The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-24 00:00:00

THIRE EDITION.

SUN. OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

DOYCASTF- PACES.—(This Day.)

BY ELETRIC TELEGRAPH.
BETTIN+ ROOM STAKES.

Jung Frau
Birdhill

Five ran.
CHESTIRFIELD PLATE.

Cosmopolite
Lopcatcher
Tresillian ......

Nine ran.
SCULRY STAKES.

Palaiseau
Vixen
Foretop.

INNKEEPIRS STAKES.
Tiddlywinks ....
Twinkle •
HANDICAP, HURDLE RACE.

Vixen i - walked over

LATEST BETTING.
TWO TIIGCSAND GUINEAS.
9to 2 agst Kettledrum (taken)
15 to 2 agst Klariloff (taken)
9to 1 agst Sweet Hawthorn (taken)
12 to 1 agst Overbn (taken)
14 to 1 agst Neiglbour (taken)
16 to 1 agst Diopintus (taken)
30 to 1 agst Copernicus (taken)
CRATER CUP.
11 to 1 agst Man-at-Arms (taken)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(Tms DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Northampton Water Bill, and the Wigan Gas
Meter and Fitting Company Bill were read a second time.

_
PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against and in favour
of the Nonconformist Burial Bill ; against legalising mar-
emoval , and the Yfiaiifeli .68Sair
the Masters and Operatives Bill ; in favour of the Midget ;
for the introduction of a bill to suppress Sunday trading in
intoxicating liquors ; for the passing of a comprehensive
Reform Bill; and for the better observance of the Lord's
day.

UNIVERSITIES ELECTION BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said, that before the Speaker left the
chair he wished to make some explanations in respect to
this measure, which his hon. friend who introduced it had
not done, and, therefore, the house was not acquainted with
its provisions. Their universities were a peculiar body, as
regarded the election of their representatives, the constitu-
ency being limited to Masters of Arts, and the fact was,
such election was an act of convocation, The Masters of
Arts were scattered through the 'United Kingdom,
and the consequence was that an undue influ-
ence was given to those who were resident at
the universities, who were chiefly clergymen or engaged
in tuition, and the clerical element had an undue prepon-
derance in the election of those representatives. In order
to render these voters more exclusively clerical the bill pro-
posed that Masters of Arts, who were not resident; at the
universities, should be permitted to vote by letter. He
suggested that it might be more advisable under the cir-
cumstances to refer the bill to a select committee.
Mr. WALPOLE approved of referring the bill to a
select committee, and expressed his approval of vote by
proxy, particularly to elections at the University of Cam-

bridge.
Mr. WARNER said that he was not against
voting at these elections by proxy. If they passed this
bill they would be effecting a constitutional change in the
representation by throwing the electoral power into the
hands of the county clergy. He had great respect for
that body, and had no doubt they would exercise their
franchise properly, but it was a que,stion whether from their
disconnection with the university they would render the
member selected less really a representative of the univer-
sity. He did not wish to oppose the bill, and agreed that it
would be advisable to refer it to a select committee.
Mr. DENMAN said that it was a mockery to give the
franchise to 3,000 electors of the university, when only
1,000 of them could be present at elections. He was in
favour of the bill, and he reminded the house that the
system adopted at elections for the University of Cam-

bridge was virtually by prosy.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE approved of referring the bill to
a select committee, but he did not think the measure was
calculated to effect the object proposed.
Lord ENFIELD said his name was on the bill, and
after the intimation of the opinion of the house he would
not oppose its reference to a select committee, but he trusted
the house would pass the bill without any unnecessary

delay.
Mr. DODSON, the mover of the bill, defended it at some
length. He agreed, however, to the suggestion that the
bill should be referred to a select committee, and concluded

with a motion to that effect.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT opposed the reference to a select
committee.
Mr. HENLEY said that there were special circum-
stances in reference to the constittency.of the University
of Cambridge which rendered special legislation. However
the present bill proposed to extend considerably the pre-
sent system of voting by proxy, which might have the effect
of secret voting. Considering that the bill had not received
any discussion at its previous stages, he thought it should
be referred to a select committee.
Mr. SCLATER ,BOOTH, while he approved of the bill
being referred to a select committee, hoped it would not be
shelved, but would be passed this session.
After some remarks from Mr. Hors and Mr. AYRTON,
the motion for referring the bill to a select committee was
agreed to.
NONCONFORMISTS' BURIAL BILL.
Sir M. PETO, in moving the second reading of this bill,
said that he, when he had the honour of moving the first
reading of the bill, addressed the house at such length
that he thought he would best consult the feelings of hon.
members if he reserved making any observations in
anticipation of the objections that might be urged, but re-
serve them until the objections had been made. He had made
inquiries to ascertain the working of the burial system in
their colonies, and had received information on the subject
whichcharacter. A letter from
a
England in India, stated that
in that country the privilege of burial in consecrated ground.
hsautricshfacotfe r
was not Withheld from Dissenters, which worked
admirably. In America
clergyman was
a o
af
them sCt
there was no dis-
qualification relative to interments in consecrated
ground, nor anything in the slightest degree offensive. In
Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Cape of Good Hope, a simi-
lar system prevailed, and worked most advantageously.
The same remark applied to Scotland. In Ireland the va-
rious religious denominations had agreed to make applica-
tion for the burial of the deceased in the consecrated
ground, and if the minister refused this application, he
was bound to give reasons to the Lord Lieutenant for his
refusal. He referred to different cases with which he was
acquainted to show that the existing system was unjust in
its operation, and read the letter
6f a churchwarden to that
effect. He disclaimed any connection with the Liberation
Society, which he considered had done great injury to the
cause of civil and religious liberty, as the Church Defence
Society had injured the State establishment, which of late
years had been doing much for the promotion of religion
and enlightenment. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the object of
his bill was not to effect the achievement of the Noncon-
formist triumph, and he appealed to the house to pass the
bill by a large majority.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved as an amendment that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
After some general remarks he said that any alteration
that bail been made in reference to the burial law in Ire-
land did not illustrate the case of the hon. baronet (Sir M.
Peto), for there were peculiar circumstances in regard to
that country which rendered legislation necessary. He
contended that the bill was compulsory, and allowed the
friends of a deceased person to have any ritual they wished
performed without consulting in the slightest degree the
feelings of Christians who might be strongly opposed to
such. He strongly objected to the bill on other grounds.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. J. LOCKE took the oaths and his seat, on his re-elec.
tion for Southwark.
NONCONFORMISTS' BURIAL BILL.

Lord HENLEY supported the bill, and said that all the
Dissenters asked by the bill was admission to the parish
churchyard, where they mightperiorni decent rites, and it
must be remembered that the time foil the performance of
such rites was appointed by the vicar of the parish. He
considered the object of the Dissenters in reference to this
subject was most desirable, and tended to bring the Non-
conformists into closer union with the Church of England.
He thought that, instead of taunts, they should act
with conciliation towards their Dissenting brethren, and as
a step in that direction they should pass this bill. He had
one objection to this bill at first, namely, that it afforded
facilities for the interment of Roman Catholics in the
Church of England churchyards, which he considered ob-
jectionable from the attachment of that sect to ceremonies.
However, on reflection, he thought that Roman Catholics
would not avail themselves of those facilities in conse-
quence of the peculiar sentiments relative to the consecra-
tion of their graves.
Mr. HUBBARD contended that the Protestants in this
country formed a large majority over the Nonconformist
body. In support of that assertion he referred to statistics
collected ,within a certain area, from which it appeared
that the marriages performed in the Church of England
churches were 128,012 in one year, while the number of
marriages solemnised before the registrar (which, no doubt,
included several members of the Church of England) was
only 28,003 ; there were 1,870,000 male and female children
in schools, and only 362,000 Dissenters of all denomina-
tions; and of the inmates of the workhouses within the
area, 60,000 males and females wero members of the
Church of England, and only 12,000 Dissenters. He con-
tended that there was no precedent for the bill, and remarked
that the bill introduced with reference to Ireland was per-
missive, and not like the present measure compulsory. He
considered the bill as an attempt to sap and undermine the
Church Estiblishment, and therefore felt bound to give it
his most strenuous opposition.
Sir G. C. LEWIS was of opinion that the numbers
quotedby the hon. member who last addressed the house
had nothing to do with this subject. He denied also that
there was no precedent for Ibis bill, as Lord Plunkett's act
with regard to Ireland was gmilar in spirit, though differ-
ing in detail from the present measure. The grounds on
which a clergyman might refuse burial were only three—
namely, when the deceased was excommunicated, had died
by his own hands, or had been unbaptized. With
regard to Dissenters the majority had no ground to com-
plain with reference to the question of baptism, for they
adopted some mode of baptism which was equally valid so
far as related to burial in the parish church, as if it had
been performed by a minister of the Church of England,
and indeed even lay baptism was recognised. The bill, in
his opinion, was too sweeping in its provisions, because it
proposed to enact that the friends of the deceased might
appoint any person to officiate as minister at the burial of
his relative or friend. In his opinion the grievances com-
plained of were limited, and the remedy proposed was too
extensive. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL opposed the bill on the same grounds
which had been urged by other speakers.
Mr, BRIGET said that notwithstanding the hobgoblin