The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-04 00:00:00

PETITION.

Lord DERBY said that he had a petition to present
which was rather ambiguous, and he doubted whether it
could be placed before their lordships' house. It was
irregularly signed, and had a piece of paper pasted over it.
It purported to be signed by the minister of a Baptist
Chapel, in Arthur-street, Battersea.
THE KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.
Lord REDESD ALE said, in asking a question relative
to the removal of the Knightsbridge Barracks, he had read
in the papers that they were to be pulled down, and
the quartering of the troops taken elsewhere, but
he should like to mention that he considered that
they were the best situated in the metropolis,
and quite central if any outbreak should occur. The re-
moval of these barracks was principally asked for by per-
sons who had property in the district, they considering
that barracks were most objectionable, inasmuch as they
were an obstruction. From what he could hear from the
poisons who had lived in that barracks they were
admirably suited to purposes they were now devoted to,
and he considered that it would be most unfair to remove
those barracks. The wish fur such a removal only ema-
nated from those who had property in the neighbour-
hood.
The Earl of LUCAN said that he was glad of having
the opportunity of expressing his opinion that these bar-
racks at Knightsbridge were the most admirably adapted
for cavalry barracks in the kingdom. He had long known
these barracks, and he could safely say that he had never
known any occasion when there was a general sick-
ness therm He would ask the noble earl opposite
who so condemned these barracks if the Chelsea bar-
ra.eks—a a infantry barracks—had cost the country
£200,000 ? He could not believe that it was intended to
pull down these buildings, and put the country to an
expense of £339,000. Ho believed that the Knights-
bridge :barracks was as healthy a barracks as
possible, although be admitted that every one of them
might bo improved. There was no utility or purpose or
order in removing these barracks. Any other houses that
might be put there would be quite as objectionable.
Lord LONGFORD said that there was no intention
to remove the barracks at all. He had seen the memorial
alluded to by the noble earl, and he thought he had dis-
posed of the objection that it contained. The fact was
that the barracks were to be removed only if no expense
was incurred, and a more convenient site ctluld be found,
but as this was not possible the matter must fall to the

ground.
Lori DE ROS quite concurred in what had been said
with respect to the barracks.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE was not aware that his
noble friend (the Earl do Grey and Ripon) had ever
said that the barracks were in a bad state at all, but
thought it interfered with the prospect in tho park. He
had been over the barrack, and found it good and effi-
cient enough, but the objection was that it was
an inartistic portion of the park, and it was no doubt
very desirable that soma improvements should be
made with regard to it, and he believed that it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to .nake the best
improvements they could there. He agreed with the noble
earl that it was one of the most healthy barracks in Lon-
don, and that it would be a great disadvantage to re-
move it. He did not quite agree with him that sanitary
improvements were not necessary.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said that he must deny
that he ever said what was imputed to him by the noble
earl (Lucan) relative to their being the very worst bar-
racks in London, but he must say that their sanitary arrange-
ments were very faulty, and the removal was thought
advisable by Sir G. Lewis and himself. Whether they
were removed or not, ho hoped that they would be put
into a thorough sanitary state.
The subject then dropped.
THE BUNHILL BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the second read•
ing of the bill. lie said that the people of all denomina•
tions in that district had made over to the Ecclesiastica'
Commissioners the Dunhill Burial Grounds, on the con-
dition that it should remain an open space, and that
all tho monuments should be preserved. Ha thought
that it was most important, considering the influential
_ _

bodies who desired that it should remain an open space,
that this bill should be Allowed to pass. The bodies of
some of the most eminent Englishmen lay there, amongst
the rust John Bunyan and Horne Tooke.

The bill was read a second time.
Upon the report of the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, a
discussion arose upon clause 2, referring to the salaries of
the now bishops, which Lord Lyttelton proposed to omit,
and to which Lord Derby assented, but upon a division
the clause was retained by 48 votes against 36.
The clause relating to -,ho appointment of suffragan
bishops provoked considerable discussion, Lord Ellen-
borough objecting to the creation of an unlimited number
of temporary bishops, and Lord •Shaftcsbnry doubting
whether the provision would not tend to the growth of
free churches ; while the Bishop of Carlisle took cxc •ption
to the clause as giving encouragement to a plan of creating
numerous minor sees. Lords Lyttelton and Cran worth

thought the words of the clause were sufficient to prevent
the suggested evil. 3, as the consent of her Majesty was re-
quisite fur the appoiuttnent of suffragan bishops.
Upon a division, the clause was rejected by 23 to 20
votes.
The sitting was closed at a quarter to 8 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER, took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills wore road a third time and passed :
—...Drayton Junction Railway, Dublin Port, Great North
of Scotland Railway, Huyton and Roby Gas, and North
British Railway (Carlisle Deviation.)
THE SHIP NOILTH.

Mr. KNATCaBULL-HUGESSEN asked the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade whether the report of the
commissioner appointed to inquire into the case of the ship
North had yet been eceivad by the Board of Tr.tde ; and,
if so, whether he would communicate such report to the

house ?
Mr. CAVE said the roport had not yet been received,
RITUALISM.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State f)r
the 110M1 Department whether since the appointment of
names which are avowedly identified with the encourage-
ment of ritualistic practices upon the commission to in-
quire into the conduct of Church services would tend to
discredit the moral force of its decisions in the mind of the
public, it would not bo desirable-, in order to secure the
grea.cst possible confidence in the constitution of that
commission, to communicate the names intended to- com-
pose it to Parliament previous to their final appoint-
ment ?

Mr. ILIRDY said he did not think it would be for the
good of the public service that the names should be pub-
li.hed before the commissioners were appoiuted.