The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-08 00:00:00

claw() was compulsory and permissive. It was permis-
sive for every person to go to a contractor if he chose; t,
but t;oinp: to a contractor, thecontrtc•or wield bf, bound
p ht.ti the bolo.[.
Mr. BRIGHT complained of the attacks made upon
unilerLkyrs for high prices. What would be said of
architects, and lawyers, and medical men, fur charging
high prices?—(Laughter.) The undertakers were not
to be blamed for these expenses and high charges, but
the folly of the public was to blame. Ho belonged to a
sect on which the undertakers did not practise extortion.
—(Laughter.) A great source of expense was the prac-
tice of the • poor going into mourning. Grief being
symbolised by black, arose from the practice of bar-
barous nations.—(Laughter.) He feared the Bill would
not put an end to expense arising from funerals.
Mr. MACKINNON said, the whole of the argument
of the Hon. Gentleman was, that there was a great deal
of vanity in human nature, and that the sect of .the Hon.
Gentleman was free from it.—(Laughter.) He thought
that undertakers induced persons to go to great expense
in funerals—expenses that were beyond their means—
and which they would not have gone to but for the
undertakers. They took advantage of the feeling of re-
spect for the departed relative. This Bill, he thought,
would put an end to this system.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY saw no rea-
son why the lion. Member for Manchester should
impute to vanity that respect for the dead which every
other sect but that of the lion. Member for Manchester
paid.—(Hear.) He had heard the straight dress of that
sect imputed to vanity.—(Laughter.) He thought that
when reverence for the dead ceased very little respect
would be left for the living.—(Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY approved of the opinion expressed
by the Hon. Member for Manchester.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know what was the
calculation of the reduction in tke expenses of funerals?
He wished to have the Noble Lord's scale of prices, as
the Noble Lord was the undertaker of the Bill.—
(Laughter.) Shillibeer undertook to bury a nobleman
for 30 guineas, a gentleman for 101., and an artisan for
4/. He wanted to know if the Noble Lord could do it
cheaper than that?—(Laughter.) The real object of
this Bill was to knock up the undertakers of London.
He did not know but Shillibeer was going to undertake
them all. There were 700 undertakers—recognized
undertakers, and with these there were cobblers, tailors,
intermediate undertakers, who made the charges so
high. If the Government were to bury the dead, let
them do it openly.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the number
of contractors was to be restricted, or would it be open
to all.

Lord ASHLEY said there was no intention to restrict
the number of contractors. They would select that
number which they thought necessary. They might, in
fact, form contracts with the whole body of undertakers,
and he bad no doubt that they would do so with the
whole body who had invested their capital in this busi-
ness. The evidence of Mr. John Bedford showed that
instead of there being 760 undertakers, there were not,
he thought, more than 100. There were 20 of the first-
class houses, or, as it was said by one witness, 30 or
40 at the most. It was quite true that a great deal of
the extortion that was complained of was practised by
the intermediate undertakers. It was not possible for
him to state in figures what the reduction might be ;
but he had no doubt but that it would be 25 or 30: per
cent. under what had recently been put forward as low
eharges. He expressed his hearty concurrence in the
observation of the Hon. Member for Manchester, al-
though he could have wished they bad been made in a
different spirit. There was much of idle pomp, the result
of an idle custom ; but then there were moments when
persons could not enter into bargains, they not liking to
be charged with irreverence to the departed.— (Hear.) He
hoped the evil custom would be abated by means of
this Bill—that the prejudice would be, removed—that

prejudice for the abolithin of which so much had been
done by that great and illustrious woman who had now
departed from amongst them, and who, in dying, had
directed she should be interred with that simplicity and
with—which she was sure to excite—that sympathy
which became the member of a Christian community.
Mr. WAKLEY proposed an amendment in the 42d
line of the clause. He could say that, during the ten
years he had been coroner, he had never heard a com-
plaint against the undertakers. The Noble Lord (Ash-
ley) had stated that undertakers were the persons to be
employed under this clause, but there was no provision
whatever in the clause to secure it. He (Mr. Wakley)
would therefore move, with a view to effect that object,
the, insertion of words giving power to the board from
time to time to invite and receive tenders from " fur-
nishing ironmongers"—(Laughter)—he meant under-
takers of three years' standing in their business.
Sir G. GREY opposed the motion, which, it' adopted,
he said, would exclude all undertakers who had not been
as much as three years in the business.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that unless great precaution
was exercised the system of contract might be grossly
perverted and produce the very evils of which complaint
was now made. He thought it would be best for the
parish to make arrangements and contract for the in-
terment of its own poor. Then there 'would be a wide
competition, and cheapness would more likely be
secured. He disliked the system of classification which
was adopted by the Bill. A great deal had been mid
about the vanity displayed by persons in the conduct of
their funerals; but would there not be as much vanity
in having a funeral belonging to class 1, class 2, or class
3 ?—(Hear.) For his part it seemed to 'him that this
classification would act as a premium on vanity, and he
must say that he felt strong objections to the clause.
Mr. COBDEN said it was not often that he rose to
endorse an opinion of Mr. NewdPgate; but in the pre-
sent instance that Hon. Gentleman had anticipated him
in the remarks he was about to make. He was of opi-
nion that the ostentation exhibited at funerals arose
from this country being a country of castes, where every
caste tried to emulate the caste above it.—(Hear,
hear.) And the Honourable Gentleman was right
when he said, whilst the aim of the Bill was to discou-
rage this system, by the classification of funerals they
would encourage the very thing they professed to abate.
What would bo the effect of this classification ?
Everyone would be ashamed to have a deceased relative
interred in the cheapest class, but would be desirous, if
possible, to have him interred in the class above it.
Where was the necessity of taking care of the higher
classes at all? Surely they could bury their own dead.
If the undertaker were interferred with, it could only
be on the ground of benefiting the extremely poor. The
higher classes could make their own bargain with the
undertaker, and if cheated a little, it would not,ruin
them. The middle class, too, could agree to terms with
the undertaker. Why not, therefore, adopt a provision
that the board should keep a register of a certain price
at which funerals might be conducted with decency and
solemnity for the lower and working classes.
Sir B. HALL asked what fee the friends of an artisan
would have to pay under the Bill?
Lord ASHLEY-11. ss. That was the maximum.
Sir B. HALL said, that arnongst the working daises
that amount was considered to be.excessive. Could the
Noble Lord tell, him what would be the whole expense
from the time the contracting undertaker- came into a
house to the time the earth was thrown upon the body
in the cemetry, in the case.of a mechanic dying, say in
the neighbourhood of St. Pancras Church, and removed
to any cemetry the Noble Lord might choose to name?
Lord ASHLEY replied that at present it was impos-.
sible for him to give the required information; but his
own opinion, and that of the board, foanded on the most
minute inquiries, was, that they should be able to reduce
the existing charges very considerably. Whilst on his
might be permitted to allude to the statement
made by the Hon. Baronet on a former night, to the
effect that for interments in the burial-ground at St.
John's-wood the charge was only 7s. 10d., 'including all
fees and the cost of ground. He (Lord Ashley) had
felt it to be his duty to make inquiry into thersabject,
and he found that the Hon. Baronet had omitted alto-
gether the very heavy fee which waspaid' foi`the ground,
called the churchwarden's' fee, and which amounted to'
IL Bs.; thus making the total fees 1/..155. 6d..
Sir B HALL, in justification of himself, said that he
had procured his intormation from the parish Offitiers
with regard to what would be the charge for burials in
the common ground, and that the particulars were as
follows:—Rector. 4s. 4d.; clerk, 19. 4cl.;' sext-On, Is. 2d.;
and the use of the-bell, Is. He had sines been informed,
however, that there was a 'charge of 4s. paid to the
parish, making the total 1 Is. l'Od., instead of 7s. 10d.
The amendment of Mr. Wakley was then withdrawn.'
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY thought the clause would be
inoperative, and recommended that it should be struck

in 1817 numbers of bodies were seen floating down the
Ganges with vultures preying upon them; and that the
Eastern birds of prey might suggest ideas regarding
western. voracity.—(Hear, hear.) Judging from the
violent language used out of doors he should not be
astonished if her Majesty's Ministers were accused of
delivering over for ever the carcases of her Majesty's
subjects and the carcases of their posterity to the ra-
pacious clutches of an insatiate hierarchy.—(Hear, hear.)
Language like that, and worse, was daily uttered against
the Cnurch Establishment on the subject of the ob-
noxious clauses.—(Hear.) He entreated the Govern-
ment, if they had any regard lor religion, any desire to
maintain feelings of regard towards the Establish-
ment, any wish to conciliate the affections of the com-
munity at large, and to retrieve the failing attachment
of the Dissenters, to agree to the amendment which he
had proposed.—(Hear.)
Sir B. HALL suggested that the simplest plan would
be to insert words, making the clause apply only to " the
present" incumbents.—(Hear.) The question was whe-
ther those who came after the present generation should
be compelled to pay for the burial of their relatives to
persons who did not perform any duty whatever.—
(Hear, hear.) It was intended in the first instance to
give compensationin perpetuity on an average of five
years, and if the incomes should prove too large, the 31st
clause empowered the Commissioners to reduce the pay-
ments. Now he would show the Committee that the in-
comes to be derived by the clergy would be at least 175
per cent. larger than were ever contemplated under the
former Bill. He stated the other day that the Bill was
redolent of Mr. Chadwick and the Btshop of London—
(Laughter)—and he had no hesitation in declaring that
the amendments now proposed for the consideration of
the Committee had emanated from the- Bishop of Lon-
don and the clergy themselves, for the maintenance and
increase of their incomes; in fact, it had been officially
announced in one of the papers that the Bishop of Lon-
don had headed a deputation to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir G. Grey), and suggested those changes, The
change proposed was, that there should be a fixed fee of
6s. 2d. on every death, instead of fixing the. average at
five years.
Sir G. GREY-

Not

1, but on. every

Kr. T. DUNCOMBE feared that there would be some
:partiality exercised in entering into the contracts. •
Lord ASHLEY assured the Hon. Gentleman that the
feeling ,ot the. board was in favour of "distributing the
• businees as widely as possible. Their great object
would bo first to consult public feeling and convenience,
and then so to arrange the contracts as :that there
should be a fair remuneration to the contracting parties).
Mr. SADLIER proposed to limit the operation of the
clause to funerals the cost of which should not exceed
at but the proposal was negatived without a division.'-
;Mr. BRIGHT moved the addition of the following.
-proviso:—" Provided that in making contracts as afore-
said, the said board shall not be at liberty to withhold
contracts from any persons carrying on the trade of un
dertaker who shall be willing to contract as aforesaid for
the performance of funerals at the same rate as the said
board shall arrange for with ;any other. person carrying
on the bnsinesa of undertaker, and contractingivith the
said board under the provisions of this Act.'! His object
was to prevent a precedence by which the Board of
Health was to be allowed to give up to any particular
number of undertakers the whole business of the burial
of the dead in a population of two millions. The Bill
would, in fact, extinguish the business of a large number
of undertakers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the amend-
ment sought to effect indirectly what hid been already
rejected by the House, when proposed by the Hon.
Meniber for Finsbury. If any undertaker could, come
in under the contract, and propose for the burial, there
would be no contract at all.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On the question that the clause as amended stand part
of the Bill, • .
Lord.D. STUART objected to the clause altogether,
as compelling the poor, who would wish to bury their
deceased relatives at their own expense by maps of
'payments by instalments to tie. undertaker, to avail
themselves of a parish or pauper ,uneral.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause •104
Against it ... ... 25
The clause was agreed to. - •
On clans@ 28, enacting that the board may provide
for the removal, at the request of relatives,
,of bodies to
houses of reception, • ,

Mr. STANFORD propoted a proviso that no power
of entrance to a roinn or a house should he given to the
.
officers; under the Act 91111nt 44914.41 of. the:relatives of
nib decoased: j.

at ~. —2 o 1 on every 6
burial in consecrated ground. - .
Sir B. HALL—Now what would be the effect of this
*iteration? :If -the payment had been settled on the aver-
age of three or five years, the incomes would have been
fixed, and'po increase Would have taken'plice, but under
the new system ihe amount would increase with the in-
crease of the population.—(Hean-hear.) He would take
the case of-the Parishes of Marylebone .and SL Pancras,
comprising one-sixth of the population of the metropolis,
-and Which were assessed on a rental of nearly 2,000,0001.
In 1801" th- popnlation of Marylebone was 64,000, and
in 1841 it was 138,000, slowing an increase of 74,000.
.The, population of St. Pancras in 1800 amounted to
31,179, and in 1841 to 149,208, showing an increase of
118,029. The increase in the two parishes.was•l92;o29,
being at the rite of 200 per cent. It was 'quite evident
that the amount of fees must increase with the increase
of the population. Let, the. Committee just mark the dif-
ference in the number of deaths within two years only
in Marylebotie. In 1845 the number was 1,209, and in
1846 it was 3,472. , The fees in the former year, at the
rate of 6s: 2d.-on each funeral, amounted -to 987 Z; and
in the latter year to. I,o7ol.—showing an increase of 83/.
The burials at SL John's Wood in 1823 amounted to
860, WhiCh, at -the rate. of 6s. -2d.,- would produci3
3881. 10a..- .In 1846 the number was 2,163, which, at
the same rate, would produce 666/. 19s. 4d,; making a
difference of 278/. 9s. 4d. The clergy were entirely -to
blame for the disgraceful • state of the churchyards of
the metropolis, which they had :.crowded for the
sake of the' fees. Helnew of no instance of it clergy-
man-taking • any steps, -,by representations to •Ilielpaiii-
chial authorities, -to provide additional ;places of huter-
ment, though there-were several eases in which the!y had
opposed establishing extra burial places. The Hon. Ba-
ronet referred to the blue-hook, and quoted two 'o rl three_
extracts to'show the-state of some of the Churchyards,
and the- disguating scenes _that had occurred. -It !Wes a
mistake tesuppose that sueh-things would secure respect
to the clergy, or that the community would constr to
be taxed in perpetuity for the sake of men who Quid
not perform their duty.—(Hear.) !
Mr.- ITEWDEGATE said the Hen. Baron 4 the
MeMber. for Marylebone and the Hon. Member for-
Westminster had made a tevere attack on .the clergy,,
and' the former Hon, Member had read some . disgnstmg
details of what had taken place in some of the church-
yards of the metropolis.---(Hear.) Wh'en the Hon.
Member laid the" blame of the crowded state of the
churehyards.to the clergy, le ought to- have recollected
that they were not so much in- fault as the'inhabitants
themselves ‘ and those who 'represented* them, Whose
. duty it was to have moved in t,he Matter,. and atteMpted
to remedy the abuse.—(l.lear.) The Hon." Baena'
ought also to have recollected that the' fees " Were; Ilt:mly
the means of paying the clergy, and when he'compiained
that the *fees would increase as the population in-
.creased, he ought not to have forgotten that as the po
pulation ineresselthd duties 'of the clergy would also
increase.—(Hear.) It seemed.to him that theelause wan
a proper provision far-. the- future spiritual - duties; d' tlie'
Church, .. The attack -of the Hon. Baronet' on the clergy
was for a state of things which they could not remedy,_--
--(Oh, oh.);- Was that the,case-? •-: - ~---L 1 '
Sir B. HALL, said, if they had made represehtations
to the,parochial authorities that the burial-greunds Were
insufficient, the evils might have. been remedied.'. But
nothing of that kind had been done, . , I
, Mr. NEWPEG.A.TE said he was not so soave cant
with the position of the London clergy in this respeet as
he .was with the clergy in :some 'other townS. In '.Bir-
mingham there were cures of souls-where the remuriera-
' tion did not exceed 150 L, more than half of' which small
stipend depended on burial fees. It ;was not. correct to
-say that these payinenta were for the act of burial; they'
were a part of the stipend, -. Objection might be made to
the form otpayment, but unless other means were'pro-
videdrthe &prising the clergy of them would` be si4iply
robbing them of a part of their income.—(Hear.) 1 Ike:
thought the Hon. Baronet had not,,scrupled to perlyert
the circumstances for the sake of making an unfair atitack
.on the clergy.—(Hear.) • '
Mr. HUME supported the amendment. The question
was; were these burial fees -a . vested, right 'or th 4? It
had, he thought, been demonstrated that the clergy had
no legal right to them.--,(Hear.) It had been laid down
as a rule by Committee© of that'll-map 'that compepaa-
lion was to. be given only as long:at all dutiesnceased,
but that sinecures were DO longer to be.maintained. . He
would be in favour of granting compensation to in-
cumbents' as long as they lived, but not to' their inoces-
sors. He concluded by ,saying he would supper( the
amendment. . - . ....., ,
Sir DE. LACY EVANS said -on a fortnerocOasion
Wheira-measure like that-had !leleD introduced,
.46, hid
difficulty had been the compensation of the elergy4 , H.:
Government bad then said it could-not, be ex'pecteci hat.
lt
it was to be paid out of the Consolidated uoifldtit.
0,
eit.tgiyt
could net be denied thisc lt.w.n.q he
which silw,iy si stood in the way of these reforms. Could '
'it be supposed for a moment thatlf the bishops had
taken up that question long ago the evil would have

Sir G. GREY said it was not intended to give a corn- been retrieved long since?—(Hear.) He did not thievicf
pulsory porter of entrance. `there was anything unreaEonable in the propesitiol!elt,
The eteerelesee v-ith'1,,,v,31, eleeoe h; He . nez o,,rs b'yne, (4.
sgie.-d tninstei. prf.seat calm', he mought-would 'l% ho
On clause 29, referring to the salaries of the additional tremely unpopular, and he hoped it would not
members of the b,urd and the officers under the Act, agreed to.
in answer to Mr. HUME, Lord ASHLEY trusted he would be allowed to °Vs:
Sir G. GREY explained that, according to clause 69, few words in vindication of the clergy. The result 01.".„
there would be annual reports and abstracts of accounts experience during the timo the cholera had been Taro:
submitted to Parliament. There was no objection to enabled him to say that when they had been called :he
naming the salaries of the additional members of the to deal in a summary way with many clergymen d bad
board and of the officers in the Bill. had small burial-grounds in confined places. an bei
In answer to Mr. T. DUNCOM BE, asked them to close up their grave-yards. 'tile),
Sir G. GREY said there was no clause in the Bill had consented to do so without a murmur, and we,
to authorise members of the board to have a seat in had never received compensation for it then a to
Parliament. The compensation now proposed was Inuch three
The clause was amended by the insertion of the words than that which had ben proposed under the ad
" hereinafter mentioned" after the word " salaries," so as years' average. On 52,000 interments the sum Prq:bed
to accord with the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet was about 16,0001, and that was still further dicier; iv
(Sir G. Grey), and was then agreed to, by about 3.0301. paid to officiating clergymen' es
Sir G. GREY gave notice of an amendment on this as he understood the sense of the House, there; t"in-ic ire
and the 38th clause, to meet the case of the burial of strong opposition to giving compensation to e%Jf tel
paupers who might not be of the Established Church, and cumbents. But it should he remembered that,: ail
at whose burial there might be no person to perform the took away one particular duty they did not to‘teleal
burial service, unless there was a fee allowed. He should many that were necessarily performed by those wu
therefore propose to insert in line 15, after " 6s. 2d.," various other parochial clerical offices to discharge' 00
the word " one shilling." He also gave notice of an Mr. HUME wished to know how the law of the
amendment, to prevent the payment of a fee for the re• stood.
moval of a body. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said no ClaiM fthfees,
On clause 30, referring to compensation to incumbents, could be enforced by law for duties performed bi ;co.oofl
Sir B. HALL asked what was the cause of the differ- but custom gave a right where the duty Was Per.vids;)
ence between the clause in the original Bill and that in by the parties themselves.—(Cries of " Divide, di ed..,
the present? The former gave compensation on an aye- The Committee then divided, when there Ore°
rage of three years' income of the incumbent ; the pre- For the amendment ... ..• 18s
26
sent proposition was, that a fee of 6s. 2d. be paid cn Against it
every burial. Majority ~„ to re'
Sir G. GREY said the change was adopted as the Sir B. HALL objected to allow the burial feei.eet
best mode of awarding compensation, after he had re- main at 6s. 2d. as fixed by the Bill. The ineulnu od to
ceived various communications on the subject, which St. Pancras had only 2s. 6d., and they now Im.°P°
v re'
was surrounded with many difficulties. A great per- give him 6s. 2d., or 175 per cent. more than ball,e_stel
tion of the incomes of metropolitan clergymen was deceived. In Marylebone the present fea was 43. *7OO
rived from burial fees, and he must say he always found they proposed to make an addition to that of 45 pet
the clergy ready to make a concession of their interests for doing nothing. They ought in common faire sr'
for the public good. The compensation they would allow these large parishes to enjoy their present he fed
receive under the proposed clause would be much less tageous position, and if in the smaller parishes t+e diet
than that under the former one; the principle now were too heavy, they ought to be brought down "be re'
adopted was identical with that adopted in all the come- sum or even less. He moved that the amount, by the
tery Acts, though the amount was much less. According duced from 6s. 2d. to 4s. 4d„ the sum received
to an extensive average that had been taken, the amount minister in the largest parish in the metropolis•
of the fee would be Bs., but 6s. 2d., which was the ave • Sir G. GREY said he was informed that 40...te
sop
rage of a less number, was the amount that had been the lowest fee received in that parish, and that I' A
fixed upon, and with which the great body of the clergy rage fee for the last five years had been 6s. 91
would be satisfied. Besides, the payment of the chap- Sir B. HALL said that 4s. 4d. was the stun 'fie"
c apd
lain for the performance of these duties was to be de- ,an about 70 per cent. of the burials in Maryleu°—• P.
ducted from the fees. 2s. 6d. the amount received for the same propose
Mr. LUSHINGTON moved as an amendment that St. Pancras. spYt
the compensation should not be perpetual, but limited Mr. HUME thought an average ought t 0 be 001
to such of the incumbents and others as should be in and he had no objection to give the present ltlaurstla"
actual possession of their respective tenures at the full compensation; but he did object to pay Pe '
period of the passing of the Act. He contended that the annuity to those who were to do no duty. the gee
clergy had no right to fees, except when they actually Sir W. JOLLIFFE would go farther than
," 000
performed themselves the burial service. The only Member. He was ready to compensate not 001 Y
right they had in the matter depended upon custom isting, but the future incumbent. • el t"
t
only, and not upon law. The compensation clause had Mr. BRIGHT recommended the postpone
been altered in various ways so as to diminish the corn- clause, so that Government having heard the ologi
pensation, but the principle remained the same. The urged against it, might have an opportunity of °lee el
alterations had been framed on the practices followed more consistent with the claims of the publio,_,a tiao °
with respect to the cemetery companies. In such cases justice between the clergy and the great popwa
the bishop refused to consecrate until certain fees were this metropolis.
guaranteed to the incumbent for the time being andin per- After some further discussion,
stoner or
petuity. At Kensal-green the payment was fixed at ss. 6d. Sir B. HALL asked if the Right Hon.Aga' •if
for a vault, and 2s. 6d. for the open ground. The bishop tended to act on the suggestion of the Hon. Dle";gadl4
afterwards found, when other cemeteries were esta- Manchester; because, if so, he was willing to W 1
blished, that he had made a bad bargain, and the fee his amendment. ft°°
;se from
at the Western Cemetery was fixed at 10s., and at tae Sir G. GREY said no good result could ar-
South Metropolitan at 205.; and if the Gallant Member postponement, and he therefore must decline t°
near him (Captain Pcchell) should die at Brighton, he that course. aclf'larie
could not be buried there for less than a fee of 21. 2s.— Sir B. HALL was about to withdraw his talee
(Hear.) The best excuse for compensation to the clergy but was informed he could not do so without be
was that in many instances they were supported almost of the Committee.
{the cl" ti
altogether by burial fees. A great deal of dissatisfaction Mr. HUME, with the view of getting rid 0-
tin ref
was felt towards the Established Church, and that dis- culty, begged leave to move that the Chair°
satisfaction was expressed in no measured manner. It progress.
had been stated that after the cholera broke out in India The Committee divided, when there anneal. 5$

For the motion .. ,45'
Against it ;
Majority of,
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said, a;ihe question 11; poll
in.his opinion, been duly considered, he Woill e
that the Chairman do now leave the chair. roe.;
Lord J. RUSSELL would not object to the 001('
but proposed that the House shodld meet f/t
oclock on Monday, to proceed with the Bill. ,
Mr. HUME protested against their meet e• Po
o'clock on Monday.—(Loud cries of " Hear, ei4r001:0
had to attend a Committee of great importsoce'md I"
had many other Hon. Members; and he 11°Y-
Noble Lord would not petseve in that propositionloool
Lord J. RUSSELL complained of the lengbe 0;
discussions that had taken place on every' ce:o;sib
unless they had morning sittings, it would be '.„7,iolti's
to carry the Bill through during the present o,Tbrin 49
Sir B. HALL said it the Governmentwwold
`c sli°"e;
Bills like the present, they must expect to find,,it-iso,o,
whose interests were so deeply involved 51200'4 preinn
their representatives to resist what they th°"matieg:vg
dtcial. He should feel bound to oppose the ,113,,e0e0tAIPel
Monday at twelve o'clock, as he had to atteno gee
of his constituents on that very subject en 0,
Wag
morning.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not insist 031,118 to-
day any more than Tuesday, and if it Wenra. cloter.
convenient, he should fix twelve o'clock on .11/ints
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON said his constittleithvol
completely dissatisfied with the precipitation /- fr
this Bill was hurried on.—(Oh, and a laugh.) nsiee'sl
After some further discussion, the further, c."-nesl
Lion of the Bill was postponed till Tueeal)l
twelve o'clock.
The House then resumed, and the CHAIR ;
porte progress.
On d the question that the Bill be further c.,0-1,
.130 i
twelve o'clock on Tuesday. .• sit°
Mr. BOUVERIE said he objected to their •
twelve o'clock. cV •
The House then divided, when there aPPe6-e 6 •
. For the motion "' 155
Against it ".
11-00
itivn itel..o

Majority in favour of the mot.,
The Yudges of ' Assize Bill went throughts; bert t isoctio
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved for leave
Bill to remedy the state of the law with rasp to Pr°
'dentson railways. The object of the Bill Wag
medical assistance in case of accident. olf
Leave was given to bring in ~the Bill, digposs,
The other orders of the day were then, dew"
and the< House adjourned at a Quarter to v/1"
RAILWAY SAAR lt
4)
• - BRISTOL, JUNE 7. etiCe
SrocK Exemsarc4B.--The market was verY,Boo-01 otec:
with a considerable amount of business doing a' ea,
of yesterday. The transactiOns-vrere—Great Weet,_ e)
14 546 cx n.—Ditto, New 17/. Shares, atucester
Midlands, 361 A—Ditto (Birmingham and
per Cents., 120.
. LIVERPOOL, JUNE 7.
,1,111 .11
STOCK ExcrikNart--The s market was --1 fiedi
prices lower. The transactions were as follote'obeo'l, l,
and Yorkshire, Fifths, 9/, 13s. 9d.dis.--B1r; 110517ilip,
cashire, and Cheshire (6 per-cent. till 18°I')'107'74 d'l'44
and Bradford, 95—London and North-Westernla id, eed,9,,),'
New Quarters, 6s. 3d. dis.—Manchester, 5,11°1100,11141'v
colnshire, 17—Ditto, Preference, 7/, •Ifie- eu
--Ditto,Halies, 261. 133.9 d. dis.—Ditto, ConSno,•cisterio,
-16—South-Eastern and Dover ("go. 4),
Ditto, Thirds, 5%7-York, Newcastle, and P" .
E. Purchase), 6 per cent. till 1850, 743 dig* et tcqSe
BIRMINGHAM, enn "
ng 011111,14
SToes EXCIIANGE.—Business in this gist- of""ier
was very flat, and prices had a tendency dc!..10.013
transactions were as follow :—ShrewsburY W'm 01'
(B), 7 dis.—Shropshire Union, 41. Ss• 9d• /
LEEDS, JUNE -7. dal
ExotAxGz.— The transactions to-7-ii'),
low :—NorthWesteni (guaranteed registratoscy, ,
4
Midland (501.), 26 dis.—Caledoriian. 91 6cf°ol
eegl
rADVIIRTISEMENiI —A remarks..- `nee,..-re
fulZ cured by Holloway's Ointment and rl Pi.osetil
Mr. Ailiday, 209, High-street, Cheltenham, I'd the 'llO 0t3,101
ohlwas afflicted with scrofula in the neck, s tell piel'opi
creased so fearfully that in foui year!, he had h bets )r A'
body besides a tumour between 'the 'cies'. being .°ooe. $9.A3
treatment afforded him no relief; the blotl- the di° a Or
that it was considered impossible to,subdus rooricoji coo,
this crisis Holloway's,Pills and Ointment Noroeo solliree
with great success, for in two months the bet list,thsos
or o
by their use, and he has continued well for thie 4
—Sold by all Druggists and at Professor PA ,00 of
went, 244, Strand, London. yening'ill
Szatocri ACCIDENT.-On SundaY,e /)Vies
Charlesworth, of Chapelthorpe Hall, Was wax, whoe,./:,0'1,
his fields, he was suddenly attacked by „et 'lived"'
himn ,woitnhg the
osapt
several of his ribs, and would in all Po`ii- deot, ate er
octlubruat took a hedge-stsk° got,
and beat the animal off'. The unfortunate
gae, woman who saw °t
e frooletioa
ties dangerously ill.-- Wakefield Journal.

so,'otei
MAIMIBD. „ore, iasr I '
On the 4th inst., at St. Peter's, Eaton hall, halli
lowland Beaumont, Bart.,' of Cole Orton- 4 ill',ll ,11,1
shire,. to Pauline Menzies, 1 ' 4°o'
13e1li, Esq., of the H.E.I.C.S. junaver'S in is
- On- the sth inst., at St. Geerge's:,"---ivicieret•de yid
Count Maggiolini, of Mombercelli, George's:, Be ideisigiote
It
limit, Captain of the Grenadier Guards, t° "—oar 11 to ‘,l
el.de.st daughter of K. Harvey, Esq., of Th01.•P,%; esievcgcly,
On the 4th inst, at the church of St. t,i'Mpipe,glol
William Henry, second son of Anthony 1 L'474. gigill'
third' daughter v ,e, ,It,
the Lyndhurst-road, to Ruse Anne, Odes' '- •
14:.1.1tde, of Camberwell"-grove.

ott 44b
ao°l IT.: bttttt ih
t orougb, apred 4
e
f
At Bandolph--bousBe,'Maida-bill, on the
,6th 1115t.' .41,0f1F
nehlmth:nst., at WalliDnlggforp.d,Charles Athecerrpo,fil At,llol.lttlit
stenslralng eaagisstsr..ate and lather of, thrie,w_:isr4,l: pp:
court-road. , J3erl‘9'
the "sth inst., Clianntry-house,l3o:' P'
n CVO
the sth Ina seed 50 William Char to
'of' Charlton,3l
On the sth eaat tEhtlya-npdhiPc:FTQ°lbtoerro-,..1.°/11e85' t!:icot'
of ,Mr. T. Barker, aged 36. of C"'
Out hesth inst., the wife of T. Conies, f,"Scl't
Hampstead, aged 3ti.

al
London: P ificep
No. 12, tits e
1 ri —lBlittreand.ed;ritutebrii:s.,:d. Irrisimpu_o2o 01:111,
Strand, in the Precinct of the SavoY• 10
bilddiewg. SaturdAy, Juno 8, Isso.