The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1850.

thought Raja Brooke had treated those persons
properly.
The Earl of ABERDEEN thought that as we were
not on amicable terms with Spain during the time this
expedition was preparing-, it would be advisable that
we should show that we had not been lukewarm in our
interference to put a stop to it. It might be thought
that we took advantage of that circumstance to neglect
taking the proper steps against this piratical expedition.
And, to prevent such a suspicion, her Majesty's Govern-
ment ought to show that they were not lukewarm in the
exorcise of their duty towards an ally. If they did so
they would justly be exposed to blame.
Earl GREY could not understand how the Noble Lord
could attempt to make a grave charge against his policy.
They looked on the expedition in the same light as the
American Government and the Noble Lord. Undoubtedly
the expedition was piratical; but it was a very different
thing to say her Majesty's Government had had
their attention called to the subject from answering
questions as to the precise nature of the instructions
given to the British naval Commander-in-Chief.
Their Lordships must be aware that to give information
as to the instructions given to the naval commanders
in the West Indian seas could not but be exceedingly
detrimental until we should have received further advict s
from the West Indies. No one could deny our right to
check piracy; but it was a difficult question as to the
length we ought to go in a particular instance.
The subject then dropped.
Tho Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 7.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND

ADVANCES BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. E WART thought that the tact had not been
sufficiently take❑ into consideration, that this was a
limited sum, and that they had to decide what was the
best use to be made of it. He thought that it ought to
be confined entirely to drainage, for if they went to the
building of farms, buildings, and such things they
would have nothing left for drainage. He thought that
it would be decidedly most advantageous for the public
interest to spend the whole sum in drainage.
Captain PELHAM thought that the objection might
be got over by limiting the sum to be applied to build-
ing purposes entirely to new buildings.
Mr. BUCK thought that it would be far better to
confine the sum entirely to the purposes of drainage.
Mr. SLANEY said that if the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer did not give some facility to the small proprie-
tors in making their applications, the Bill would not be
of the slightest use to them. He also thought that these
advances should be extended to the purposes of new
buildings at least.
Mr. MOODY opposed the clause.

Mr. DEEDES on the whole would prefer that the
clause should stand in its present condition if they
could be assured that the money could be lent with
safety for the purposes of building.
Mr. BRUCE was in favour of the clause as far as
Scotland was concerned; he was sure great benefit would
arise from it to that country, and especially to the new
farms which were formed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
his purpose had been answered by the discussion
which had taken place; and as the present majority of
Members appeared in favour of the omission of the clause,
he. would vote for its omission.

Colonel RAW DON hoped that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not consent to omit the clause.

The t'HANCELL9R of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the House wished to omit the clause, and he was
perfectly willing to consent. _

- The House then divided, when there appeared—.
For the clause ... ... •.. 45
Against it ... ••• ... 107
Majority ... ... ..• --62
The clause was consequently rejected.
Clauses 5,6, and 7 were then agreed to, with some
slight amendments.
._,

On clause 8 being proposed,
Mr. ROCHE proposed to insert in line 30, after "farm
' buildings," the words, " including buildings for the steep-
ing, drying, and cleaning of flax, and also such machi-
nery and apparatus for the above-mentioned purposes as
may come under the denomination of fixtures." To
show the advantage of promoting the growth of flax in
Ireland, he need only mention that more than six mil-
lions worth of that commodity was imported into this
country in a year, and that if it were brought into
greater cultivation employment and support would be
given to a vei y large number of families.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER op •
posed the amendment, thinking it would be most incosi
venient to advance money on the security of machinery,
for that was, in fact, the nature of the amendment. He
understood that, in many instances, machitery in the
preparation of flax had been abandoned, and that the
practice of preparing it by hand had been substituted.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.

The other clauses having been agreed to, the House
retained, and the Chairman having reported progress,
Tho House adjourned till Five o'Clock.

The House resumed in the Old Chamber at Five
o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
Pimlico generally against the Interment Bill, and
another petition from Brighton specifically against the
compensation clause.
Mr. riGorT presented two petitions, one from the
parish of Enville, in the county of Stafford, and another
from the vicar, churchwardens, and other inhabitants of
the parish of Worfield, in the county of Salop, against
labour on Sundays in the Post-office.
Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the clergy
of Ireland, complaining of certain defects in the national
system of education in Ireland; also a monster petition
from the laity of Ireland to the same effect, signed by
17.000 persons.
Mr. SEYMER presented a petition against the
Savings Bank Bill,
GENERAL POST-OFFICE.
Mr. A NSTEY presented a petition from a number of
individuals holding clerkships in the Money Order-office
of the General Post-office, complaining of the re-
cent appointment of a gentleman to the office of chief
clerk of that department. The petitioners stated that
their claims to the appointment had been passed over,
because they had refused to sign a written contradiction
of the statements they had promulgated in a memorial
which was last year presented to the Treasury on the sub-
ject of their duties and salaries, and they therefore prayed
the House to institute an inquiry into the matter. The
Hon. and Learned Member moved that the petition be
printed with the votes.
Mr. THORNELY said it was very important for the
House to consider whether they would pat the country
to the expense of printing for parties who might con-
sider themselves aggrieved by the conduct of their supe-
riors in any of the Government departments, no matter
whether it were the Customs, the Excise, or the
Post-office. It was for the House to consider
whether or no it was right to make Parlia-
ment a court of appeal in matters like this.
Fur his part he did not think it was, and he there-
fore put it to the House if it would not be better to
leave the petition to be printed in the ordinary course of
business, when it had come before the Committee on
Public Petitions.
Mr. DISRAELI hoped the House would hesitate be-
fore they accepted the views of the Hon. Gentleman
who had Just sat down.—(Hear, hear.) He had always
understood that any party who felt himself aggrieved by
the conduct of a public Department could appeal to that
House for redress, if there was no other channel open to
him, and he thought it would be exceedingly dangerous
to interfere with that principle. That right of appeal
indeed was part of the liberty of the subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. FORSTER agreed with the Hon. Member fur
Bnckinghamshire, that the House ought to hesitate in
this matter. The House held the head of each public
department responsible for all its proceedings, but if the
House interfered between them and their emp/oses, how
could they insist on maintaining that rule?—(Hear,)
Mr. STUART said that was not quite the correct
view of the matter. The question was not whether
the House would interfere, but whether it would
listen to a complaint.—(Hear, hear.) Ile understood
that one ground of complaint was that the claims of these
parties had been rejected because they had refused to
work on a Sunday.—(Hear, hesr.)
Mr. W. PATTEN thought it would be better to defer
this motion till the petition had been before the Com-
mittee on Public Petitions.
Mr. HAYTER said the great inconvenience which
resulted from stating the contents of petitions like
this was, that they went forth to the world
as if they were founded in truth. Now, so far
from that being the case in this instance, he could assure
the House that many statements in the petition were
founded upon error.—(Hear, hear.) He should not, pro-
perly discharge his duty, if he did not say that most of
those statements were founded in error.
Colonel THOMPSON observed that the usage was
that tho House was bound to receive petitions but not to
print them.

- Sir G. GREY said the ]don. Member seemed to imply
that there had been an objection to the reception of the
Petition; that was not_ so, the petition having been re-
ceived, and
printed
only q
shortly come before question now was,
Committee with the votes. The Chairmanshould
whether
o f
the
petitions had stated that it would
competent for the
them, and they would have to de-
ject before the 11.
on be printed or not, before it was
oAnlsee.mbTernattowabarainpgrtato
he (Sir G. Grey) tought it was mticoetiwonhicohn
the sub'
House should follow,
and ho very desirable the
would abide by it on the hoped the lion. Member
After a few words from present occasion.
Lord DUDLEY STUARTt*. BARNARD,
de-
sirable and important that they thought it was very
rule of the House was with regard should know what the
petitions. He understood that if aguarilloto the printing of
to found a motion on any petition,
it was
Member wished
to allow him to move that it be was
the practice
the votes.—(flear.) The petition undr printed
with
peered to refer to a subject of some importancee."
and
ap-
as
he thought it very proper that clerks in the importance;
should be enabled to state their grievances to the house
it seemed to him that the best way of allowing them to
do su was to print their petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL obqlryed that before the Hon.
Gentleman could britli, his motion bef )ra the }Louie, the
petition 7rould have been before the Committee, and if
by that tint: he found i' hod not been printed, it would
1,3 quits competent for him to wake a motion on the

subject. -
Mr. THORNELY said it was a question for the House
to consider whether the complaints of the clerks in
the Post-office, in the shape of a petition, should be

printed or not.
Sir R. PEEL said if a Member presented a petition,
and thought the statements which it contained so well-
founded as to bring forward a motion with respect to it,
he thought the practice of the Nouse was to permit that

petition to be printed.—(Efear, hear.) Though he
did not think that the House should constitute
itself a court of appeal to hear the complaints of Go-
vernment officers, yet it would be a very unwise practice
to refuse a petition to be printed on that ground. The
simple question was whether they should depart from
that which had been the general usage, of having pe-
titions printed in respect of which an Hon. Member in-
tended to bring forward a motion.—(Hear.)
Colonel RAWDON said it had always been in the
power of the House to prevent the printing of petitions,
although it was in the power of any Member, at any
time, to move that they be printed.
Mr. BROTHERTON complained that many Mem-
bers gave notice of founding a motion upon a petition
merely for the purpose of getting their petition printed,
but who never seriously meant to bring that motion
before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY disclaimed being actuated by any such
motive as that mentioned by the Hon. Member for S Il-
ford (Mr. Brotherton). In this case he (Mr. Anstey)
seriously meant to found a motion on his petition.
Mr. GOULBURN did not think it was possible the,
there could have been any partiality shown by the
Chair man.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. T. D'Eyn-
court, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Hume tuck

part,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not understand what
the Hon. Member's object was, whether it was to have
this petition printed in order to fuund a motion upon it
or not.
Mr. ANSTEY said he would repeat what he had said,
and that was that he understood that petitions were
printed for the purpose of calling the attentio❑ of Hon.
Members more closely to them, and his object in moving
that this petition be printed was that he might lay the
ground for a future motion which ho intended to found
upon it..
The SPEAKER then put the question, and the mo-
tion was agreed to without a division.
RETURNS.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved an address for a
return of the annual receipt and expenditure of the
colony of Hong Kong, made up to the latest period
for which accounts have been received, showing
the gross receipts from the various branches of
revenue, under their different heads, distinguish-
ing the amounts levied in the colony from Parlia-
mentary grants, and stating the expenditure under
its various branches (in continuation of Parliamentary
Paper. No. 264, of session 1846). Similar return for
New Zealand (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper,
No. 328, of session 1844). And similar return for La-
buan. Also an address for return, in a tabular form,
for the last year in which they can be made up, of
the gross revenues, under their different heads, of
each of her Majesty's colonies, exhibiting the costs of
collection, and any deductions made in their progress to
the public treasury. And similar return of the dis-
bursements of each colony, under their separate heads;
showing the authority on which such disbursements are
made (in continuation of part of Parliamentary Paper,
No. 740, of session 1847).—Agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL moved for a return of all
instructions or inquires issued by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to the archbishops and bishops, the
answers to such instructions, and all data upo❑ which
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, before the
Ist day of January, 1844, estimated and fixed
the annual sums to be paid to the Com-
missioners out of the revenues of the larger
sees, and to be paid by the Commissioners for augmen-
tation of the smaller bishoprics. Also, all returns of re-
venues or data upon which the Commissioners, after
the Ist day of January, 1844, revised episcopal re-
venues, and fixed an altered scale of payment,
to take effect upon the avoidance of any see atter the
period of such revision, as well as any inquiries or in-
struction for supplying such last mentioned returns or
data, addressed to the archbishops or bishops by the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners; in all cases where the grossand
net iucome have been both given, the grounds of difference
between the gross and net income as shown by the arch-
bishops or bishops to be returned; such return to show the
dates of all such inquiries, instructions, answers, and re-
turns, and to set forth, in a tabular form, the gross and
nett incomes of each archbishop and bishop, as well as
the charges and deductions which constituted the differ-
ence between the gross and nett income; also a return of
the sums paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Eng-
land, in each year, since the Act to carry into effect the
4th Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties
a❑d Revenues (3 and 4 Vic. c. 113), in respect of any
prebend or other dignity in any cathedral or collegiate
church in Wales, and of the amount of such sums as
may have been appropriated by the Commissioners, and
how appropriated.—Agreed to.
ASSISTANT BARRISTERS BILL.
Mr. SADLEIR asked the Secretary for Ireland when
he intended to introduce the Assistant Barristers Bill?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—On an early day.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Colonel RAWDON rose to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government whether the inquiry which was
instituted respecting the state of the pictures in the Na-
tional Gallery, with a view to their better preservation, had
terminated, and, if so, would the information be given to
the House. Whether any proposal had been made by
the Government to the Royal Academy, with a view of
obtaining for the public collection of pictures, the entire
of the National Gallery building; and, if so, what
answer had been given. Whether any supplemental
vote in the present estimates would be called for to
carry out the proposition; and whether it is the intention
of Government, before tatting final st •ps for permanently
locating the pictures on the present site, to institute an
inquiry, by a Committee of this House or otherwise,
in order to ascertain whether or not it is expsdient to
allocate the pictures in Trafalgar-square.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with respect to the first
question as to the inquiry instituted into the state of the
pictures, with the view t.) their better preservation, he
had received a report from the gentlemen composing that
cotnraitte, and they had made some suggestions as to
their better preservation, but they requested to be
allowed to make further inquiry, particularly with
respect to the mode of preserving the pictures on
the continent. He should be ready, ere long., to lay
that report upon the table of the House, although it
was not a final report. With respect to the sc.:ond
question, in conformity with the opinion of the Com-
mittee of that House, which sat on the question of the
building in Trafalgar-square, he made a proposal to the
Royal Academy, with the view of having the
entire building of the National Gallery devoted to the
exhibition of the pictures. He had received an answer
expressing their desire to comply with the wishes of the
Government on that subject. With respect to the third
and fourth questions he should say, with that additional
information which he now had before him in regard to
the present state of the pictures, he thought it was de-
sirable that some further inquiry should made before any
vote was proposed to be sanctioned by the House, and
therefore heproposed early next week to move for a Select
Committee, consisting as far as possible of the members of
the present Commission, to consider that further infor-
mation, and to state their opinion of the most desirable
manner of preserving the pictures in the National Gals
lery, and whether the present site was the most desir-
able for the institution.—(Hear, hear,)
CASTLEBAR UNION.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to ask the Secretary for Ire-
land whether any inquiry has been instituted by the
Irish Poor-law Commissioners into the facts stated in the
report of Dr. Ronajne, relative to the condition of the
Castlebar workhouse, in the week ending the 20th April
last ; and whether it appeared on the face of the
report transmitted weekly to the Commissioners that so
large a number were contained in the workhouse beyond
that to which it was limited by their sealed order; and
if so, what steps were thereupon taken by the Commis-
sioners?
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said that Mr. Far-
rell, the union inspector, was investigating the subject,
but he had not yet received his report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. STUART, seeing the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government in his place, wished to ask a question
relative to the administration of justice in the
highest court in the kingdom. It would be
remembered the other evening the Noble Lord
announced that the Lord Chancellor had resigned his
office. Now most unexpectedly the public had learned
that the Great Seal had been placed in Commission, the
Commission consisting of two Learned Judges of the
Court of Chancery, and one of the Learned Judges of
the Common Law Courts. The Noble Lord was, per-
haps, aware that there was so much business in all the
Chancery Courts that six days in the week were hardly
sufficient to get through it. The arrangement which he
had just mentioned would have the effect of shutting up
two of the courts three or four days in the week, and he
should therefore be glad to know how long the Seal
was likely to remain in Commission?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very sensitive of the
inconvenience which resulted from placing the Great
Seal in Commission, and particularly at the present
time. At the same time Government had had to weigh
the inconvenience that would have been caused by the
Great Seal being entrusted to any individual before
they bad decided what course they would pursue
with reference to separating the judicial
from the political duties of the office, and until their
course had been determined upon, he felt it to be his
duty to advise her Majesty to put the Seal in Commis-
sion. He could assure the lion. and Learned Gentle-
man Monday
that it was his earnest wish that the );Sealshould continue in Commission as short a time
haoppaesditionthatto
announce
plan which Government had determined upon, and to
faosrtnipgohstsihhlee, shouldand behe in
move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry it out.—(Hear.)

CUBA.
Mr. DISRAELI wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the Foreign Department if he had received any

official information that Cuba had been invaded by a
buccaneering expedition from the United States?
Lord PALMERSTON said it was well known that
such an expedition had been in preparation for a con-
siderable time. He had been informed that an expedition
had sailed from the southern part of the United States
for the purpose of making an attack on Cuba. It left
on the 6th of last month, and consisted of a force of 3,000
men; and it appeared that a farther dottchmer.•t, supposed
to smount to 4,000 or 5,000, had followed some days
afxrwards. IhP president of the United States dis-
pa'.clr,,d a force in search of that expedition for the
purpose of intercepting it, and, in the event of it
having landed, of taking such measures under
the circumstances as might best show the friendly
disposition of the United States to Spain. As
her Majesty's Government had only received
this information a few days ago, they of course had not
yet been enabled to have any communication with the
Government at Madrid, but the Spanish Minister who
reached this country from Spain yesterday had been


clause was compulsory and permissive. It was per Mi-
ssive for every person to go to a contractor if ho chose;
but going to a contractor, thecontractor would be bound
by the price he had stated to the board.
Mr. BRIGHT complained of the attacks made upon
undertakers for high prices. What would be said of
architects, and lawyers, and medical men, for charging
high prices?—(Laughter.) The undertakers were not
to be blamed for these expenses and high charges,
.but
the folly of the public was to blame. He belonged to a
sect on which the undertakers did not practise extortion.
—(Laughter.) A great source of expense was the prac-
tice of the poor going into mourning. Grief being
symbolised by black, arose from the practice of bar-
barous nations.—(Laughter.) He feared the Bill would
not put an end to expense arising from funeral..
Mr. MACKINNON said, the whole of the argument
of the Hon. Gentleman was, that there was a great deal
of vanity in human nature, and that the sect of the Hon.
Gentleman was free from it.—(Laughter.) He thought
that undertakers induced persons to go to great expense
in funerals—expenses that were beyond their means—
and which they would not have gone to but for the
undertakers. They took advantage of the feeling of re-
spect for the departed relative. This Bill, he thought,
would put an end to this system.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY saw no rea-
son why the Hon. Member for Manchester should
impute to vanity that respect for the dead which every
other sect but that of the Hon.. Member fur Manchester
paid.—(Hear.) He had heard the straight dress of that
sect imputed to vanity.—(Laughter.) He thought that
when reverence for the dead ceased very little respect
would be left for the living.—(Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY approved of the opinion expressed
by the Hon. Member for Manchester.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know what was the
calculation of the reduction in the expenses of funerals?
Ho wished to have the Noble Lord's scale of prices, as
the Noble Lord was the undertaker of the Bill.—
(Laughter.) Shillibeer undertook to bury a nobleman
for 30 guineas, a gentleman for 101., and an artisan for
41. He wanted to know if the Noble Lord could do it
cheaper than that?—(Laughter.) The real object of
this Bill was to knock up the undertakers of London.
He did not know but Shillibeer was going to undertake
them all. There were 700 undertakers—recognized
undertakers, and with these there were cobblers, tailors,
intermediate undertakers, who made the charges so
high. If the Government were to bury the dead, let
them do it openly.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the number
of contractors was to be restricted, or would it be open
to all.
Lord ASHLEY said there was no intention to restrict
the number of contractors. They would select that
number which they thought necessary. They might, in
fact, form contracts with the whole body of undertakers,
and he had no doubt that they would do so with the
whole body who had invested their capital in this busi-
ness. The evidence of Mr. John Bedford showed that
instead of there being 760 undertakers, there wero not,
he thought, more than 100. There were 20 of the first-
class houses, or, as it was said by one witness, 30 or
40 at the most. It was quite true that a great deal. of
the extortion that was complained of was practised by
the intermediate undertakers. It was not possible for
him to state in figures what the reduction might be ;
but he had no doubt but that it would be 25 or 30: per
cent. under what had recently been put forward as low
charges. He expressed his hearty concurrence in the
observation of the Hon. Member for Manchester, al-
though he could have wished they had been made in a
different spirit. There was much of idle pomp, the result
of an idle custom ; but then there were moments when
persons could not enter into bargains, they not liking to
be charged with irreverence to the departed.— (Hear.) He
hoped the evil custom would be abated by means of
this Bill—that the prejudice would be removed—that
prejudice for the abolition of which so much had been
done by that great and illustrious woman who bad now
departed from amongst them, and who, in dying, had
directed she should be interred with that simplicity and
with—which she was sure to excite—that sympathy
which became the member of a Christian community.
Mr. WAKLEY proposed 'an amendment in the 42d
line of the clause. He could any that, during the ten
years he had been coroner, he had never heard a com-
plaint against the undertakers. The Noble Lord (Ash-
ley) had stated that undertakers were the persons to be
employed under this clause, but there was no provision
whatever in the clause to secure it. He (Mr. Wakley)
would therefore move, with a view to effect that object,
the insertion of words giving power to the board from
time to time to invite and receive tenders from " fur-
nishing ironmongers"—(Laughter)—he meant under-
takers of three years'stending in their business.
Sir G. GREY opposed the motion, which, if adopted,
he said, would exclude all undertakers who had not been
as much as three years in the business.—(Elear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that unless great precaution
was exercised the system of contract might be grossly
perverted and produce the very evils of which complaint
was now made. He thought it would be best for the
parish to make arrangements and contract for the in-
terment of its own poor. Then there would be a wide
competition, and cheapness would more likely be
secured. He disliked the system of classification which
was adopted by the Bill. A great deal had been said
about the vanity displayed by persons in the conduct of
their funerals; but would there not be as much vanity
in having a funeral belonging to class 1, class 2, or class
3 ?—(Hear.) For his part it seemed to him that this
classification would act as a premium on vanity, and he
must say that he felt strong objections to the clause.
Mr. COBDEN said it was not often that he rose to
endorse un opinion of Mr. Newd,gate; but in the pre-
sent instance that Hon. Gentleman had anticipated him
in the remarks he was about to make. He was of opi-
nion that the ostentation exhibited at funerals arose
from this country being a country of castes, where every
caste tried to emulate the caste above it.—(Hear,
hear.) And the Honourable Gentleman was right
when he said, whilst the aim of the Bill was to discou-
rage this system, by the classification of funerals they
would encourage the very thing they professed to abate.
What would be the effect of this classification ?
Everyone would be ashamed to have a deceased relative
interred in the cheapest class, but would be desirous, if
possible, to have him interred in the class above it.
Where was the necessity of taking care of the higher
classes at all? Surely they could bury their own dead.
If the undertaker were interferred with, it could only
be on the ground of benefiting the extremely poor. The
higher classes could make their own bargain with the
undertaker, and if cheated a little, it would not ruin
them. The middle class, too, could agree to terms with
the undertaker. Why not, therefore, adopt a provision
that the board should keep a register of a certain pricy
at which funerals might be conducted with decency and
solemnity for the lower and working classes.
Sir B. HALL asked what fee the friends of an artisan
would have to pay under the Bill?
Lord ASHLEY-11 ss. That was the maximum.
Sir B. HALL said, that amongst the working classes
that amount was considered to be excessive. Could the
Noble Lord tell him what would be the whole expense
from the time the contracting undertaker came into a
house to the time the earth was thrown upon the body
in the cemetry, in the ease of a mechanic dying, say in
the neighbourhood of St. Pancras Church, and removed
to any cemetry the Noble Lord might choose to name?
Lord ASHLEY replied that at present it was impos-
sible for him to give the required information; but his
mtehni att tste tdihnet oyt
hashouldr
to
oel
gat
hrl able to t
era:: duceesu t
the existing charges veryt.
own opinion, and that of the board, founded on the most
minute inquiries, was,
considerably. Whilst on his
made by the Hon. Baronet on a former night, to the
el effgesCt h e
thatm g fhotr
John's-wood the charge was only 7s. 10d., including all
fees and the cost of ground. He (Lord Ashley) bad
felt it to be his duty to make inquiry into the subject,
and he found that the Hon. Baronet had omitted alto-
gether the very heavy fee which was paid for the ground,
called the churchwarden's fee, and which amounted to
Bs.; thus making the total fees 1/. 15s. 6d.
Sir B. HALL, in justification of himself, said that he
had procured his information from the parish officers
with regard to what would be the charge for burials in
the common ground, and that the particulars were as
follows:—Rector 4.. 4d.; clerk, is. 4d.; sexton, Is. 2d.;
and the use of the bell, Is. He bad since been informed,
however, that there was a charge of 4s. paid to the
parish, making the total I Is. 10d., instead of 7s. 10d.
The amendment of Mr. Wakley was then withdrawn.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY thought the clause would be
inoperative, and recommended that it should be struck
out.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE feared that there would be some
partiality exercised in entering into the contracts.
Lord ASHLEY assured the Hon. Gentleman that the
feeling of the board was in favour of distributing the
business as widely as possible. Their great object
would be first to consult public feeling and convenience,
and then so to arrange the contracts as that there
should be a fair remuneration to the contracting parties.
Mr. SADLIER proposed to limit the operation of the
clause to funerals the cost of which should not exceed
5/.; but the proposal was negatived without a division.
Mr. BRIGHT moved the addition of the following
proviso :—" Provided that in making contracts as afore-
said, the said board shall not be at liberty to withhold
contracts from any persons carrying on the trade of un-
dertaker who shall be willing to contract as aforesaid for
the performance of funerals at the same rate as the said
board shall arrange for with any other person carrying
on the business of undertaker, and contracting with the
said board under the provisions of this Act." His object
was to prevent a precedence by which the Board of
Health was to be allowed to give up to any particular
number of undertakers the whole business of the burial
of the dead in a population of two millions. The Bill
would, i❑ fact, extinguish the business of a large number
of undertakers.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the amend-
ment sought to effect indirectly what had been already
rejected by the House, when proposed by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. If any undertaker could come
in under the contract, and propose for the burial, there
would be no contract at all.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On the question that the clause as amended stand part
of the Bill,
Lcrd D. STUART objected to the clause altogether,
as compelling the poor, who would wish to bury their
deceased relatives at their own expense by means of
payments by instalments to the undertaker, to avail
themselves of a parish or pauper fnnere!.
The, Committee divided, when there appesrul—
For the clause 104
Against it ... ••• ... 25
Majority —79
The clause was agreed to.
On clause 28, enacting that the board may provide
for the removal, at the request of relatives, of bodies to
houses of reception,

Mr. STANFORD proposed a proviso that no power
of entrance to a room or a house should be given to the
officers under the Act againt the will of the relatives of
the deceased.

. ,

Sir G. GREY said it was not intended to give a com-
r,pulsory power of entrance.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 29, referring to the salaries of the additional
members of the board and the officers under the Act,
in answer to Mr. HUME,
Sir G. GREY explained that, according to clause 69,
there would be annual reports and abstracts of accounts
submitted to Parliament. There was no objection to
naming the salaries of the additional members of the
board and of the officers in the Bill.
In answer to Mr. T. DUNCOMBE,
Sir G. GREY said there was no clause in the Bill
to authorise members of the board to have a seat in
Parliament.
The clause was amended by the insertion of the words
" hereinafter mentioned" after the word " salaries," so as
to accord with the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir G. Grey), and was then agreed to.
Sir G. GREY gave notice of au amendment on this
and the 38th clause, to meet the case of the burial of
paupers who might not be of the Established Church, and
at whose burial there might be no person to perform the
burial service, unless there was a tee allowed. He should
therefore propose to insert in line 15, after " 6s. 2d.,"
the word " one shilling." He also gave notice of au
amendment, to prevent the payment of a fee for the re •
moval of a body.
On clause 30. referring to compensation to incumbents,
Sir B. HALL asked what was the cause of the differ-
ence between the clause he the original Bill and that in
the present? The former gave compensation on an ave-
rage of three years' income of the incumbent ; the pre-
sent proposition was, that a fee of 6s. 2d. be paid en
every burial.
Sir G. GREY said the change was adopted as the
best mode of awarding compensation, after he had re-
ceived various communications on the subject, which
was surrounded with many difficulties. A great por-
tion of the incomes of metropolitan clergymen was de-
rived from burial fees, and he must say he always found
the clergy ready to make a concession of their interests
for the public good. The compensation they would
receive under the proposed clause would be much less
than that under the former one; the principle now,
adopted was identical with that adopted in all the ceme-
tery Acts, though the amount was much less. According
to an extensive average that had been taken, the amount
of the fee would be Bs., but 6s. 2d., which was the ave
rage of a less number, was the amount that had been
fixed upon, and with which the great body of the clergy
would be satisfied. Besides, the payment of the chap-
lain for the performance of these duties was to bo de-
ducted from the fees.
Mr. LUSHINGTON moved as an amendment that
the compensation should not be perpetual, but limited
to such of the incumbents and others as should be in
actual possession of their respective tenures at the
period of the passing of the Act. He contended that the
clergy had no right to fees, except when they actually
performed themselves the burial service. The only
right they had in the matter depended upon custom
only, and not upon law. The compensation clause had
been altered in various ways so as to diminish the com-
pensation, but the principle remained the same. The
alterations had been framed on the practices followed
with respect to the cemetery companies. In such cases
the bishop refused to consecrate until certain fees were
guaranteed to the incumbent for the time being and in per-
petuity. At Kensal-green the payment was fixed at ss. 6d.
for a vault, and 2s. 6d. for the open ground. The bishop
afterwards found, when other cemeteries were esta-
blished, that he had made a bad bargain, and the fee
at the Western Cemetery was fixed at 10s., and at the
South Metropolitan at 205.; and if the Gallant Member
near him (Captain Pechell) should die at Brighton, he
could not be buried there for less than a fee of 21. 28.
(Hear.) The best excuse for compensation to the clergy
was that in many instances they were supported almost
altogether by burial fees. A great deal of dissatisfaction
was felt towards the Established Church, and that dis-
satisfaction was expressed in no measured manner. It
had been stated that after the cholera broke out in India
in 1817 numbers of bodies were seen floating down the
Ganges with vultures preying upon them; and that the
Eastern birds of prey might suggest ideas regarding
western voracity.—(Hear, hear.) Judging from the
violent language used out of doors ho should not be
astonished if her Majesty's Ministers were accused of
delivering over for ever the carcases of her Majesty's
subjects and the carcases of their posterity to the ra-
pacious clutches of an insatiate hierarchy.—(Hear, hear.)
Language like that, and worse, was daily uttered against
the Church Establishment on the subject of the ob-
noxious clauses.—(Hear.) Ho entreated the Govern-
ment, if they had any regard for religion, any desire to
maintain feelings of regard towards the Establish-
ment, any wish to conciliate the affections of the com-
munity at large, and to retrieve the failing attachment
of the Dissenters, to agree to the amendment which he
had proposed.—(Hear.)
Sir B. HALL suggested that the simplest plan would
be to insert words making the clause apply only to " the
present " incumbents.—(Hear.) The question was whe-
ther those who came after the present generation should
be compelled to pay for the burial of their relatives to
persons who did not perform any duty whatever.—
(Hear, hear.) It was intended in the first instance to
give compensation in perpetuity on an average of five
years, and if the incomes should prove too large, the 31st
clause empowered the Commissioners to reduce the pay-
ments. Now he would show the Committee that the in-
comes to be derived by the clergy would be at least 175
per cent. larger than were ever contemplated under the
former Bill. He stated the other day that the Bill was
redolent of Mr. Chadwick and the Bishop of London—
(Laughter)—and he had no hesitation in declaring that
the amendments now proposed for the consideration of
the Committee had emanated from the Bishop of Lon-
don and the clergy themselves, for the maintenance and
increase of their incomes; in fact, it had been officially
announced in one of the papers that the Bishop of Lon-
don had headed a deputation to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir G. Grey), and suggested those changes. The
change proposed was, that there should be a fixed fee of
6s. 2d. on every death, instead of fixing the average at
five years.
Sir G. GREY—Not on every death, but on every
burial in consecrated ground.
Sir B. HALL—Now what would be the effect of this
alteration? If the payment had been settled on the aver-
age of three or five years, the incomes would have been
fixed, and no increase would have taken place, but under
the new system the amount would increase with the in-
crease of the population.—(Hear, hear.) He would take
the case of the parishes of Marylebone and St. Pancras,
comprising one-sixth of the population of the metropolis,
and which were assessed on a rental of nearly 2,000,0001.
In 1801 the population of Marylebone was 64,000, and
in 1841 it was 138,000, showing au increase of 74,000.
The population of St. Pancras in 1800 amounted to
31;179, and in 1841 to 149,208, showing an increase of
118,029. The increase in the two parishes was 192,029,
being at the rate of 200 per cent. It was quite evident
that the amount of fees must increase with the increase
of the population. Let the Committee just mark the difs
ference in the number of deaths within two years only
in Marylebone. In 1845 the number was 3,200; and in
1846 it was 3,472. The fees in the former year, at the
rate of 6s. 2d. on each funeral, amounted to 9871.; and
in the latter year to I,o7a—showing an increase f 831.
The burials at St. John's Wood in 1823 amounted to
860. which, at the rate of 6s. 2d., would produce
388/. 10s. In 1846 the number was 2,163, which, at
the same rate, would produce 6661. 19s. 4d.; making a
difference of 2781. 9s. 4d. The clergy were entirely to
blame for the disgraceful state of the churchyards of
the metropolis, which they had crowded for the
sake of the fees. He knew of no instance of a clergy-
man taking any steps, by representations to the paro-
chial authorities, to provide additional places of inter-
ment, though there were several cases in which they had
opposed establishing extra burial places. The Hon. Ba-
ronet referred to the blue-book, and quoted two or three
extracts to show the state of some of the churchyards,
and the disgusting scenes that had occurred. It was a
mistake to suppose that such.things would secure respect
to the clergy, or that the community would consent to
be taxed in perpetuity for the sake of men who would
not perform their duty.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Marylebone and the Hoe. Member for
Westminster had made a severe attack on the clergy,
and the former Hon. Member had read some disgusting
details of what had taken place in some of the church-
yards of the metropolis.—(Hear.) When the Hon.
Member laid the blame of the crowded state of the
churchyards to the clergy, he ought to have recollected
that they were not so much in fault as the inhabitaats
themselves and those who represented them, whose
duty it was to have moved in the matter, and attempted
to remedy the abuse.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet
ought also to have recollected that the fees were only
the means of paying the clergy, and when he complained
that the fees would increase as the population in-
creased, he ought not to have forgotten that as the po-
pulation increased the duties of the clergy would also
increase.—(Hear.) It seemed to him that the clause was
a proper provision for the future spiritual duties of the
Church. The attack of the Hon. Baronet on the clergy
was for a state of things which they could not remedy.—
(Oh, oh.) Was that the case ?
Sir B. HALL said, if they had made representations
to the parochial authorities that the burial-grounds were
insufficient, the evils might have been remedied. But
nothing of that kind had been done,
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was not so conversant
with the position of the London clergy in this respect as
he was with the clergy in some other towns. • In Bir-
mingham there were cures of souls where the remunera-
tion did not exceed 1501., more than half of which small
stipend depended on burial fees. It was not correct to
say that these payments were for the act of burial; they
were a part of the stipend. Objection might be made to
the form of payment, but unless other means were pro-
vided, the depriving the clergy of them would be simply
robbing them of a part of their income.—(Hear.) He
thought the Hon. Baronet had not scrupled to pervert
the circumstances for the sake of making an unfair attack
on the clergy.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME supported the amendment. The question
was, were these burial fees a vested right or nut? It
had, he thought, been demonstrated that the clergy had
no legal right to them.—(Hear.) It had been laid down
as a rule by Committees of that House that compensa-
tion was to bo given only as long as all duties ceased,
but that sinecures were no longer to be maintained. He
would be in favour. of granting compensation to in-
cumbezts as long as they &Ted, but not to their sncees-
:ors. He concluded by saying he vs culd support the
amendment.

Sir DE LACY EVANS said on a former occasion
when a measure like that had been introduced, the chief
difficulty had been the compensation of the clergy. The
Government had then said it could not be expected that
it was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. But it
could not be denied that it was the interest of the clergy
which always stood in the way of these reforms. Could
it be supposed for a moment that if the bishops had
taken up that question long ago the evil would have