The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-24 00:00:00

ellitrti %titian

SUN OFFICE, Se#7l o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER tookßD READIN the Chair shortly after Twelve.
THIGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed:—
Manchester Bonding.
St. Thomas's Hospital Estate.
COND READINGS.
Cavendish's (or Harcourt's) Estate Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.
STANDING ORDERS.
On the motion of Mr. %` ILSON PATTEN, it was
ordered that the following Committee should be appointed
to revise the standing orders of the House relative to
private Bills :—Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Bernal, Mr.
Greene, Mr. Henley, Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr. Wright-
son, Mr. Evelyn Ihnison, Mr. Teton Egerton, Mr.
Sotheron, Captain Jones, Sir Henry Willoughby, Mr.
Brotherton, and Mr. Thornely.
A great number of petitions were presented for and
against the recent alterations in the Post-office.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Edinburgh
against eertain clauses in the Friendly Societies Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
an individual in the metropolis against the erection of the
proposed building in Hyde-park.
Mr. WAWN gave notice that on the bringing up of
the report on the Mercantile Marine Bill he would
move that the Bill should be recommitted.
POOR RELIEF BILL.
The Poor Relief Bill was read a third time and
passed.
POOR RELIEF (CITIES AND TOWNS).
Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR moved the second reading of
the Poor Relief (Cities and Towns) Bill.
Mr. T. EGERTON submitted to the Hon. Member
whether it would not be a more prudent course for him
to 'withdraw the Bill at once, as he considered there
wo.sld be
,no chance of its passing during the present
sesnion.
Mr. S. ADAIR felt bound to call the attention
of the House and the Government to the
object and provisions of the Bill. It did not
apply to the agricultural districts, but simply to cities
and towns. As an instance of..the inequality of rating
in cities in towns, he might state that in one parish
in Cambridge the rates were 4d. in the pound, in
another 2d., in a third Is. 2d., and in a fourth Is.
3ea., and it was his firm belief that in Lon-
don and the larger cities similar inequalities existed.
He believed also that the principle of the Bill ought
to be extended to more unions than he proposed to
extend it, and he hoped that the House, by reading the
Bill a second time, would approve of the principle.
Mr. E. ELLIS seconded the motion.
Mr. T. EGERTON moved that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. BAINES opposed the Bill. He hoped that the Hon.
Member would not think it necessary to press forward with
the Bill at this late period. He thought that the whole
question was bound up with the question of settlement,
and they could not expect to see either of them settled
separately. It was for this reason that he hoped
the Hon. Member would not press forward this Bill.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, though he regretted that
the Bill had not been brought in before this period of
the session, was unwilling that the principle should be
negatived. He believed that the Bill was well calcu-
lated to remedy many of the evils which existed in con-
sequence of the present system both in cities and towns
and also in country districts.
Mr. V. SMITH complained that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the President of the Poor-law Board, when he
begged the Hon. Mover of this Bill to withdraw his Bill
because it was bound up with the large question of rating
and settlement, had not pledged himself to bring some
measure of his own forward on this subject.
Sir G. GREY said, with regard to what had fallen
from the Hon. Alderman, nothing had been said upon
the principle of the Ball .by any Member who bad
spoken. He could say that the valuable reports which
had been alluded to had been under the consideration
of Government for some time, and they hoped to be
able to bring forward some measure on the subject early
in the next session. Beyond this he would not wish to
pledge himself.
Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR consented to withdraw the
Bill. After what had fallen from the Right Honourable
Baronet who last addressed them he could not persevere
with the Bill.
After some further discussion the Bill was withdrawn.
COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS' BILL.
Sir WM. CLAY moved the second reading of this
Bill, which was intended to confer the franchise upon
parties who were entitles to, but did not enjoy it. The
House was aware that in London and other large towns
the landlords of a certain class of houses, with a rental
of 101. and upwards, compounded for the payment of
the rates, with advantage to the parish as well
as to the tenant; and the consequence was,
that the occupiers of those houses were not re-
turned as rate-payers, and they were consequently
deprived of the privilege of the franchise. At present
the occupier had to make an annual claim to he placed
on the register of voters, and the object of this Bill was
to render all subsequent applications unnecessary after
the first claim had been made and allowed. As the law
now stood, -very many thousand persons were excluded
from the franchise who were clearly entitlei to it. and
while he was ready to make any change in the details of
the Bill, which the Huns° might. upon consideration,
think necessary, ho hoped there would be no objection to
reading it a second time, and affirming its principle.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said this very same Bill stood
for a second reading on the 26th of July last, and now
that stage was prepared to be taken three days earlier
this session. Last year the Government thought the
Bill was too important to be read a second time at so
late a period of the session, and for the same reason he
should oppose the motion now. Lord Denman, in his
time, warned the Legislature not to trifle with this sub-
ject. That Learned Lord said, if this practice were to
prevail it would open the door to enormous frauds. He
(Hr. Newdegate) did not see that the necessity for this
Bill was pressing, for the returns presented to this House
snowed the number of borough electors throughout
the country were greatly on the increase. He therefore
felt it his duty to move that this Bill be read a second
time this day three months.
Sir GEORGE GREY did not feel any hesitation in
supporting the second reading of this Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) The objects of the Bill came entirely within the
spirit of the Ream Act, and was far from identical
with the Bill of last session, as had been stated by the
Hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate).
Sir E. N. BUXTON said he had no hesitation in giving
his assent to the Bill. There were thousands of persons
quite as fit to vote as those who did vote, but who were
at present disfranchised for want of such a Bill as this.
It enabled persons who actually lived in a 101. house,
though they were not in point of law chargeable with the
payment of rates, to vote as well as those who actually
paid the rates. He would not say the machinery of this
Bill was exactly what he could wish.—(" Dear," from the
Opposition.) But that was not the question. The question
was, whether the House would allow a great number of
persons, who really were qualified to vote in point of
the value of their houses, to be disfranchised simply
because the landlord and not they paid the rates.
Mr. TRELAWNY rose to advocate the principle
of the extension of the suffrage, and to claim the vote
of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, in consequence of
his late speech on the Irish franchise, and he could not
see bow he could refuse it. It had been said by the Hon.
Member for Warwickshire that the voters were diminish-
ing in counties and in towns. Ho could not see, then, how
that Honourable Member could refuse his support to
this Bill. Ile must say, however, that if there were
anything proposed in that House bearing the character
of progress, they were sure to find one of the Members
f'r Warwickshire opposing it, and generally the other
Member supporting his colleague.—(Laughter.)
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY and
Sir G. PECHELL.
Sir W. CLAY replied, and the House divided, when
there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it

90
24
-56

Majority
The Bill was then read a second time.
SUNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
Mr. C: PEARSON presented petitions from small
shopkeepers in thu New-cut, Larabeth; Irom the butchers
Of Clare-market ant Nevvgate-market, and 17 petitions
from the cla's of small chandlers in the metropolis, in
favour of this
Mr. B. WALL presented a large number of petitions
against the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON presentei a petition from a
hairdresser against the 811.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON presented a petition, as
we under,tood, against the Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented petitions from
St. Luke's and other parishes in favour of the Bill, and
one petition against it. The Noble Lord also presented
a petition complaining of the manner in which petitions
had been got un against the Bill. Many of the petitioners
had been induced to sign a petition against the Bill
under the impression that the petition was in favour of
the Bill.

Mr. C. PEARSON then moved the second reading of
the Bill, which had come down from the Lords. The
other House had passed it after the subject had been
carefully Considered by a Committee. It was expected
that a Member in moving the second reading of a Bill
should state something in favour of its principle; bet in
this instance it was difficult to separate the principle of
the Bill from its details. It was nut based upon religious
grounds—it was rather amt asure of police, and he sup-
ported the Bill for the simple reason that one day in
seven ought to be set aside for recreation and rest.
How that one day st.ould be spent he had nothing to do
with. This was a matter which rust rest between the
man who ceased from labour on the Sabbath and his God.
This Bill wai intended to improve or assiit the work,ng
classes. He belonged to that body himself, and as be
was himself often compelled to work on the Sunday from
necessity, it. would be a gross act of hypocrisy in lima
he supported this Bill on the ground that it was rt quired
for the purpose of securing the religious observance of
the Sabbath. No one could deny that the parties whose
interest would be most affected by this Bill were favour-
able to its principle; for in many instances the large
majority of them had ireffectually attempted to
put it in force by voluntary means, while one trader,
who was in the habit of taking 401. on a Sun-
day, and others similarly situated, were prepared
to forego their profits for the sake, net so
much with the view of securing the due observance of
the Sabbath as providing for a day of rest in every week,
uPon which they could be relieved from the severe