W. PATTEN supported the amendment.
Sir W. JOLIFFE supported the bill, and denied that
the arguments used against it were sound, being based on
narrow grounds, and resulting from prejudices. It was of
the greatest importance that there should be an efficient
system of management of high roads.
Mr. DILLWYN contended that the operation of the
principle in South Wales, which it was intended to intro-
duce into this bill, was most encouraging.
Mr. CAYLEY briefly opposed the bill.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the house had been engaged
during the greater portion of the present session in political
and constitutional questions of great importance, and he
hoped hon. members would not consider that a measure of
such social interest as the present should be postponed
merely in consequence of the lateness of the session.
There was nothing of greater importance than the
improvement of these arterial communications. Hav-
ing paid, several years' attention' to this" subject, he
was quite prepared to recommend the adoption of this mea-
sure. (Hear, hear.) The bill was formed with a view
merely of enabling magistrates in quarter sessions to in-
troduce this bill into towns, and it departed from the for-
mer bill in not being compulsory. He denied that at pre-
sent there was any representative system in regard to high-
ways, because vestries merely elected a surveyor, but he
was not a representative, and the subject of the present bill
was to introduce a representative system. He believed
that magistrates would not act in opposition to the wishes
of their tenants, and to the feelings of their neighbour-
hood in reference to the question of expending money,
on highways. Tho right hon. baronet referred to South
Wales, with reference to which there appeared to be some
misunderstanding on the part of the oppcnents of the blll.
The principle of the measure 'vas in operation in six coun-
ties in South Wales, and the objection was that it did not
go far enough. In fact, the people of South Wales de-
sired the same bill as that now before the house. He
considered that as there was a difference in various parts of
the country, it would not be advisable to have an inflexible
system applied throughout the kingdom.
Mr. HENLEY said that in his opinion the bill would
not secure the services of skilful officers, and that it would
increase tho expenditure of the ratepayers. He objected to
the bill also on the ground of its centralising tendency,
notwithstanding tho statement of the right hon. baronet
(Sir G. Lewis) to the contrary, and he considered that the
representative system was at present in operation. It had
been said that this bill was advocated by the public at
large, but what proof was there of this ? There were only
5 petitions signed by 92 persons presented in favour of the
measure, whilst there were several petitions signed by over
20,000 persons against it.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the seconi reading 203
Against
Majority —B3
The bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
DEALERS IN MARINE STORES BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HENLEY said that the hon. member (Mr. Spooner)
who brought in the bill had made no explanation as to the
bill. As he understood the provision of the measure, it in-
cluded goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, and all who
dealt in metal, and required them to keep books in a certain
way, and subjected them to the inspection of the police.
Mr. SPOONER said that the bill had reference to per-
sons carrying on business illegaly, and the amount of such
business was very considerable ; and in Birmingham no less
than £40,000 was disposed off annually through the medium
of these dealers. It was very desirable that there should
be some alteration in the law, and he explained that there
should be an application made to a magistrate to justify the
inspection by the police.
Mr. NORRIS also considered that legislation on this
subject was necessary, and asses ted these marine stores
were extensive receptacles of stolen goods
Sir G. LEWIS considered that the bill was very arbi-
trary, and he regretted that he had not had an opportunity
of communicating with the police authorities in reference
to the subject.
After some further discussion the house went into com-
mittee, and clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.

On clause 3,
Sir G. LEWIS suggested that the clause was not suffi-
ciently explicit in the definition of marine dealers, and
would comprehend a class that could not be considered in
that light.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the clause on the same ground.
Some conversation ensued, in the course of which
Mr. HANKEY appealed to the hon. member (Mr.
Spooner) to withdraw the bill, as it was not probable it
would be carried.
Mr. SPOONER said he would accede to what appeared
to be the wish of the house, provided the right lion. baronet
(Sir G. Lewis) would admit the present inefficient state of
the law, and direct his attention towards discovering a
remedy.
Sir G. LEWIS said that he could not promise to bring in
a bill on the subject, but he would communicate with the
magistrates and police authorities on the subject.
The bill was then formally withdrawn, and the house
resumed.
METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT (1855)
AMENDMENT BILL.
The bill went through committee, and the house re
sumed.

mom WAYS, ROADS, &c. BILL.
Mr. CItAUFURD. in moving that ;he house go into
committee on this bill entered into some explanations to
show that the present state of the law was ussatisfactery
as regarded the facility for indicting persons for the com-
mission of what might be alleged to be nuisances. There
was a conflict between judicial decisions in regard to the
right, of parties who might be unjustly indicted.
He was merely anxious to meet the circumstances of the
case, and if the objections to the measure were persevered
in he would withdraw the bill.
After some irregular discussion,
The motion for going into committee was negatived
without a division.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT
This bill went through committee, and the house re-
sumed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of.
The house adjourned at six o'clock.