The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-25 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of
this bill. He said that he had received from all parts of
the country favourable opinions as to this bill, mid there-
fore be trusted that they would pass a bill which was emi-
nently important.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY did not approve of
the bill, although he gave the noble lord credit for his ob-
vious desire to diminish the expenses of consecration.
Lord GREY made a few remarks as to the admissibility
of the bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that what they objected
to was the fact that the word " consecrate" was generally
supposed to represent sr religious ceremony, whereas it
really meant, in this bill, the appropriation of certain por-
tions of ground for religious purposes.
Lord REDESDALE said that in introducing the bill
he considered it was very necessary that it should
be understood that churchyards should be conse-
crated, or any portion of ground round a sacred
edifice. He should propose to adjourn the debate
in order that the matter might be brought under the con-
sideration of Convocation. But he wished that it should
be understood that he did not withdraw the bill, nor
should he say whether he was prepared to oppose any bill
introduced by a right rev. prekte. Let it be adjourned for
a fortnight.
Lord GREY considered that the bill ought now to be
read a second time.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that what
were called fees for consecration were really very often
fees only given for the transfer of the land.
Lord CRANWORTH objected to this.
A Right Rev. PRELATE could assure the noble lord it
was so. Most of the fees were for the conveyance of land.
The bill was then proposed for second reading, and on
a division it was found that the contents had it by a large
majority, the numbers being—
an

Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The bill was then read a second time.
Lord DERBY having announced that the louse would
meet this day to read the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act in Ireland Bill a first time,
The sitting was closed at 6 o'clock.

.-41

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

THE REFORM BILL.

Mr. HODGKINSON gave notice of his intention of
moving an amendment to the clause brought in by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer last. night to the effect that
no person other than the occupier of any tenement should
be rated, and that the person paying the rates should
have the power of deducting the same from his landlord.

!THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
Sir H. W. BARRON asked the Chief Secretary for
Ireland if the Irish Government intended to prohibit the
importation of live stock into Ireland whilst the cattle
plague continues in England, and whilst foreign stock are
imported into England from infected countries ?
Lord NAAS said the importation of caul,: into Ireland
had been prohibited for the last year and a half. There
were certain exceptions in favour of cattle coming from
Spain and Scotland, but other than that no alteration of
the orders at.present in force would be made.
THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

Mr. BAXTER asked the Chancellor .-)f the Exchequer if
be would proceed with the franchise clauses of the Scotch
Bill fey the Representation of the People in committee
before conside.ricg the redistribution clauses in tho Eng-
lish Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with
the exception of measures of great emergency, it was not
the intention of the Government to proceed with any busi-
ness until the English Reform Bill had passed through
committee.

NIGHT POACHING.
Sir R. PALMER asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether his attention had been directed
to the case of two young men, named H. Fulford and M.
Wellstead, who ware convicted of night poaching in
March last by a bench of Wiltshire magistrates, upon the
evidence of a single witness, contradicted by other testi-
mony and who have since been exonerated by the confessions
of two other men, who have acknowledged themselves to be
the parsons really guilty of the offence. And whether it

was true that the sentences of imprisonment pronounced
upon them have neverthelss been c trriud into effect, and
that one of them (Mark Wellstea 1) was still in gaol.
Mr. HARDY said he had made certain inquiries into the
matter, and had directed the committing magistrates to
furnish a report Of the case. No report had yet been re-
ceived, although he had that afternoon seen a letter from
ono of the magistrates, but as he had not yet received
one from the other, he thought it best to refrain from en-
tering into the matter until he had received the reply of
both magistrates. Fulford, who had served his time, had
been liberated, but Wellstead was still in gaol.
THE REFORM BILL.
Mr. S T ANSFELD asked the Attorney-General whether
ho would lay upon the table his proposed interpretation or
definition of a dwelling-house in the Representation of the
People Bill, before the 34th clause and amendments were
disposed of, and while the occupation franchise in boroughs
was, therefore, still under discussion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERSL said hb proposed to
bring up the clause defining the meaning of the term dwel-
liug-house when they arrived at the interpretation clause,
and to that arrangement he still proposed to adhere.