The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CItANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.

CHURCH RATES.

A number of petitions were presented against the aboli-
tion of church rates.
THE lONIAN ISLANDS.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had some time
ago given notice to the noble duke at the Colonial-office
privately of his intention to put a question to him relative
to the state of affairs in the lonian Islands. Hearing that
Government had no information on thesubject he abstained
from putting the question. Later information trom that part
had arrived, And it induced him to recur to the matter.
He considered the resolution passed in the lonian Par-
liament was only another instance of the revolutionary pro-
pagandism which was so rife at present, but he considered it
most important that the house should be acquainted with
the policy of the Government on the subject.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said despatches had
reached the Colonial Office yesterday. The address from
the Lord High Commissioner had been delivered as
usual, and ho thought every one would agree
with him in thinking that there was nothing unfit to
come from such a person in so high a position. The address
voted in reply was of such a nature that he could only
characterise it as a bill of indictment against the policy of
the Government. The whole document was so at variance
with truth in every way, and the allegations contained
in it were so absurd, that he could scarcely consider it
seriously. Having enumerated the allegations in question,
the noble duke proceeded to say that the lonian
Assembly put upon its orders of the day two resolutions,
the first requiring that the Government should ascertain
the feelings of the population of the islands with respect to
annexation to Greece, by means of vote by ballot.
The second was of a vague character, appealing to
the Christian philanthropy of Europe. When Sir Henry
Storkes heard of these resolutions he sent a message to the
Assembly pointing out that the resolutions in question
were contrary to the constitution and could not be discussed.
He also appealed to the good feeling of the house
to apply itself to the proper functions of legisla-
tion, and to discharge the resolutions from the
orders of the day. This the assembly had declined, and
in consequence of this Sir IL Storkes had prorogued it at
•nee. He trusted their lordships would believe that Sir
H. Storkes was quite competent to deal with any emer-
gency that might arise ; and in conclusion, rebutted the
supposition hinted at by the noble marquis, that the agita-
tion in the lonian Islands was in any way consequent upon
the despatch of Lord John Russell relative to the conquest
of Naples.
The Marquis of NORMANBY explained.
Earl GREY thought the protectorate of this country
was the greatest blessing possessed by the lonian Islands,
and if they could succeed in getting it off, they would
speedily regret the step. He believed that our power over
these islands was simply a burden and an expense to this
country. if the people wished the protectorate removed,
he thought it would be very injudicious in forcing them ta
retain it.
THE DEATH OF THE DUCHESS OF KENT.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS brought up her Majesty's
gracious answer to the address their lordships voted to her
on the occasion of ,the death of her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent.

SIR B. WALKER.
In reply to the Earl of HARDWICK;
The Duke of SOMERSET said he was glad of the op-.
portunity of offering some explanation on this subject,
because a very great misconception prevailed on it. For
the appointment of Sir B. Walker to the Cape
station he alone was responsible. He was simply
removed from his appointment at home because his heatth
was not good. It was his own wish that he was sent away,
but at the request of himself (the Duke of Somerset) ha
postponed the departure for some time longer than he
otherwise would have done, in order to afford the Govern-
meat information relative to the framing of the estimates.
When Sir Baldwin sailed he believed that the House of
Commons did not want him. The night he sailed,
however, a telegram was sent down to the port admiral at
Plymouth from the House of Commons, requesting him to
telegraph to the Narcissus and order her back. This pro-
ceeding the port admiral thought irregular, and
he declined to act upon it. In the morning he
consulted him (the Duke of Somerset), and he
consulted the noble lord at the head of the Government,
and then sent down word to stop Sir Baldwin Walker.
He had never at any time, directly or indirectly, given any
direction or hint to the Port Admiral that he did not wish
Sir B. Walker detained.

FLOGGING IN HOUSES OF CORRECTION.
Lord STRATFORD DE REDULIFFE moved the
adoption of an address for the production of copies of papers
relating to the administration of corporal punishment in
houses of correction, which had been laid on the table of
the House of Commons.—Agreed to.
METROPOLITAN HOTEL BILL.
The Earl of SIIELBURNE moved the second reading
of this bill, which he considered, amongst other recommen-
dations, would lead to the removal of Wych and Holywell-
streets—localities perhaps not known to their lordships—
(laughter)—but which were amongst the most objection-
able portion of the metropolis.

Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill, as violating a
principle which had been established in the previous ses-
sion in the case of a similar proposition. He would have
agreed to the bill had the promoters consented that none of
the property which was required to be removed should be
taken by compulsion. They had declined, and he was, there
fore, under the necessity of moving that it be read a second
time that day six months.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY supported the bill as
being calculated, although a private speculation, to produce
considerable advantage to the public by clearing away some
of the worst parts of the metropolis.
Lord EVERSLEY opposed the bill, and he hoped their
lordships would pause before they sanctioned this hill, be-
cause it would be a precedent for many others of the same
description,

Earl GRANVILLE said he was not convinced by the
arguments which the house had heard from the two noble
lords, who were great authorities in that house, and who
opposed this measure. He saw no objection to such a
scheme if it were connected with public utility. The title
of the bill did not contain all the information which was to
be found in its provisions. He understood from the Chief
Commissioners of the Board of Works that he considered
this bill of great importance in its furtherance of metropo-
litan improvements,, and it would widen the streets in the
locality of the new courts of law.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and preparations
were made for a division, when
The Earl of DERBY rose and said that in all his experi-
ence in that house he had never known a question brought
forward in which two Cabinet Ministers had successively
taken an active part in promoting a private bill, and that
had been done on this extraordinary occasion, against the
opinions given upon public grounds of authorities so high
as their chairman of committees and the noble viscount the
late Speaker of the House of Commons. He hoped the prac-
tice of bringing the support of the Government to bear upon
these private schemes would be condemned by their lord-
ships. (Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was another Cabi-
net Minister who supported this bill; but if he had consi-
dered it a private bill he should not have taken any part in
the discussion. This bill was, in fact, one of a public nature,
upon which the health and comfort of many of the inhabi-
tants of the metropolis would depend. He entirely agreed
with the principle laid down by the noble chairman of com-
mittees and the noble viscount on the cross benches (Lord
Eversley), but though this bill was of a private nature it
would provide great public advantages. It would not merely
widen the Strand, but it would purify the locality in the
neighbourhood of the contemplated new courts of law.
Lord TAUNTON said he thought the question wag pri-
marily and essentially one in reference to a private specula.
tion. (Hear.) He had not the least doubt that the bill was
of a private character, to promote a private speculation, and
under those circumstances he thought it would be danger-
ous to sanction the second reading. (Hear.)
The Marquis of C LANRICARDE said he came down to
the house to vote against the bill because he agreed with the
principle which had been laid down by their noble chairman
of committees, but having looked into the provisions of the
bill he found they would confer public advantages towards
which not one shilling of public money would be requirad-
new
ovs courts
He should therefore vote for the second reading of the bill.
Earl GREY said if this bill were really
improvement and widening of the streets, for
f
the
by ho
the
improvement
purposeotrtsee
who were responsible for those courts'
amore convenient
beenproposed access
to parliament to
loafwo,bittainouignhgt to have If the ornnien of
t
or the local authorities had brought the measure forward
the house would have been ready to grant the required
powers, but were they to allow a joint-stock company to
have these compulsory Powers to take private property ?
He could not undertake to grant such powers until they had
received evidence that. there would
. be some publio advan-
tages.sanctioned this
If they bill, it might lead to most.
dangerous consequences hereafter. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of SHELBURNE replied.
Ther lordships divided--
Contents
Non-Contents
Majority
The bill was consequently rejected.
The North London Railway (Widening) Bill, aiad the
West London Extension Railway Bill, were severs.lly read
a third time and passed.
THE NORTH LONDON RAILWAY (BRA..NCH TO
THE CITY) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, who had a notice on the
paper to move a resolution, with a view to its becoming a
standing order, " that the committee on any bill respecting
which a statement had been deposited in the office of the
Clerk of the Parliaments in pursuance of Standing OH
No. 191, should inquire into and report uponthe niamber Of
houses and of inhabitants likely to be removed by the
works proposed by
any such bill, and whether utny provi-
sion had been made or was required to be =de, for provid-
ing other dwellings for the Vi6bitant4 49 to be displaced,"