The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAtiLIAME.NT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAXEII took the chair at a quarter-past twelve
o'clock.

THE NEW LORD CHANCELLOR.
A new writ was ordered to issue for the borough of Wol-
verhampton for the election of a burgess in the place of Sir
Richard Bethel], who had accepted the office of Lord High
Chancellor of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.)
SPIRITS. •
Mr. GRANT DUFF moved for returns showing the
rate of duty charged upon home-made spirits in England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, for each year from
1814 down to the 'lst day of April, 1861 ; the
number of gallons distilled in each year during the same
period in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, dis-
tinguishing the quantity used for home consumption from
the quantity exported or used otherwise; the number of
distillers and the number of rectifiers in each year during
the same period in England, Selland, and Ireland reaper-
tively : and of the spirits exported from England, Scotland,
and Ireland respectively to' foreign ports during the ten
years preceding the 31st day of December, 1860, and for
the quarter ending the 31st day of Marcb, 1861, and the
quantity of spirits so manufactured during the same period,
exported from Scotland to England and Ireland respectively
and from Ireland to Scotland and England respectively.—
The returns were ordered.
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

The adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill,
the rejection of which had been moved on efformer occasion
by Sir G. C. Lewis, was resumed by

Mr. AYRTON, who supported the second reading, as he
understood it was generally accepted by the working classes.
The bill was mainly to remedy the failure of the act of
1824, and proposed to give power to masters and men to
settle their own affairs. It had been said that it would
not effect that object—that it would not settle strikes.
The measure was never intended to do so, but if it would
not, it would most undoubtedly prevent ;them, because
the courts constituted under it would afford facilities to
masters and men to discuss their affairs before they arrived
at such a point as to call for "a strike."
Mr. G. HARDY thought the bill was a delusive one,
and calculated to create false hopes, and therefore he
should not vote for its second reading.
Mr. SLANEY said it was not supposed the bill would
entirely cure, but it would greatly mitigate, the grievance
complained of; and he had hoped that a trial would have
been given to that brought forward by those who had
long laboured for the benefit of the working classes. The
bill, he thought, contained very much good, and he thought
the best course was to read it a second time, and then
in committee endeavour to make such alterations as would
meet the objections entertained against the bill.

Mr. MACKINNON said he had last session brought
forward a measure precisely similar to that under discus-
sion, which was read a first, second, and third
time, and - sent up to the House of Lords,
and he thought the house would be stultifying
itself if it neglected the bill on the present occa-
sion. It would be, in fact, voting in 1860 that white was
white, and in 1861 white was black. As the principle of the
bill had been affirmed both by the house and the reports of
two select committees, he hoped the right hon. baronet
would withdraw his opposition, and allow the bill to gp
into committee, as it was one be thought which tended to
soften the feelings between masters and operatives, and
thus to render strikes less likely to occur.
The motion of the Home Secretary was agreed to, and
the bill was ordered to be read a second time that day three
months.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
Clauses up to 7 were agreed to, with several verbs:
amendments.

Upon clause S being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY said he thought that ample notice ought
to be given to every personinterested in the estate before the
proposed improvements were carried out. If the matter were
shuffled over without the knowledge of persons having an
interest or reversion, the measure, instead of conferring a
benefit, would inflict -an injury on the community.
Sir G. LEWIS referred to the Drainage Act, and said it
provide I adequate means for affording the necessary infor-
mation to all parties interested.

Mr. G. HARDY suggested that the following words be
added to the clause :—" Notice shall be given to mort-
gagees and other parties interested in such form and mode
as the commissioners shall think necessary."
The addition was made and the clause, as amended, was
agreed to.
Clause 9 was omitted.

On clause 10,

Mr. HENLEY thought that the power given to remove
existing cottages was too extensive, and that it ought to be
restricted.

Mr. DUTTON and ESTCOURT were in favour of some re,
strictions being made.

Mr. WALTER could not consent to any arrangement
which would lead to tha tinkering up of old and worn-out
cottages rather than pulling them down altogether.
Sir G. GREY said it would be rather an expansive way
of " enlarging or otherwise improving cottages" to pull
them down altogether. He was in favour of suck an
amendment as would enable additions to be made where the
buildings were good enough to warrant any outlay on
them. •

After a long discussion the latter part of the clause was
struck out, on the understanding that a new clause should
be introduced on the bringing up of the report.
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 were agreed to after a few ver-
bal amendments.

On clause 15 being proposed,
Mr. HENLEY moved that it be omitted.
Sir L. PALK said the omission of the clause would en
tirely frustrate the objects of the bill.
The clause, after a few observations from Mr. ESTCOURT
was struck out.
Clauses 16 and 17 were struck out.

Clause 18 was agreed to.

Clause 19, to which Mr. HARDY moved some addition&
words, providing that proper facilities be given to the in-
habitants, was agreed to.
On clause 20,

Mr. HENLEY moved that £l2O be tho highest, and £3O
the smallest amounts to be borrowed for the building of any
one cottage.

Mr. C. GRIFFITH thought £l5O should be the
maximum sum. He was sure £l2O would not be sufficient.
Mr. JACKSON said he had lately to erect a number of
cottages, and he found £lOO was sufficient.
Sir J. TRELAIVNY knew of an instance in which a
very convenient, roomy, and not to say unhandsome cot-
tage, had been built for £95.

A discussion arose upon the latter part of the clause,
which provided that the estate must be shown to be pecu
niarily beneSted before any cottages were built.
Sir L. PALK moved the omission of all the words of the
clause after £l2O.

Sir G. LEIVIS said they had come to what he consi-
dered the great difficulty of the bill. It had been shown
that building labourers' cottages did not pecuniarily im-
prove the value of any particular estate. They might be
advantageous, as far as the cultivation of it might be con-
cerned. The question for the house to decide was, whether
the powers given by this bill wore to be conferred without
its being shown that the estate was to be tangibly bene-
fited by the improvements being carried out. He thought
the latter part of the clause ought to stand.

Tho amendment was withdrawn and the clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the chair-
man was ordered to report progress.
JERSEY COURTS BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Sergeant PIGOTT presented a petition from 120
landholders in the island in favour of the bill.
Mr. HADFIELD also presented similar petitions.
Sergeant PIGOTT then moved the second reading of
the b:11, the object of which was :to improve the admini-
stration of the law in Jersey. The learned member entered.
at some length into the manner in which justice was ad-
ministered in that island, and read several extracts from
the report of the commission that had sat upon the subject,
which were to the effect that the law as administered by
the Royal Court was most dilatory, and totally be-
hind the requirements of the place. The bill proposed
the appointment of three now judges, the entire
abolition of the jurist system, and also that of arresting per-
sons on any other process than that granted upon affi-
davit. The reason he had taken the subject up was
because he had been informed that it was not the intention
of the Government to bring in such a bill during the pre-
sent session. He felt the bill was so urgently required that
he trusted the house would read it a second time, notwith-
standing that some opposition was to be given to such a
motion.

I Sir G. LEWIS said ho could not support this bill, be-
cause he did not consider the report of the Royal Commis-
sioners had been loiig enough before the inhabitants of
the island, to make them familiar with the changes recom-
mended. It was not from any doubt that Parliament had
power to legislate for the Channel isles. (Hear.) The inha-
bitants of these islands were a loyal people, and he could not
consent to make such great changes as this bill proposed,
without it was shown the greatest necessity existed for such
a proceeding. He should therefore move that the bill be
read a second time that day three months.
Mr. BOLT said he was not quite so satisfied that this
country had the right to legislate for the island of
It was an appenage of the Crown of England as a part of
the original dukedom of Normandy, which was retained
by the King of England when that dukedom reverted
from him. In fact it stood in the same
towards the Sovereign of England as Hanover once did,
and ho doubted the jurisdiction of Parliament over that
dependency.

Mr. BOUVERIE said that at the Revolution. the Channel
Islands were included in the Act of Settlement, which was
surely an exercise of the authority of Parlianient. lie never-
theless doubted the advisability of legislating here for those
islands, however distasteful to a large portion of the inha-
bitants, who were Englishmen.
Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. and learned member be-
low only expressed a doubt about the right of Parliament
to legislate for Jersey, and gave that as a reason for ob-
jecting to the scowl readjug of the bill, tie believed that