The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

PIRATES HEAD MONEY BILL.

The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH directed the atten-
tion of the House to this Bill. It had come up from the
Commons a month since, and it was to commence from
and after the let of June. Being a money Bill they
could not alter it, and it consequently would not come
Into operation for twelve months.
Earl GREY would consider the subject.
LIVERPOOL CATTLE MARKET BILL.
Lord STANLEY drew the attention of their Lord-
ships to a clause introduced into this Bill, prohibiting
any person from selling a single head of cattle, except
in the market of Liverpool, or the markets authorized
by the company within the district under the juris-
diction of this Bill, which district included the
whole of the Southern division of Lancashire. There was
a provision authorising the company to make their shares
301 shares instead of 251. shares, in order to reduce the
nominal unmet of their dividend, end giving this corn •
pany a monopoly of the market; and this Bill had Leen
introduced and carried through the House of Commons
by the free-trade Members of Liverpool and Lancr.shire.
Be presented a petition egainst the Bill. Ho did not
object to the second reading, but b, fore it went into
Committee he wished to draw the attention of the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade to the subject,

L)rd BEAUMONT thought that the Bill rnif.2-4 be
rejected on its own merits, and ho hoped the Noble
Lord would move its rejcction on the second rending.
It established such a rw.-hc;poly as never was heard of
before.

Lord STANLEY. vs-ould not move the rejection of
the Bill at ouce, but would leave it to their Lord hips
to deal with it.

GREECE.

Lord STANLEY kid on the table the words of the
resolution he intended to propose on Friday. The ruse-
lution was—" That while this House recognised that it
was the right and duty of the Government to afford to
her Majesty's sulij,:cts rcsidirg in foreign states the
fullest protection, yet they had found, with regret,
from the papers laid before tho louse, that
of late certaia claims had been urged upon the
Greek Government of dolbtful justice, and of exagge-
rated amount, and that recourse had been had to coer-
cive measures to enforce thoie claims, measures which
were detrimental to our amicable relations with the
Greek Government, and fttuulated to interfere with our
friendly relations with nther p.)wers."
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAIN.ID) BILL.
The Marquis of WEiTME NTH. rose to draw the at-
tention of the Flouse to :he Bill which he had introduced
on this subject.

Lord BEAUMONT urp..Tl the Noble Marquis to post-
pono the seco:l reading o the D:!.
Lord STANLEY also urged the por,tpnnement.
The Earl of GLENGALL hoped the Noble Marpis
would persevere. It was absolutely necessary to put a
stop to the sale of encambored estates by the Commii-
sioners, which was a whel,lsale confiscation. It was a
robbery and a conflEcation to tell estates in this way to
pay encumbrances.
Lord LANGDALE called the Noble Earl to order.
There was no question before the House.
The Earl of GLENGALL at first refused to sit down,
but on his being reminded that there was no question
before the House, he ultimately gave way.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH postponed the
second reading of the Bill to Monday next.
SUNDAY TRADING PREVEN I'ION BILL.

The Earl of ELLBNi3lsßol7Gif;vl;led;
pro-
ceeding to another stage of this Bill, to draw
their Lordships' attention to the subject. Not
one of' their Lordships, not one of the upper classes,
would be interfered with; they mighthave their carriages,
they might make their journey, they might take their
pleasure, but the poor man could not buy one pound of tea
or one pound of bread after twelve o'clock on Saturday
night; and the puor man who received his wages late,
and unable to purcl.a;e his provisions, would bo driven
to the cook-shop for his dinner; and nothing could be
more detrimental to the morality of the lower classes than
to drive them froaa their bo:aes on a Sunday. There
was one clause authorising the police to seize provisions
sold on Sunday, he believed, and he was borne out in
this opinon by lktr. Mayne, that were the police to en-
force that provision it. would create a strong feeling
sigahist them and against the law, and would excite great
confasbn, ns there were more than 20,000 parsons who
would be violating the law, and Mr. Mayne bad refused to
sufer them to make seizures under local Acts, because
it tended to a breach of the pi;nco, as the women and
children flew out and resisted, and he did not think the
selling things in the street on Sunday existed to such
an extent as to authorise the interference of the police.
Hs was desirous to pat an end to Sunday trading, but
he thought it was better to suffer Sunday tr .ding than
to create a Sunday riot. Ha thought that public-houses
should be closed earlier on Saturday night, and that the
markets should he permitted to remain open until
two o'clock on Sunday morning, and he
would stop all trading on Sunday morning
between ten and one o'clock, but he did not feel
disposed to propose any amendment in the Bill.
Ile would, however, caution their Lordships as to how
they legislated on a matter which would not affect their
comforts, but which did affect materially the comforts of
the poor man.
Tho Earl of HARHOWBY did not see any analogy
between the cases of the rich and poor man as described
by the Noble Earl. He had no apprehension as to the
interference of the police, and he therefore thought the
objections of the Noble Earl on that score were fanciful
and overstrained. There was a provision in the Bill by
which fruit and other perishable articles of food could
be sold within certain h ;urs on the Sunday.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL taid the Bill bad
originated net with any Member of that House, but
with the shopkeepers and workmen in the metropolis,
who had begged the interference of Parliament in the
matter as a favour.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH denied altogether
that the Bill was the Bill of the labourer; it was the
Bill of the retail shopkeep?r, and nothing else.
Lord BEAUMONT, as a member of the Committee
on the Lill, had n. t exne to the conclusion that the Bill
was a poor man's Bill, or one in favour of the labourer.
The Bill, in its details, appeared to him very ill-drawn,
and he scarcely knew as a question of police one more
dangerous. Ile therefore objected to the Bill, because
it adopted th© wrong manner cf effectinc; the end it had
in view; bat he admitted that the Noble Earl had suc-
ceeded in establishing; in the Committee a better ground
for interference than he (Lord-Beaumont) had any pre-
vious idea was possible.
Lord POR MAN said the discussion was one for the
second reading, not for that stage ; and it was, there-
fore, contrary to the standing orders of the House.
The report was then agreed to.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 4.
The SPEAUER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

ABERDEEN RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. illimE
iiiroosect the insertion of an additional
clause in the forl the purpose of giving accommo-
dation to the towns the routes of the line.
• Captain
it to the clause, on the
' ground that it was ecessory, and had already
been rejected by the Select Committee to whom the Bill
was referred.
Mr. FERGUS supported the clause.
The Marquis of GRANBY
said the Committee had
unanimously agreed that the
principle
should not be introduced into the Bill, and
it: hoped
the House would support the Committee,
very inconvenient precedent might be established.otherwise
ise
Mr. BOUVERIE said if the clause was not agreed
to, the towns of Arbroath, Caper, and Dundee, would b.,`
• debarred from having regular accommodation by the
trains.
Captain GORDON hoped the Muse would reject the
clause, being of opinion that it would give rise to an
• unwarrantable interference with the company.
Mr. DUNCAN supported the clause.,
• Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., thought a strong case had been
made out in favour of the clause.
Mr. GREENE hoped the House would support the
opinion of the Committee.
Mr. GLADSTONE wanted to know whether the
allegation was true that the Aberdeen Railway received
twenty per cent. from the Scottish Midland Railway to
divert traffic which would otherwise go by a shorter
route. If that was true the House ought to lay any
pressure it could—he did not care how heavy that pres-
Bura was--to put an end to such a system.
Mr.
J. STUART WORTLEY said this question
was di !Cussed on all its merits in Committee, and not
only decided, but decided unanimously against the pro-
moters of this clause, and he
trusted the House would
follow its usual course,
and support the decision of its
Committee.
The House then divided when there appeared—
For the clause
••• ... 61
Against
... 101
... —4O
The clause wasM eajoonrisetqyuent.l.y. lost. The Bill was then
read a third time and passed.
PETITIONS.

Mr. HUME presented a petition praying for a reduc-
tion in the national expenditure.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from Hors-
cattle, in Lincolnshire, ago,inq the Savings' Bank Bill.
• ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Mr. FITZROY moved that upon Thursday, the 27th
, day of this instant June, orders of the day have pre-
AA pektence of notices of motions, without priorAy to Go.
;, ,v4.`rhn:lent order?.
t . HUME
rj. ~,116 r opposed the motion as an innovation on
' \V't ' , rivilegas of Honourable Members who had notices
\ ' ~. ;of: tion on the paper.. . , _ . . ,
s,-',,r,-- jer . GLADSTONE sad the motion would effect no
--io-

innovation, and was simply a recurrence to what had
formerly been the practice of the House.
Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the motion.
After a few words from Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, Mr.
Trelawney, and Mr. Frowen,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to support
the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—.
For the Motion ... ... 169
Against it ... 37
Majority --132
THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR gave notice that on the 18th of
June he would bring forward a motion calling upon the
House to recognise the principles of the People's
Charter.

THE SUN,