The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN,

Hamlets, 'Marylebone, and cth2r parts of the metropolis,
signed by nearly 12,000 persons, against the Sunday
Trading Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY 'prelented n petition from St. Luke's
to the same effect. _ _

Mr. B. WALL sugested to the promoters cf the Bill
that, under the circumstances of the case, the farther
consideration of the Bill should be postponed until next
session, or at all events to acme future day in the present
session.

.Ir. C. PEARSON said. representing the promoters
of this Bill, he believed he should best consult the wishes
of those parties by yielding to the suggestion which had
fallen from the Hon. Member (Mr. B. Wall)—(Hear,
hear)—and as it was of importance to have the assistance
of the law-officers of the Crown, who were now neces-
sarily absent, in discussing its provisions, he would
therefore consent to the second reading being postponed
until this day week.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
Oa arriving at the sth clause, which provides for the
borrowing of money on the security of the borough rater,
to carry out the purposes of the Bill,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the clause on the ground
that there was no limit to which the borough rate might
be pledged under it for carrying out the objects of the
Bill.
Sir G. GREY promised to introduce words into a
subsequent part of the Bill to modify the operation of
the clause so as to meet the objections of Hon. Members
opposite.
'rho remaining clauses were then agreed to without
discussion; the House resumed, and the Bill was ordered
to be reported on Monday next.
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the motion that the House should resolve itself
into a Committee on this Bill,
Sir a STRICKLAND moved as an amendment that
the House should go into Committee on the Bill this
day three months. His objection was to the whole Bill
itself, and not to any particular portion of it. He sub-
mitted it was not framed so as to carry out its professed
object, namely, the doing away with copyhold tenure and
the converting it into the tenure of fee simple, The
Bill was called the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill; but
when he looked into the principle of the Bill he found
there was not one provision which would lead to the en-
franchisement of copyholds. The Bill, in fact, proposed
a commutation of rents, which it would effect in a most
unjust manner. The principle of the Bill was a confis-
cation of private property ; and be contended that it was
a universally recognised rule in that House never to in-
terfere with private property unless some great public
benefit would result from such interference. He con-
tended that no such public advantage called for the peas-
lug of the iuill b fore the klcuse. The Bid, in fact,
sought to interfere with the interest of the landlords for
Vat? benefit of the tenants.

Mo. MIILLINGS seconded the Rini ndrur t. He was
afraid that this Bill wns only introduced for a par-
ticular occasion, and though he had voted for the
second reading of the Bill, to row felt it to
be his duty, having changed his views on the
subject, to oppose the Bill on going into
Committee. He did not believe that any Bill of this
sort would be carried out by a private Mt tuber, but it
must be taken up by the Government, and that could not
be done without much more evidence than they had
before them at present. That was the course which he
should recommend, and he should be happy to give them
every assistance in his power.—(Flear, hear.)
Mr. HUME supported the Bill. Be was sorry to see
that the Honourable Member had changed his course of
proceeding upon tha subject. The question was whether
copyholds were an evil or not, and he thought
that anybody who knew anything about the matter
would confess that they were a great nuisance
both to the holders' and to the lords of the
manors. Ho quite agreed that this ought, it possible,
to be a Goverment measure, and that, too. had been the
opinion of the late Sir Robert Pee . He hoped the
House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
Mr. HENLEY considered that whether they allowed
the Bill to go into Cominiare or not, it was quite clear
that a Bill of this kind could not pass into law.
Mr. AGLIONBY complained of the course which bad
been takea both in doors and out of doors with respect to
the, Bill. The objk.cts and provisions of the Bill had
been equally misunderstood a-id miss-presented.
Honourable Members had n•o right to discuss the
principle of the Bill, upon the present oc-
casion, upon going into Committee, after the second
reading had Leen carried by a large majority.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... 40
Against it
Majority —9
The House then went into Committee.

On clause 1 being proposed
Mr. lIIILLINGS moved the omission of certain
words with the vicew of inserting others, to place all
manorial rights at the disposal of the Copyhold Commis-
sioners for the purpose of their ultimate abolition.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the amendment.
Mr. MUELINGS was anxious to see all manorial
rights destroyed, and copyholds placed on the same
footing as freeholds.. That was his motive for proposing
the amendment.
Lord HARRY VANE was quite certain that
if this Bill was to effect any good it
must be conUned to the .simple object of doing away with
certain inconsistent copyhold rights, reserving all the
rest that were not objectionable.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND thought differently.
The Bill, to be Gf any use, should altogether abolish
copyhold tenure, aad ho certainly should support the
amendment.
Mr. HUME would vote f,Jr the amendment if Le
thought it were practicable. He was anxious to see all
c)py held ri:zhts destroyed; but it was impossible to do it
under this Lill.

Sir B. HALL said the principle involved in the amend-
ment was tco large to admit of its being left to the de-
cision of the Copyhoid Commissioners; but still he
would support it if the Hon. and Learned Member would
exclude mines and minerals.

Mr. HENLEY wished to know if the Honourable
and Learned Member who had charge of the Bill in-
tended to exclude from its operation all copyholds
that do not enjoy the right of renewal.
Mr. AGLIONBY replied in the affirmative.
Mr. MULLINGS agreed that all copyholds ought
not to be enhanchisod, but still he would only preserve
mines and minerals, and in order to meet such excep-
tional cases, he had no objection to add to his amend-
ment the words " except as hereinafter providk d for."
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 47
Against it . . ... 55
- - -
—8

Majority ...

The amendment "Ili consequently lost.
Oa retarninz to the gallery, we found

Mr. HENLEY prov7sing a—farther amendment on the
first clause, providinq ;hat Caere should be enfranchise-
ment only on the demand of three-tourths of the copy-
holders of an estate.

Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the amendment. His great
object was to provide tur individual enfranchisement.
Mr. GOULBURN supported the amendment, which
he contended would prevent great injuaice being dune
to the lord of the manor.
Sir B. HALL wished to see the landlord and
tenant put on the same footing as each ether,
and he would be ready to give each of them
equal f.icilities for enfranchisement ; and he would
recommend the Hon. Member fur Oxforthhire nut
to press his present amendment, but to insist upon some
provision by which th 3 lord also could claim enfran-
chisement. _ _

After a short conversation, in which Sir C. Burrell,
Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Aglionby took
part,
Mr. HENLEY dEfen&d his amendment, and refused
to withdraw it. _

Mr. MULLING' thought that there would not be any
great futilities given to the small copyholder3 by this
elsuse, and he ahould support the amendment.
Lord E, HOWARD supported the amendment, but
expressed himself favourable to the principle of giving
power to the lord of manors to commute with equal fa-
cility as their tenants.
After af ew words from Mr. J. A. SMITH, the Com-
mitee when there appeared— _ .

For theasi andmint 74
Against 44
I.l4jority —3O
The .amendment was accordingly carried, and it be-
came en original proposition.
Mr. UUME then moved as an amendment that the
majority of the tenants in number and amount should
Save the power to decide the qaestion of enfranchisement.
Mr. HENLEY said, introducing the value ef the
property would seriously affect the small cottagc:-holder,
who would be outvoted by the large tenant.
Mr. HUME met this objection by proposing to kayo
mouatktehethweordsth utt
that
amendmenthr.d
run thus:
tsht majorityof h
ue,awohriich wutuide
brtbr'Conversation, the Co tenantsAfAfter
i na usuhrno
mmittee again
divided, when there appeared.
For the amendment ... 53
Against it
Majority
The amendment was accordingly lest.
Mr. SPOONER suggested to tt,e lion. and Learned
Gentleman thn propriety of withdrawing, the Bill. On
calm consideration he hoped the lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman would see that that was the best course he could

parsu2.
Mr. AGLIONBY had been calmly considering this
Bill for two years—(A laugb)—and he certainly must
say the manner in which he bad been met this session
was most unfair. He certainly should not withdraw it
at this stage.
Mr. SPOONER had no other alternative, thee, but to
move that the Chairman do at once report progress.
Mr. AGLIONBY reiterated his statement that this
opposition could only be characterised by the term fec.
tious, but it would not deter him from proceeding with
the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM reminded the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman that the amendments wheb had just been
carried would entail upon him the necessity of consider-
ably altering the remaining provisions, and he put it to
the Hon. and. Learned Member. whether it would not be
better to postpone the Bill- for the purpose of consider-
ing the alterations that were required.
Mr. AGLIONBY was quite prepared to make all the
alterations, and agree to all the omissions which now
became necessary, end he hoped the Committee would
go on with the details.
The motion that the Chairman do report progress was
then withdrawn, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 2,
Mr. AGLIONBY said, in order to accomplish the
object of the foregoing smeLdments it would te neces-
sary to make considerable verbal alterations in this
clause, and he therefore hoped the Committee would
convent to postpone it.
Clame 2 was postpone d.
On clause 3 being moved,

Mr. G. J. HE ATIICOTE moved assn amendment that
the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again,
it being advisable, in his opinion, that the further pro-
gress of the Bill should be stayed altogether.
Mr. AG LIONBY hoped that the House would not agree
to the amendment of the lion. MemFer. Ile (Mr. Ag-
lionby) had been twice air( ady prevented from procoed-
ing with this Bill, fiat, by the Derby day, secondly, by
the Ascot Cup day; and now he thought it rather hard
that he should be again prevented from proceeding with
it in consegt:ence of the agricultural meeting at Exeter.
Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE eventually withdrew his
amendment, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 4,
Sir B. HALL proposed that this clause should be
amended by ranking :t incumbent on the comissioners
under the Bill to entertai❑ any application which may
be made by the lord or lord, of the manor who may be
the owner or owners of three-fourths in value of the

manor.
Mr. AGLIONBY could not consent to the proposed
amendment, inasmuch as it would completely alter the
leading principle of the Bill, and 'mess with great severity
on the poorer class of tenants.
Sir B. HALL wanted to put the lord of the manor in
the same position as the copy holder in carrying out a
proposition for enfranchisement.
After a desultory conversation, in which Mr. Goul-
burn, Mr. Henley, Mr. Hume, Mr. Anstey, and Mr.
Aglionby took part,
Sir 13. HALL withdrew his amendment, hut moved
that the Chairman should report progress.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the motion.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, Mr. Aglionby having consented to the Chairman
reporting progress.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave
to sit again this day week.
SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.
Mr. BANKES moved the second reading of this Bill.
He said the main object of the Bill was to put an end to
a very great existing nuisance which prevailed in this
metropolis, and throughout every considerable town in
the kingdom. When it was known that a great
influx of foreigners would take place in this country
and this metropolis next year, on the occcssion
of the National Exhibition, he thought it of the very
utmost importance that in visiting our museums of art
mid manufactures they should not be unnecessarily in-
convenienced by the smoke nuisance which now exists
to so injurious and disagreeable an extent. He based
the necessity for the Bill on another ground—namely,
that the action of the atmosphere, impregnated in
so high a degree with smoke, was in the highest
degree prejudicial to the pictures and objects of art and
industry collected in the National Gallery and Museum,
and the various other museums in this metropolis and
throughout the country.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND deprecated the interfe-
rence which this Bill propos, d with the manufacturing
industry o: tie country. He contended, on the experi-
ence of in,n connected with manufactures, that the smoke
which issued from a manufactory or a dwelling-house was
not neatly so deleteri; us or so injurious to health as the
gas which resulted from the smoke-consuming a;,pa-
ratus now partially in use in the country. He called
upon the House to reject a Bill which, whilst it would
be wholly inoperative in carrying out the very object it
contemplated, would only tend to shackle the trade
and commerce of the country. He could, therefore,
move that this Bill be read a second time this day three
months.
Mr. lIUME teconded the amendment.

Mr. BROWN could not give a silent vote upon this
questicn. It WM a mistake to suppose that the interest
of manufacture alone was affQcted by this Bill. The
landed interest would suffer from it equally as much, for
the interest of agriculture was greatly dependent upon
the prosperity of the manuf icturing districts. No doubt
smoke was a nuisance, but until science could discover
some effectual means of preventing it, such a Bill as this
should not he allowed to pass.
Mr. MUNTZ slid it was c asy enough to prevent the
making of smoke, but when once mask no process could
destroy it. He had heard, and indeed seen a process,/ hich
destroyed smoke, but the process was too expensive to admit
of its gtnet al application. In his opinion, Bills of this
nature shou!d be mate to apply only to particular dis-
trict.s, but for the reasons he had already seated he
was opposed to this Bill, and he should then:fire vote
against it.

—Sir G. GREY said, no one c(mid disapprove of the
principle of this Bill, but looking at the number of
amendments that must be made in its details it was quite
hopeless to think of getting it passed at this period of the
session. He put it, therefore, to the Honourable Mem-
ber opposite, whether he would be advancing the object
he had in view by pressing his motion fur the second
reading.
Mr. MACKINNON reminded the House that the
principle of a Bill the object of which was similar to
this had already been affirmed, hut seeing the opposition
that was likely to be brought to bear upon the details of
this measure; he hoped it would be postponed until
smoke prevention had been more effectually tested.
Mr. BANKES said it was useless for him to attempt
to proceed with this Bill against the opposition of the
Government, but still ho begged to remind the House
that no later than to-day the corporation of the city of
London had presented a petition in its favour. Under
all circumstances, however, he thought it better to with-
draw the Bill tor the present.
The amendment was then agreed to without a divi-
sion, and the Bill was accordingly thrown out.
BOROUGH GAOLS BILL.

This Bill went through Committee.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
PA:. S. CRAWFORD called the attention of the
House to the extensive system of extermination which
had latterly been going on in Ireland; and yet, in the
face of that fact, the other House of Parliament bad
been bold enough to pass an Act which would
still further depress the people of Ireland. At the very
time when the tenantry of Ireland was calling upon the
Legislature to confer upon them their just rights, the
Upper House was passing a Bill to restrict them to the
utmost extent.—(Hear, hear.) He did not ob-
ject to increasing the security of the land•
lord; but before he could consent to a Bill for that
purpose the landlords themselves must do justice to their
tenantry. Many of the provisions which this Bill con-
tained were of a most pernicious character. For instance,
one of ttse clauses prohibited the tenant from cutting
his corn and removing it after sunset. Now, there were
many poor tenants who were unable either to cut or to
remove their crops till that time, and this clause, there-
fore, would prove a source of great injury to that
class.—(Hear, hear.) His main objection to the
Bill, however, was that it would have the effect of pro-
moting extermination; and under those circumstances
he felt it to be his duty to move that the Bill be read a
second time that day three months.

Air. C. B. RUCHE seconded the amendment.

Mr. HAMILTON would never consent to support nay
Bill which could have the effect of extending extermina-
tion, but he did not believe this Bill would have
that effect. He believed it would greatly benefit
the tenant, and in many cases savo him from expense.
In point of fact, it only amended the law of landlord and
tenant with regard to the power of distraint. It
gave the landlord power, which he was clearly
entitled to, of dispossessing a tenant in arrear
on condition that ho consented to forego his
rent, a provision which must prove highly beneficial to
the tenant; while the clam e to which the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite had referred could only come in force in
cases where the tenant was anxious to defraud his
landlord. At present the mode of ejectment was cum-
bersome and expensive, cg.ially as injurious to Vie land-
lord as oppressive to the tenant; and the main object of
this Bill was to amend that law.

Mr. BRIGHT thought the House ought to come to
the consideration of this question with some regard to
the existing state of Ireland and the present rela-
tionship between landlord and tenant in that couutty.
Nothing, he thonzlit, would be more ill-judged,
unless in cases of absolute necessity, than that
the House should proceed, with so little _ time for

deliberation, to pass any law which should give ad-
' ditiunal power to the landlords of Ireland, when so
b 1 a spirit existed on the part of the tenants, and he
believed on behalf of the landlords also. Without going
into the details of the Bill, he thought it would be ex-
ceedingly unwise to pass such a Bill as this, when next
session the House would have to go into the considera-
tion of the whole question of landlord and tenant. He
would, therefore, support the amendment of his Hun.
Friend (Mr. Sharman Cranford).
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the second reading of the
Bill.
Mr. ANSTEY said, with a view of coming to a full
and deliberate conclusion on this Bill, and having regard
to the late hour of the day (five o'clock), he felt it his
duty to mote that the second reading be postponed to
this day week.
Colonel DUNNE, whilst acknowledging the purity of
the motives which actuated his Hon. Friend the Member
fur Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), felt himself, neverthe-
less, ccmtrained to support the second reading cf the
Bill.
Mr. HUME called upon the House to pla:ie the land-
lords and tenants in Ireland on the same footing as they
were in England, and expressed his intention of sup-
porting the amendment. He concluded by calling upon
the Government to bring forward a comprehensive mea-
sure to meet the existirg relationship of landlord and
tenant in Ireland, and nut to leave that task to any in-
dividual Member of the House.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE denied that this was a land-
lord's measure. Without pledging himself to support
thesth meant
detailseean:t ensuing
m
t gtrleiwei
winter
tde) , and that those
evils
Bill,rkeaunoewwiendg vigour, he
evils
he which it
7
might
h.trecur
in a
con-
strainedmr.Eto. vEot.eitf)or
ethileE teseecoonndrenadde
d
from allaying the bad feelings
far existing
landlord and tenant in Ireland wouldingt.oehnlitys igtnen thisd
Bill,to between
exas-
perate so
those feelings ; and he lamented tulfar that the
Government intended to give it their support. He would
support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Yu.; hal
r Mr. v
a .1
Y)
The
o'clock found the Hon. Member still
ca(r
i oA s s
xe
addressing the House, and prevented it coming to any
decision on the question hefere it.
The Hcuse then adjourned till Twelve to-morrow.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
MANCHESTER, TUESDAY.—The action and reaction
between the cotton market and the yarn market is of
a somewhat lively character just row. The exten-
sive Fides effected by the spinners during the last
fortnight, at advancing rat.es, gave rise, from day
to day, to large transactions in cotton, at rather
higher prices also. On Saturday and 3 esterday
there was an increase of activity in Liverpool, at-
tended with some further gain in general value;
and this, aided by advices from the States, quite as
unfivourable as before in regard to the growing crap,