The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

110 USE OF LORDS, June 6.
Their Lordships assembled this afternoon at a Quarter
before Four o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The House of Commons having been summoned to
the bar of their Lordships' House, the Royal Assent
was given by Commission, in the usual form, to
the undermentionedßills:—The Customs Bill, the Stamp
Duties Bill, the Factories (No. 2) Bill, the Bailiffs of In-
ferior Courts Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement Bill, the
West India, &c. Relief Bill, the Courts-Martial (East
Indies) Bill, the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Bill,
the Blackburn and Preston Railway Bill, the Maryport
and Carlisle Railway Bill, the Northern and Eastern
(Newport Deviations) Railway Bill, the Salford Im-
provement Bill, the Birkenhead Improvement Bill, the
Leeds New Gas Bill, the Globe Insurance Company
Bill, the Haltwhistle Inclosure Bill, the Farrington and
Gwmgilla Inclosure Bill, and Rodbard's Name Bill.
The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Earl of Dalhousie.
The Commons having withdrawn, their Lordships ad-
journed during pleasure.
Their Lordships resumed at Five o'clock.
The Assaults (Ireland) Bill passed through Com•
mittee.
The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition
against Sir Thomas Wilson's Estate Bill.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Earl FORTESCUE presented petitions in favour of
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, Ile gave his cordial thanks
to the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack for
having introduced this Bill, and he trusted it would pass
intoalaw.
WILSON'S ESTATE BILL—INCLOSURE OF
HAMPSTEAD-HEATH.
The Earl of EGMONT moved the second reading of
this Bill, and in doing so he denied that it was intended
to apply the powers of the Bill, should it be passed, for
the purpose of inclosing Hampstead-heath.
Lord DENMAN felt it his duty to oppose this Bill,
for he was at a loss to know what grievance there was
of which Sir Thomas Wilson could complain, and there-
fore there was no necessity for this Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) The will under which Sir Thomas Wilson
held his property, provided that Hampstead-heath
should not be leased for more than twenty-one
years. It had been said that this Bill was not for the
purpose of inclosing Hampstead •heath. It was true
that it was not intended to cut up the heath into small
-portions,-us was the case of an inclosed common ; but it
was meant to give by the Bill power to certain parties
to build over 400 acres of land, which now made the
heath a healthy and happy place, and tlPc; resort of
thousands on every Sabbath-day in the summer time ;
and this, he thought, ought to be more gratifying to the
proprietor than any trifling increase in the value of that
property. The holders of' copyhold property near to
the heath were greatly annoyed at the prospect of hav-
ing 400 acres of the heath built upon. It had been
said that the will of the late Sir Thomas M. Wilson
was a very strange will, but he (Lord Denman) thought
it was a very humane will, for he believed that Sir Thos.
Wilson as much devised the enjoyment of Hampstead-
heath to the public as he did any of his property to his
son. Under these circumstances he should move that
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of COLCHESTER supported the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL thought the Bill ought to be re-
jected. The same powers existed with respect to the
property of Sir Thomas Wilson, as were possessed by
his ancestors. Why then should he come to Parliament
for further powers as to the disposal of such property
as that on Hampstead-heath ? Why should Par-
liament give powers to a private individual, at the
expense of public convenience and comfort. This Bill
was precisely the same as the Bill of last session, which
was brought forward to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to
lease Hampstead-heath for periods of sixty and seventy
years. He (Lord Campbell) hoped their Lordships
would reject this Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that within the last ten
years thirty Bills similar to this one had passed, and he
would ask what objection there could be to this Bill
going before a Committee of their Lc;rdships' House ?
He should support the second reading.
The Earl of MANSFIELD argued that if this Bill
were unsound in principle, there was no necessity for
going into the Committee, and therefore he should op-
pose it in the present stage.
Lord COTTENHAM said, this Bill if passed would
not interfere with Hampstead-heath at all.—(Hear.)
The Bill contained nothing which in an ordinary case
would prevent its passing, and, therefore, if they refused
to pass this Bill, they would forfeit their character for
doing equal justice to all.
Lord BROUGHAM was surprised that his Noble and
Learned Friend should defend Sir T. Wilson in an at-
tempt to dispose of his estate by statute, in such a
manner as to be in opposition to his father's will.
Lord COTTENHAM explained.
Lord DENMAN said, that from the plan which he
held in his hand, it appeared that it was proposed to
build upon 400 acres of Hampstead-heath; and this, if
carried into effect, would very seriously inconvenience the
public in the enjoyment of the heath.
The Earl of EGMONT replied.
Their Lordships then divided—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority against the second reading —ll
The Bill is consequently lost.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter from Lord
Ellenborough, stating that he had received the thanks of
the House of Lords, expressing their Lordships' appro-
bation of the services rendered by the army in India.
The letter was ordered to be entered on the journals
of the House.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 6.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and
summoned the House to the bar of the House of Peers
.to hear her Majesty's Commission read for giving the
Royal Assent to several Bills, for which see Lords' repOrt.
The Epsom and Croydon Railway Bill was read a
Railwaypassed.Eßs' CHAPELS BILL. Bill was read a third time tend
passed. third
The t i
Tm
aeDgalvnsdsa vale
N T
1
ay., M
Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the cler-
gymen of the Established Church in.the county of Dub-
lin, 100 Members of the Irish bar, and several fellows
and scholars of Trinity College, against the Bill.
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Colonel
Sibthorp,
rous congregationsl
Independents,undyfrom nu
unFlaned
Baptists.
Mr. WALKER presented a petition from a body of
A ntroobflis W' and
leans Mr
Wesleyans, who stated that upon examining the Bill,
they found reason to withdraw their opposition to it, and
eo
they prayed the House to allow them to withdraw their
petition against the Bill.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition numerously
signed from • Roman Catholics in the county of Cork
against the Bill.
Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a great number. of pea-
tions from Irish Catholics in favour of the Bill, amongst
petitions by
from
persons.
Birming-
ham,
others
i 8
rr
...one oneGIIcGODSON
I; fromonis
T sfTaovzNo
Kildare, ldo a4r e
and
one against it.
Al ls
presented tw
presented iglid
apetition in favour of the
Bill; and several against it, pfrom places in Northum-
berland..
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from
Warrington, in Preston, and one from places in Lan-
cashire,Mr. ITIORNELY presented several petitions in.
in favour of the Bill.
favour of the Bill, from places in the West of England,
and from Abby Lara, in the county of Westmeath, and
from several other places in Ireland.
Mr. TAYLOR presented petitions from several plaOs
in Worcestershire in favour of the Bill.
Petitions against the Bill were presented from Mon-
mouth, by Mr. Blewitt ; from Cumberland, by Mr. Gore
Langton ; froth Birmingham and places in Gloucester-
shire, by Mr. Seholelleld ; and by, Colonel T. Wobd,
from Finchley and other places in Middlesex. 1 .
Mr. RICE presented a petition from Dover against
the Bill.
Mr. BUSFEILD presented petitions from congrega-
tions in Bradford, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. BItOTHERTON presented six petitions, signed
by several thousand Roman Catholics in Manchester
and Salford, against the Bill.
Lord R. GROSVENOR presented several petitions
for and against the Bill.—(Laughter.) He had carefully
examined these petitions, and he found the signatures
so nearly balanced each other in point of numbers, that
he was unable to say whether he was petitioning for the
Bill or against it.—(Laughter.)
Colonel TREVOR presented a number of petitions
Mr. BOYI) presented 51 petitions against the Bill;
i
against the Bill.
Mr. PLU3IPTRE presented a similar petition from
Margate.
Mr. 0. GORE presented petitions against the Bill him
Pershore, and other places in Worcestershire, and also
one from Sligo.
Dr. BOWUING presented petitions from Wesleyans,
and other Dissenters at Barnjtrd Castle and Manchester,
in favour 'of the Bill.
Dr. STOCK presented a petition, signed by 50,000
Roman Catholics in the county of Dublin, in favour of
*
the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear. )
Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from a congre-
gation in Leeds in favour of the Bill.
Sir J. RANMER presented a petition against the Bill.
Colonel ACTON presented petitions from Dublin to
the same effect.
Sir G. STAUNTON presented petitions to the same
effect.

Mr. SHAW presented petitions in favour of the Bill
from the Roman Catholics of Dublin.
Mr. WAWN presented petitions from South Shields
against the Bill.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented fifteen petitions from
the north of Ireland against the Bill ; also, nine petitions
in favour of the Bill.
Mr. MILNES presented a petition from the deanery
of Pomfret against the Bill.
Mr. RICHARDS presented patitiOnS to the same effect.
Lord MARSHAM presented
the same effect.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented several pet.. Lancashire in favour of the BiiL potit;2lo from Kent to
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against the Bill: Lord DUNCAN presented several petitions from Bath I as they _
I rage . Unitarranis-m. .
tgainst the Bill.
Mr. SHEIL presented fifteen petitions from Roman
ennded.—(Hear, hear.) ' rit.
7atholic He thought t
congregations in4reland in favour of the Bill. I
Colonel VERNEIt presented petitions from the North 'have
; any effect, either one way or z.,‘„
'lreland for and against the Bill.
Viscount ACHESON ' eft ' pie tftibri - lbe-itnd ,if it would, the time for interkren %e as inst the Bill. sal of the Bills of 1813 and 1817 ‘'
' vl
°I "--
complete toleration, --mear, f for the extension ~..
present
hear.) kle would nor . rats ~

`:tions from