The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-04 00:00:00

Mr. THOMAS DUNCO,MBE presented a petition
from a Vac's inaudible in the gallery. complaining that
nothing had been done fur the ♦entilation or security of
mines by the House.
Mr. A'lderman HUMPHERY presented a petition
from Bermondsey against the Interments Bill; also
from a congregation of Nonconformists in Southwark
in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from
Mr. David Salomons in favour of the Jewish Relief Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the parish of
St. Mary, Paddington, against certain clauses in the
Interments Bill.

Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from the
parish of St. Martin, Westsninith,r, to the same effect.
Mr. WYLD presented similar petitions from St. Pan-
cras and Clerkenwell.

• Sir T. D. ACLAND presented several petitions from
Exeter, and other places in Devonshire, against the
Savings Bank Bill.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—THE ROYAL
ACADEMY.
Colonel RAWDON Rave notice, that on the 6th of
June he should tt,IE the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government, what was the result of the inquiry which
had been instituted respecting
,the pictures in the
National Gallery, and whether any communication had
been made to the Royal Academy respecting a change
of building, and also whether there would be a supple.
mental vote in the next estimates with reference to this
object.

POST-OFFICE.
Mr. ANSTEY gave notice that tomorrow he should
ask the Home Secretary whether it was true that the
regular order of getting up appointments its the Post-
Office had been departed from in the ease of the chief
clerk to the money-order office.
THE LONDON GAZETTE.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the total amount
paid for printing and publishing the London Gazette in
each of the years 1846, 1847, 1848, and 1849, exclusive
of stamps and paper, distinguishing the number of
Sheets composed, and whether the wot k was done by
contract or otherwise, and by whom done, with the
average price paid for each sheet, and, the expense
for publishing. Also a balance-sheet for each of
these four years, showing the profit or loss in
each year oh the London Gazette; also, if profit, stating
to whom paid or disposed of; if loss, stating from what
funds supplied. Similar return for the Edinburgh Ga-
zette, for the same period: and, similar returns, yearly,
tor the Dublin Gazette, from the period when the pa-,
tentre was paid a commuted allowance; also accounts t f
' the Government establishment of the' Royal Hospital for
seamen at Greenwich, in the year 1849, stating the se-
veral officers in the military department and in the civil
branch; the number of pensionsre, and establishment;
the number of superannuated officers, and the total ex-
pense in the year: and, of the moneys expended upon
repairing and extending farm-houses,
84c., in that year.
exhibiting the same kind of account in detail for 1849
as the Return No. 112, of 1840, exLibited for the year
1839.--Agreed to.

RAJA BROOKE.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, whether the letter which appeared
in the Times newspaper, relative to the proceedings 0,
Raja Brooke, was a fair copy of the letter which bad
been received, and whether the Noble Lord had insti-
tuted any inquiries relative to the transaction alluded to?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that the subject was con-
sidered by the Government when the papers were laid
before them. Those papers had since been laid on the
table of the House.
POST-OFFICE LABOUR ON SUNDAYS.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether her Majesty's
Government would have any objection to allow a Com•
mittee to be appointed to consider the project on which
the House had agreed on Thursday night, to present an
address to her Majesty. He had received several com-
munications from commercial parties, stating that if the
mails were suspended on Sundays, serious consequences
would follow, of which few in the House had any
idea.—(gear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not state at pre-
sent,
whether the Government was prepared to consent
to the appointment of a Committee on the subject.
FREE TRADE
Mr. DISRAELI gave note that to-morrow be would
present a
petition from Lancashire signed by 15,000
persons, landowners, manufacturers, farmers, artiz ins,
and labourers, praying for a more equitable legislation
with respect to home labour and produce.—(Bear,)
.„ BOARD OF HEALTH.
-e6
Mr. . OSBORNE wished to know why the report of
the Board of Health which was laid upon the table of
the House the other day bad not been distributed among
Members?.
the
Sir G. GREY was unable to state why copies of the
report had not been furnished to Members.
Lord,..:, ASHLEY said the distribution of the report
"a" been delayed in coneequence of an accident hap..
pening to one of the stone tables of the lithographer.
1 at THE STATE OF THE SERPENTINE.
give any ea-
--1-r- S. OSBORNE wished to• put another question
with reference to that report. A great many of the in-
habitants of Kensington had made strong complaints of
seat making
p lana knowingt
io relativewh ether t
o the
the
est
at
o of
the un
pool, Pleasant smell emitted from the river, or rather
known as the Serpentine, and he was desirous of
Lord Government
tha tewoautiedr?
SEYMOUR said he had lately bad an inter-
view with a deputation on the subj..ct, and be was at pre-
of might be diminished.
inquiries as to how the nuisance complained

......... ...„..
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
Mr. GLADSTONE asked the Under-Secretary for
the Colonies whether her Majesty's Government s(re
prepared to lay on the table
(.)f the
.House an account of
41241 !Animus they had WPM.; in parsusaee of the iicti,

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.
Mr. VAIiLEY presented a petition from 690 of the
inhabitants of Islington against the Interments Bill.
Mr. C. PEARSON presente I a petition from Lam-
beth, praying that that Bill might not pass without
alteration.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from the parish of
St. Bride's, London, against the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented similar petitions
against the Bill from Poplar, the vestry of St. Luke's,
and other places in the metropolis..
Mr. LACY presented a petition from Mr. George
Lewis Ansell, clerk to the London Cemetery Company,
against the Bill.
Mr. W/ Lll presented a petition from Mile-end to the
same effect.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. LACY moved that the Bill be referred to a Select
Committee. He felt that as a Member from a distant
constituency he required some excuse fir interfering
in the question.—(bear.) But the Bill involved such
great injustice—such a waste of money, and he felt so
strongly on the subject that he could not refrain from
making this motion. There were so many amendments
to be proposed, he did not think it was possible that
the Bill could get through Committee, and he thought
the best course would be to refer it to a Select Com-
mittee.
Lord DUDLEY STUART seconded the motion.
The Bill affected the interests and pockets of a large
class of the inhabit oats of the metropolis ; and he could
not deny that a Bill on this subject was greatly wanted,
but not such a Bill as this, which was contrary to the
principles of political economy and constitutional freedom.
Was it necessary that a Bill of this description should
tax the people of the metropolis without their consent ? for
that was really the object of the Bill. Toe distinguishing
feature of it was to empower the board to put its hand
into the pockets of the people, and to employ
the money so raised in what way they thought
proper. The most unusual powers were entrusted to
the board. They were to appoint a whole
ermy of paid officials, including, besides the mem-
bers of the board, clerks, assistant-clerks,
wardens, sextons, and grave-diggers, who might
amount to hundreds and perhaps to thousands. They
had the power also of stating what graveyards and ce-
meteries should be clost-d up, and elm new ones should
be opened, and also in what way the funerals should
be conducted. But the power to which he most
bjected was that which allowed them to fix e het
fees should be paid for burials. The House ought
t look at the measure, he thought, with the
greatest jealousy, and ho would suggest that the best
mode of proceeding was ro refer it to a Select Committee.
Why, he would ask, was the principle t f the Bill not to be
carried out by parochial authorities ? They would be
much better able to do so than a Government
.board, judging from the reckless mismanagement
which had characterised the effice of Woods acid Forests in regard to Crown lands.—(Hear, bear.)
Government boards were quite as apt to be extravagant,
quite as apt to be actuated by favour, as a parochial
board, and he fir one could not consent to this viola-
tion of the principles of the Constitution. Again,
the Bill interfere.i with the course of trade. It proposed to
establish the rates at which funerals should be furniehee,
which was a direct violation of the principles of political
economy. Before those principles should be departed from
an overwhelming necessity must be shown for the step.
He did not think that necessity existed in this case, but if
it did the onus probandi rested with the Govern-
ment. In the absence of that proof no area
sure of this sort ought to be adopted ; the
trade ought to be left to the ordinary opera-
tions of supply and demand. But it was said
undertakers had been extravagant in their charges.
Well so they might, but was the undertaker the
only tradesman who made extravagant charges?
[lad they not had extravagant tailors, extravagant
butchers, and extravagant grocers? and if it was right
to interfere with the trade of the undertaker,
why not apply the same interference to those other
branches of industry? The Bill was objectionable,
moreover, on the ground of the excessive compensation
which it proposed to give thelparties whose vested rights
were likely to be disturbed by it; and the
more he examined the Bill the more was he
satisfied that it was a measure which ought not to be hur-
riedly passed, but postponed till a fteure period in order
that it might be considered by a Select Committee.
He thought if the 'Bill was referred to a Select Cona•
mittee every purpose would be answered, and that the
best results would ensue.
Sir G. GREY opposed the motion for referring
the Bill to a Select Committee. When the Bill went
into a Committee of the whole House, he should
be prepared to discuss its details and to
remedy many of the evils complained of. The
amendment proposed would have the effect
of postponing the Bill for another session, which he
believed would be productive of the worst effects.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON was understood to state that he
should support the amendment. He protested against
the provisions of this Bill, which contemplated the burial
of some Christians in one part of the cemetery, and
others in another, instead of allowing them to moulder in
the same dust side by side.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said it was not his intention to at-
tack the principle of this; Bill, for that was laudable and
proper. No one could read the report of the Com-
mittee, of which the Hon. Member for Lymington (Mr.
Mackinnon) was chiirman, or the report of the Sanitary
Commission, wvhcut seeing that the comfort, the well-
being, the morals, and, what et as of greater importance,
the health—(A laugh)—of the people were at stake.
The Hon. Member for Bodmin had moved for a Sel. et
Committee on the Bill, and he would certainly give that
motion his support. The great object of the measure
was to ups. t the whole of our parochial system, as re.
garded burials, and to entrust most despotic powers to
the Board of Health, ell Dissenters being excluded from
the management of the proposed cemeteries while a
power of taxation to the extent of about 300001 would
be conferred upen the Board. The Government would,
have done wiser Jf, instead .of a Bill of. 73 clauses like
the_ projent,.,ihey.had introduced a general Act prohi..

'maw Qi) 0.14 B2CWILC.4I OW* ,b) 4.1", Jam, 411 ,