The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-10 00:00:00

AUSTRALIAN CORN.

Mr. HUTT moved that the petition which he had
presented from the merchants of London, on the subject
of Australian corn, be printed.
PAUPER LUNATICS.
Sir C. NAPIER moved that the petition of the
Chairman of the Vestry of St. Marylebone, for inquiry
into the treatment of pauper lunatics at the Asylum at
Hartwell, be printed.
LUNATICS IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. F. bfAULE moved that the petition from the

Prison Board of the county of Fife, respecting criminal
lunatics in Scotland (presented Bth April), be printed.
INTERMENT IN TOWNS.
On the order of the day being read,
Lord EBRINGTON said that the subject of inter-
ment in towns had recently occupied the attention of the
House and the country to a considerable. extent. He
wished to read some extracts from a report of the Com-
mittee of that House regarding churchyards in this
metropolis —(Order, order,)
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member was not in
order.
The subject was then dropped.
THE NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE.
Mr. AGLIONBY requested the attention of the Hock
to the subject before mentioned. An article had ap-
peare:l in the Tinics newspaper reflecting on his (Mr.
Aglionby's) conduct as a Member of that House. These
remarks were founded on a letter written by him to
the Chairman of the New Zealand Company. He
hoped the House would bear with him whilst he
made a short statement. lie did it with regret, and
would not upon merely personal considerations have
intruded the matter on their notice. He did it because
when a leading newspaper commented strongly and
severely on the character and conduct of the Members
of that House, the honour of the House was as
much, if not more, involved than the character of the in-
dividual Member. He held in his hand the letter upon
which these remarks in the. Times were founded. It was
an extremely long letter, and the article itsetf was of a
more serious nature. The article alleged two
offences against propriety-I—Aat he (Mr. Aglionby),
being a shareholder of the Company, should not
be an arbiter in the affairs of the Company.
He was not conscious of any impropriety in this respect.
He had done his utmost to avoid being a member of
the Committee, on the ground of bias and interest.
He had mentioned his objections to the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Lincoln), to the Under Secretary for the
Colonies, and numerous other lion. Members, but he was
told that he could not avoid being a member of the
Committee ; that it was necessary for the conve-
nience of the Committee that he should be a member
of it. He then proposed that he should not have a vote,
but that, too, was rejbcted. He did not act in that
Committee either as a partisan or an advocate, and he
believed that every member of the Committee would
bear him out in what he stated. The second charge
against propriety " was, his having an interview
with one of the witnesses who was to be
examined before the Committee. Every Honourable
Member must know how desirable it was that
witnesses whose testimony was unimportant should
not be brought before a Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
'Now if he had sought an interview with an individual
to induce him to alter or vary his evidence, it would
have been highly improper, but the fact was, he had never
done anything of the sort. He certainly did see Mrs
Carrington, but not about his evidence before the
Committee, although that gentleman frequently alluded
to it. Mr. Carrington had a claim against the New
Zealand Company, and he was extremely anxious that
Mr. Carrington should obtain justice, and he saw him
over and over again on that subject.
Captain ROUS said that Mr. Carrington had gone
out at the request of the New Zealand Company, and
had done his duty in every respect to the satisfaction of
the Company, when, without any fault even alleged
against him, the Company had thought fit to dismiss him
from their service. They alleged' that their expenses
were increasing while their funds were decreased and de-
creasing, and for that reason they were under the necessity
of dispensing with the services of Mr. Carrington. Now,
the Company had at that time the sum of 100,000/. in
their pockets. With respect to the letter, all he could
say was, that if the half of that letter was true the
New Zealand Company had forfeited their Charter.
He conceived that whenever any person was attacked
in this House, it was the duty of every Member to get
up and defend him.
Mr. AGLIONBY said a few words in explanation.
ST. MARGARET'S CHURCH-YARD.
Lord EBRINGTON said that it would be in the re-
collection of the House that a Committee made a report
with reference to St. Margaret's church yard, which
stated that it could be no longer used as a burial-place,
the noxious effluvia arising from it having been
the cause of three deaths already. The Com-
mittee had no hesitation in unanimously expressing
its determination that the churchyard of St. Margaret's
should be removed. lie would ask the Right lion.
Baronet whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to act upon that report ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he was not aware
that it was intended by her Majesty's Government to
remove St. Margaret's church yard.

FIELD GARDENS BILL.
Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Hon. Member who pro-
posed this Bill would not persevere in it. He (Mr. Es-
cott) had looked through the Bill only this morning, and
he should say he felt astonished at the compulsory
powers contained in it; and he would be still more asto-
nished if it should be persevered in in this state. It con-
tained many provisions of an extraordinary and novel
character, such as he conceived were strongly compulsory;
for instance, it gave a most stringent and compulsory
power to field-wardens over the occupiers of land, a
power by which they could determine upon the manner
in which they should deal with land taken by them, and
which might be either to the detriment or the advantage
of the parish ; and yet with a power so undefined
they were to be endowed for a period of three
years. In cases of inclosures the Bill gave the power
to demand from the Commissioners, under an inclosure
Bill, a perpetual lease. On these grounds he did hope
that those Hon. Members who gave this Bill their sup-
port on the ground of its - being a beneficent measure,
would well consider it, at least before it received the third
reading. But what did it also do ? Why, supposing the
scheme should turn out ruinous—supposing the benevolent
objects should not be carried out, the Bill allowed the
drawing on the parish funds to pay the tithes, rents, and
taxes. He should think that the Hon. Member would
hirdly contend for such a proposition. The Bill,
in short, gave the Commissioners extraordinary powers—
it not only gave them power to fix the rent of
the land, but who should hereafter be the owner
of it. But supposing that the concern should
should nut be a losing one. What then ? Why the
field-wardens were to pay over the profits to the poor-
rates. He believed that there was nothing so objection-
able as mixing up land with the relief of the poor.
He thought from the interference which this Bill
occasioned with the parochial authorities, it was
very likely that the expense would be thrown on the
parishes. Ile was glad to say that the condition
of the labourers had been very much improved since the
Hon. Gentleman had first taken them under his hand.
But he thought that the voluntary system had answered
so well that it was unwise to introduce any compulsory
measure ; and he, therefore, moved that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Mr. W. COWPER said that the Hon. Gentleman had
stated that he had read the Bill that morning ; but
he thought that he had not had time to consider its
provisions. One of the main reasons for making those
provisions compulsory was that they could not be
carried out without the consent of the parishes.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to discuss the details,
and defend the principle of his measure. The object
of this Bill was to afford relief to a vast num-
ber of those who deserved the consideration of this
House. A vast number of agricultural labourers
and artisans, who depended upon their daily labour for
their livelihood, would be benefited by it, as a rood of
land would afford sufficient food for a labourer and his
family.
Mr. M. MILNES anticipated only one good effect
from the measure of the Hon. Gentleman—the applica-
tion of waste lands about towns to the most profitable
purposes. The agricultural population would not be at
all benefited, nor did he think that the general advantage
of these allotments was sufficiently established. He
supported the measure, because he thought it would
lead to a beneficial appropriation of waste lands in the
vicinity of large and populous towns.
Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the Bill, thinking it would
interfere with the rights of property. It was unfair
amountto
gianthd:
don
npfrerveenntt
wthnienhowwnnenrsthoof
rleaalndvaifruome
nofbtaitheniirn
Friendthese
ehme
bshould svvu pipnocrhte
st ht
eer m(osto.nEos
of
ohtits),llnonn.
d
vote against the measure.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought this measure was
ect, and he thought
poobrjtunity for amending
tchanlet,ulanatetdnetronewffnenictda
nveeraymnpsleefnupl
any of the provisions which were calculated to cause
either public or private injury, they might be amended
in Committee. If the Hon. Member had not taken the
right way to do all he desired he would effect much, and
for this reason he trusted the House would not oppose
the second reading. There were some clauses to which
he felt insuperable objections. He objected especially to
that provision which secured the rent on the poor-rates;
but these things might be altered, and he thought it
would be hard if the Hon. Gentleman were not allowed
readingFt o r
ihe
Lordan vde hmoji sy
hi
sl
JOHN
wrtelspißadlAr?aNa sonsendeEohhuneadsv
eit
noi
cmgn
ogenar.
dt
ae ct
ht
mhe i sa also
secondsHooonn.
gar rrt
aui vtl
ae du
It. ae
the very remarkable Opposition which it had met with.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Winchester had stated
that there would be some show of reason for this Bill if
it had been brought in when wages were low; he could
tell the Hon. Gentleman that the wages of framework-
knitters and of labourers generally were just as low now
as they had been for years past ; and the feeling in
the midland counties was all in favour of the Bill, as lie
could state from his own experience. Ile should, there-
fore, vote for the second reading,
Mr. HINDLEY said, that if the Hon. Member for
Winchester pressed his opposition, he must certainly
vote with him. There were several very serious objec-
tions to all the details of the measure, and he should,
therefore, oppose it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY hoped the House would
not object to allow the Bill to pass through its present
stage. He thought the object of the Hon. Gentleman
who had brought forward the subject deserved all the
consideration that could be given it.