The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-09 00:00:00

MANORS BILL.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third reading of
his Bill.

Lord COTTENHAM objected to the Bill, because the
effect of it was to give up all the mines in the, manors
which had not been worked, whilst it provided no
equivalent. He certainly thought that the Bill ought
not to pass without its being distinctly understood what
it was that the Duke of Cornwall was giving up, and
what was the equivalent that be was to receive for it.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the Bill had been
under the consideration of all the law officers of the
Duchy of Cornwall, and had been approved of by them.
He thought the Duke of Cornwall received great ad-
vantage for what he had given up. The matter had
been well considered he knew, for he was one of the
persons who had conducted the negotiations on the part
of the inhabitants of Cornwall—(Hear, hear)—with the
Government, and the law officers of the Duchy were
perfectly aware what they were giving up.
Lord CAMPBELL considered the Bill was being
hurried through the House with most indecent haste.
If it had related to a private estate the Judges would
hare been consulted, but in the present instance no
reference had taken place to those learned persons.
Bills were now sent up with such rapidity from the
other House, that their Lordships had no opportunity
afforded them of making themselves acquainted with
their contents. This Bill was contrary to every
principle of prescription, for, although in other parts of
England it was a principle cujus est solum ejus est usque
ad ccclum, yet in Cornwall the right was horizontal and
not vertical—the owner of the surface had no right to
anything underneath the surface ; he had no right to
work the mines.

After some observations from the Lord Chancellor, in
support of the Bill, and Lords Cottenham and Monteagle
against it, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Grand Jury Presentment (Dublin) Bill was read
a third time and passed.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—POST-
OFFICE.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented the Se-
cond Report of the Committee on the progress of the
Houses of Parliament, and gave notice that he would to-
morrow make a motion on the subject. He wished to
ask in reference to the Post-office inquiry what commu-
nications had taken place between the two Committees ?
Lord COLBORNE said that he took all the responsi-
bility of the report of the Committee on himself, and he
would answer fir it as a frank and just report:
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Commons amendment to the Insolvent Debtors' Bill were
agreed to.

COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE moved that the Commons'
amendments to this Bill should be agreed to.

Lord BEAUMONT opposed the Bill. He said he
' never knew a Bill which had the word " job" ma°
italicagy written on the face of it.—,(Laughter.) The
fees of the office of coroner were already adequate
and there was no excuse for increasing the county rates,
to enlarge the incomes of those officers.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY supported the Bill/
and hoped that the _Noble Lord ,%otild not, through his
excitement upon this subject, be himself a subject for
inquiry in a coroner's court.
After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, their
Lordships divided. The numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
According to the usage of the House, the question w5l
ruled in favour of the non-contents.
On the re-admission of strangers to the gallery, we
found their Lordships discussing the mode in which g
would be most courteous to the House of Commons to,
communicate their Lordships' rejection of the Cominow
amendments.

After a desultory. conversation the subject was drop'
ped, but it was not ascertained in the gallery to wila
understanding their Lordships came.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REGULATION