The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

I MAL P.A RIAAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.---(YsTERDAY.)
The LORD CRANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack of

five o'clock

CHURCH RATES,

Petitions against the abolition of church rates were pre-
sented by the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Chelmsford.

MIXED MARRIAGES.

The LORD CHANCELLOR introduced a bill to alter
the law with respect to marriage between Protestants and
Roman Catholics in Ireland. The noble and learned lord
said he should not move the second reading of the bill until
after the Easter recess.
The bill was read a first time.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Cardiff and Caerphilly Railway. Bill was read a
second time.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said since he had
given the notice which he now rose to proceed with, the
question he intended. to ask, whether her Majesty's
Government were about to propose to Parlia-
ment any measure upon the state of the Legislative
Council of India, had been answered in another place.
He was glad a measure on the subject was to
be speedily introduced, so it would be unnecessary for him
to trouble their lordships on that point. The papers which
he would lay before the house would be of great importance
in order that the fullest information might be in the hands
of their lordships preparatory to the discussion of the merits
of the bill. The constituting a legislative council in India
had, in his opinion, turned out a total failure. He did
not intend to speculate as to the provisions of
the bill, but he hoped that the subject would
be dealt with in an enlarged spirit, for it
seemed to him quite impossible that a single court
sitting at Calcutta could satisfactorily administer to such
an immense empire as India. Ile concluded by moving
for copies of any correspondence between the Secre-
tary of State for India and his Excallency the Governor-
General or the Governors of the Presidencies of Bombay or
Madras, relating to an alteration in the Legislstive Council
of India, and also copies of any minutes of the Council of
India in this coun.try, or of any Committee of the Council
upon the same subject.

Earl DE GREY , and RIPON said as his right
honourable friend had promised to intro-duce a
bill on the subject alluded to by the noble
marquis, it could not be expected that he could enter into
the details of the measure. He asked his noble friend
under these circumstances not to press the motion for the
papers, as they had only but a very short time come into
the possession of the Government.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, after a few remarks
in reply, consented to withdraw his motion:

LAW OF DIVORCE IN ENGLAND AND SCOT-

LAND.

The' LORD CHANCELLOR moved for the appoint-
ment of a select committee to consider the law respecting
the parties who are entitled, or ought to be entitled, to sue
in the Divorce- Court in England, and in the Court of Ses-
sion in Scotland, for a dissolution of marriage. The noble
and learned lord explained that one of the objects he had in
view was to extend the provisions of the existing law to
Ireland, and to enable An,;lo-Indians to avail themselves
of them.

Lord CRAN WORTH feared there would be a combinti-
tion across the border to defeat any attempt to interfere
with the marriage law of Scotland. In Ireland there was
a strong feeling against the Divorce Court. He saw no
reason why all her Majesty's subjects should not be enabled
to proceed in the present Divorce Court, and considered
there was no cause why the jurisdiction of the court should
be extended.

Lords MONTEAGLE and WICKLOW having made a few
remarks, the motion was agreed to.

INCLOSURE BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS AND
DWELLINGS OF THE POOR.

Lord DERBY, in moving that it be au instruction to the
select committee on the metropolitan railways to inquire
into and report upon the houses and of inhabitants likely
to be removed by the works of the respective railways, and
whether any provision has been made, or is required to be
made for diminishing the evils consequent on a large simul-
taneous displacement of the labouring population, quoted
some curious statistics on the progress made in increasing
the density of the population from the years 1801 to 1816,
from which it appearel that while the population had in-
creased the number of houses both within, but especially
without, the city walls, had diminished. In the course of
the metropolitan street improvements made by the corpora-
tion many of the humbler clas4 of dwellings had been swept
away, and to remedy this evil the corporation had recently
voted a large sum to erect model lodging-houses in Victoria-
street, but this particular site had been since sold to the Me -
tropolitan Railway Company. The Metropolitan Extension
Company had served with notice half the population in
the parish through which it was to run. It was to ob-
viate the hardships inflicted- by such measures that Lord
Shaftesbury some time ago proposed, as a standing order,
thaf should provide
for the residence of a number of persons equal to those
who were displaced. It was decided at the time that such
a standing order would not be expedient, but a standing i
order was passed requiring returns to be made to the com-
mittee of the number of houses, and as near as could beef
• the number of persons, to be displaced. He now proposed
that that standing order should not only be carried out,
but that the committee should inquire whether the returns
made were true, and, further, whether some clause might
not be introduced making the company provide in some
way for the people whom they thus turned out. The turn-
ing out of one man was no great hardship, but when it
came to turning out 8,000 or 9,000 men simultaneously it
became a social grievance, and one of political importance:
In conclusion, he contended that the great number of
houses which would be pulled down by the proposed branch
to the North London from the North-Westezn, and the
number of persons who would suffer thereby, as well as by
extension of numerous lines into the metropolis, required
the instruction which he moved to the Select Committee.
Lord EBURY could not see how Lord Derby's desire
was to be realised.

Lord REDESDALE did not think the resolution would
stop the formation of railways in the metropolis. Still,
inquiry, would tend to promote contentment.

Lord GRANVILLE read a letter from the Rev. P. P.
Gilbert, vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate, deprecating the
views of the incumbent of St. Bartholomew, a district of
the parish of Cripplegate, embodied in the petition pre-
sented a few nights ago by Lord Derby to theJiouse, and
contending that, so far from the railroad proposed being in-
jurious, it would be of positive benefit to that district. If
it were clearly understood that this instruction was not to
operate on the minds of the committee towards suspending
these railway bills, he saw no great objection to it, although
be thought it superfluous, and not likely to do good.
Lord COLCHESTER, Lord CLA.NRICARDE, and Lord GREY
were in favour of the instruction.
Lord DERBY made a short reply, when the instruction

was agreed to.
The house adjourned at half-pLst 8 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER tcok the chair at four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.
Sir H. OWEN took the oaths and his seat on his election
for Pembroke.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

The Blackpool and Lythian Railway Bill was recta a
second time. •

GREAT DOVER ROAD BILL.-BREACH OF

' PRIVILEGE.
The adjourned debate on the order for the second reading
of this bill was resumed by
Mr. ROUPELL, who said that he considered a most
unwarrantable ,liberty had been taken in refer-
ence to this matter, both with respect •to his
name, and that of his hon. colleague the member for Lam-
beth. Their names had been placed en the back of the bill
not only without their consent, but in direct opposition to
what was known to be their sentiments with reference to
the bill. This circumstance had been the cause of
considerable temporary inconvenience, and het had
to receive deputations from his constituents. He thought
it. was his duty to bring the breach of rules of the house
committed by the agents in this matter forward, not only
on his oWn account but on that of the house. (Hear,
hear.) It was well known that he was opposed
altogether to_ tolls in metropolitan districts, and
he repeated that under such circumstances the
conduct of the agents was a most unjustifiable attempt
to foist this bill on the house in a surreptitious manner. He
concluded by moving the rejection of the bill.
_ _

Mr. WILLIAMS said that his name had been placed on
the back of the bill without any intimation being given to
him on the subject until he saw the bill in the votes. 1 He
considered that taking such liberties with hon. members
was most unjustifiable. Like his hon. colleague lie had suf-
fered some inconvenience from that liberty being taken with
his name. If his consent had been asked he would have
refused it, because the object of the bill interfered materially
with the interest of a number of his constituents.
Mr. MASSEY said that after the statements of the two
honourable members for Lambeth the house could pursue
only one course. He would not say that the agents had in-
tentionally committed a Saud, bat they had been guilty of
gross negligence, which, in the language of the
profession of which he was a member, would be so
designated. (Hear, hear.) He would, therefcire, carry out
the object of the hpn. member (Mr.ltoupell) by moving that
the order for the second reading of the bill should be dis-
charged,which was the formal motion necessary for that pur-

Colonel W. PATTEN suggested that the proper course
to be adopted in future would be to forward to the
hon. member for Walsall (Mr. Forster) by hon. members
their names, when they wished to have them placed on
he back of private bills.

Mr. FOUSTER said he would be glad if the suggestion
of the hon. and pliant member were carried out.
Mr. LOCKE said that he had invariably residecappii.