The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 24.
Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock.
DIRECT LONDON AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY.
n_ The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
'ne promoters of competing railways to the Direct London
rd Portsmouth line, and praying to be heard by counsel be-
fore the Select Committee as a competing line against the
rett London and Portsmouth Railway Bill. The Noble
ta!Ae moved that the petition be referred to the Select Com-
ittee on the Bill, which was agreed to after a short discussion
DUBLIN AND GALWAY RAILWAY.—REPORT OF

THE SELECT COMMITTEE.—PRIVILEGE.
Lord BATHURST said he had been directed, as the Chair-
mu of ; of the Committee appointed to inquire into the charges
brought against the Dublin and Galway Railway Company, to
call the attention of the House to their report. The Committee
had met and considered the petitions which had been referred
t° them, had heard counsel, had examined witnesses in
aaPport of the allegations in the said petitions, and had
arrived
at the opinion, that most systematic frauds had been
usedo for the purpose of obtaining the necessary number
' s gnatures to the subscription contract. No pra-
ter attention had been paid to the letters of al-
tb"tent. Names had been inserted without the consent of
e.parties, and letters had been sent to country postmasters.
With a request that they might be returned to London through
ta Post-office. It also appeared that 2.50/. were to be pa d to
Person on his not bringing certain charges against the Com-
e:Y, and 500/. more on the Bill passing the Standing Orders'
Inmittee. The subscription contract did not amount to
nreesfourths of the estimates. The result of these de-
liberations had induced the Committee to express entire
concurrence in the report of the Committee, and that the
reduction in the amount of deposits last session, by the
House of Commons, had given a faci ity to frauds like those
mentioned in their report. Under all these circumstances,
!,;',ey had come to the decision not to inquire further into the
mill without further directions from the House.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH said the report was a peculiar
lir, and he thought it better to give a notice respecting it.
s e Should therefore move to-morrow that the Bill be no
rurther proceeded with.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had no .r to state, that having
brought forward a statement with regard to the privileges
so the House, that he had seen a statement giving
an explanation with respect to the report of the newspaper in
question, and that their Lordships ought not now to call the
reporter before the House, or proceed against the editor of
that newspaper. The Noble Earl opposite would forgive him
yrlC,he said that he never intimated that he wished to do so.
• "QS' had had too much experience on matters of that sort, and
be thought it better to leave him (Lord Brougham) as the ag-
grieved party to proceed at law by means of a criminal
Information, if he wished to adopt that course. No doubt he
,old prosecute ; it was no excuse whatever that the matter
occurred in the House of Commons, but he had to state tt at it
aPPeared the statement was made and was published in moth r
newspaper, against which he might proceed, if he pro-
roded at all--namely, the Morning Chronicle, as it
‘,141 published the ame speech in the same words. e
morefore should have proceeded against both, or againsH t
neither. But he had seen a statement in both of these papers
Purporting to be this—that the same individual Member of the
other House who was represents(' to have made this un-
rt speech, which no person would pretend tc ex-
anate—that some person was made to say in the
!trite paper, that what he was represented to have said was
wader an entire misapprehension of the facts—that he was not
Present in the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, as,
tt°t being a member, he could not be, and that he had been
r4ialed by the information which he had received.—( Hear.
The same individual had stated that the evidence to which he ad referred, had no reference to the evidence of Mr. Parkes,
b at ,to some other person, which showed that the
forma •
lion this individual receives' was entirely incorrect,
ft'''. there was no other evidence which was not taken down and
trielPorted to their Lordships, but that of Mr. Parkes. Now,
he believed,
lime individual was stated to have said, and,
_ believed, correctly, that he was exceedingly
sorry that his language had given pain to any persons, but the
elr"IY pain it had given him was being inducead to speak upon
I'd to bring the matter before their Lordships. Well, but be
regretted it, and that being the case he ( Lord Brougham) ~as
wo he was anticipating the decisi,,n of their Lordships
t,nell he suggested that they should rot proceed further with
matter.—( Hear, hear). It would then still be open for
bra, to prosecute the publishers of the libel, because it was no
Protection for;them even if the language had been spoken
4 Parliament. He could not conceive that the House ot Coin-
res,holding the doctrine of priv,lege so high. could have allowed
aPsech to have passed t nnotived hath; y heard it, but he
tostill more surprised at the statement that rise House had al-
:wed hour a to pass away after reading what appeared in the
massee before anything was said about it. He could not
is Lfe believe for one moment that the s atement
s,e in the newspapers had the least foundation in
be‘t", namely, that nobody got up to complain of what had
iiZh printed as having been spoken in their presence—that
i,,,dY got up to comlain of the grossest libel that was ever
Ctu'ished having been spoken in the House of Commons till
e in the day, when the party who uttered it voluntarily got
61) o explain it away. The House ought to have at once, and
is",°elteveri they did, on their first meeting, take the matter
tIo their serious consideration, and he could not conceive it
posetble that they could have acted in the way represented by
prtewspapers. One of the papers had to-day ventured to
blish another libel upon him The Morning Chronicle was
;sod to say this morning that he had rendered a great
Ljri'llee to the public in throwing out the Dublin and
lo,:""Y Bill, which he was supposed to hare done.
r had acted unfairly in prejudicing the Bill be-
„ere acting upon the Committee. Now, there never was
heY thing more gross, nor more slanderous than this, and
n„e Said it was a most flagrant breach of privilege. He would
ii,"ttjhowever, appeal against it, but leave it in their Lord:hips'
Ain". How could he prejudgo the Bill when he was not a
I,i"nher of the Committee, nor had he ever had any thing to do
th t he
sz Bill, further than inspiring into certain allegations
for St the promoters ; nor, in fact, had it been yet thrown out—
ti,t had not been reported on to that etreat by the Committee.
shlitcsrPed before he concluded, he might be allowed to say one
at upon the subject of Members of Parliament holding
$ ill's in a railway company, and being allowed to vote for its
cs, 18-37, he induced their Lordships to adopt a most
i.,„",a•l'Y standing order—namely, that no Peer should have
at,,s'ing to do with a Railway Committee who had any con-
ii:"°4 whatever with the railway in question ; and he trusted
eTsarne rule was carried out in the other House of Parliament.
in he Earl of WICKLOW remarked that on the former even.
he suggested that it would be necessary to take steps to
• th,.e publisher and reporter of the libel to their Lordships'
444' °at a Noble Duke opposed it, on the ground that those
yiduals would have to answer questions which might cri-
,ge• nw!'e themselves. Now that was the last object he had in
eha • His object was to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of
saiiinging the subject from one of privilege to one of a cri-
ital character.—The matter then dropped.
LUNCORN AND PRESTON BROOK RAILWAY. -
rost,ord CA MOYS brought up the report of the Select Com-
prozed.on this Bill, who had found that the preamble was not
Lord
St MONTEAGLE would suggest to the House that some
beitp,;seharoiunli: be taken on the subject of swearing witnesses
of GPs should
lway Committees, instead of the present absurd mode
witnesses after their testimony was given.
in t'e Duke of WELLINGTON said that some measure was
Ler" "Inplation on the subject.
ssitilerd CAMPBELL said the Commons ought to swear ,
piedesses before their own Comrdtter •s. Witnesses had there 1
ati ge,4 themselves to facts which even under the sanction of
oath they would be most, jealous to revoke.
t0,4-rE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Prose BROUGHAM moved a resolution that an address be
pkalated to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously
baighed t° give directions that the New Houses of Parliament
t he ready by the beginning of next session.
olcserd WHA RN CLIFFE opposed the motion. It was quite
taitiredthat though a temporary accommodation might be ob-
tog the inconvenience of twins surrounded by workmen
kbaelsturbed by noise would more than counterbalance any
Lntas Res which the accommodation might afford.
Prie°r° CAMPBELL should support the motion of his Noble
Postponed The finishing of the Houses of Parliament would be
Trh'°alid to the Greek Kalends.
C'mope Duke of WELLINGTON begged that their Lordships
haratltrecollect that this was the House of Lords and also the
bess,:er of Parliament. There must be a communication
igcvon two Houses, and also care must be taken that no
°Pen' enience would arise to her Majesty when coming to
Lo and prorogue Parliament.
Iscesrd CAMPBELL explained. He did not mean that her
tolt7 should be inconvenienced in the slightest degree.
addles SUDELY SUDELY could not concur in the propriety of the
sanos_ • It would materially interfere with the future ar-
Vallnts of the New Houses.
dre: Earl of WICKLOW would give his vote for the ad-
be of his Noble Friend. If they did not do so, they would
Fri 4 that House his
tioLusg "Id Persevere i
sawn it.
HROUGHAIM nothin whatever in the objec-
een cs wh
ich were raised against
.his motion. A great deal had
,raid in
&orals reference to the inconvenience which the Law
kt ould sustain by the noise of the masons who would be
ilergwoark,,outsid. e, but they were quite willing to tin-
lase that
risk of that noise ; for he was quite
oErpr
clamour,_(
the noise made inside would drown all
to he 'Lamour.—( A laugh.) If any inconvenience would arise
bio)Vlajesty in the opening of Parliament (which God for-
t'
f is
sh
was quite sure that she would graciously consent to
how rarliament by commission for one •ear. There was,
finlessever., a most serious question for the House to consider, and
theY adopted the motion it would not be easy to say,
the neweileolay that had. occurred, when they would get into
Threetlotohaßutses of Parliamut.
derla DtheCnHoAn..NcoCnEteLnLtsOhßad theft put the motion, and
Lord BROUGHAM The non-contents have it?
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Contents.
16
tA. iiLi.ordStil-e°llnltaejnotrsity against tine motion 4O
—24
PAUPER LUNATICS BILL.
HeCit fIaaAidRNCLIFFE moved the second reading of this
-sshley, it, , although the Bill had emanated from Lord
had been brought in under the auspices of the Go-
ilhronsc' must be considered as a Government Bill.
I
vatic as. out England there was insufficient accommodation for
and
emany of the asylums were crowded to excess.
Io civilised
Ire of _
evit?luntry like this, they ought to remove at least
o ihepres`nene, arising from lunatics. That was the object
soul c 1 beßill Sixty out of every hundred of theselunatics
to
,erlthred, provided their maladies were attended to
curable. He
others were those who were considered to be in-
it y
se move the second reading of the Bill.
Thh: Dpausked"
ease
ure, but if thenCl:litsMOND objected to this Bill, because,
oa a better Bill. present shape, they would pass a bad
ylisent it to a Select Committee they would
t!l'le before them
4.1,ke to hive the Poor-el had a great suspicion of any Bill that
ioe House, to tell them
whe ground of humanity. lie should
Commissioners brought to the bar of
holues• The _ if they had lunatics in their work-
horosti,„:.s.notier had no right to have lunatics in their work-
e ntat:ccaswirsh(V he could leave the house at three
.iculous. to have them admitted into
Zattetreake:l.:l7,setlai,s ;112
witowulads impossible that they could be cured
itedd to increase. the county-rate to a great
Pltierat.asoutlibebeiblieel? it also for the manner in which the
ce
v!!_rylleelwectheufero
srteaideedt: He begged that his Noble Friend would
The owners of land and not the occu-
commiettermining that he would not send the Bill
ratiltr through thboyaee. It would be very much amended in a
oe Selectsaes 91 Cr Committeeem oo
rsewr
eh:
eeprnet stairs.tiier e a
wg
reTi
rcheui
ismt
.Bill
Hits et4en werethi bUt an I
-ny l
est
took place to-morrow, he did not
tat
Its they woul,l be called upon to resume their duties.
V
,hit old
"'"" that it be referred to a Select Committee.
that it CH ANCELLO: said that he would suggest
er
with, that this Bill should lie proceeds--edvd
4:ll3;iterrUsi.:,:nod I
him asi far as this second reading was concerned. He
ause had passed through the House of Com-
inistaksa,, which it was necessary to expunge, Toe.),
ijnis::4 then prs(eed with it as a new Bill, and read it a first
e from the House of Commons was brought up,
g that on arm-n(1.4,9i. was made on the Pauper Lanatics
the engrossment
their Lordships; which amendment was
tlZtiirtiliatrieu4dre_ta'entiiht of the Bill, and requesting that
t LlQuid be in)erted is the Bill, sod that the 66th

clause should be expunged from the printed Bill, as it did not
form part of the Bill when it left the Commons.
Lord CAMPBELL did not understand the nature of the
amendments, nor did he exactly understand the present posi-
tion of the Bill in consequence of that message.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that their course was
very clear. All they had to do was to send their messenger
with the Bill to the House of Commons, and say that their
Lordships would expunge the clause as requested.
Lord COTTENHAM thought the most regular way would
be to send the Bid back to the Lower House as it was, and let
the alterations and amendments he made there.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not eoncur with the
Noble Lord who had just sat down. In 1836, Mr. Wilkes brought
a message from the Commons. requesting that a certain provi-
sion should be expunged from the Marriage Bill for England,
which had been agreed to on the third reading in the Commons.
The way in which that message was dealt with was this :—All
the proceedings which were already had on the Bill in their
Lordships' House were vacated. The provision was expunged.
The Bill as amended was then read a first time, and ordered
to be printed. Now, the present Bill was in a state precisely
analogous, and he conceived that, with such a precedent, their
course was very clear.
The Earl of DEVON said it was perfectly true that, in the
case of the Marriage Act, such a course as Lad been stated by
the Noble Lord had been pursued, but it was a course not sup-
ported by precedent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was done quite
in accordance with precedent, for Lord Melbourne, under whose
guidance the Bill was, had alluded to two precedents where a
similar course had heen adopted, and those were cases in v% hich
the messages were brought up by Mr. Wilberforce and Sir
George Hill, in 1823.
After a few words from Lords COTTEN lIAM and Lord CA me-
BELL,

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the proceedings
on the Bill up to the present stag• be vacated ; that tic
amendments be made, and the clause expunged, as requested ;
and that the Bill, so amended, be brought in, read a first time,
and ordered to be printed.—Agreed to.
The Duke of RICHMOND then gave notice that he would
move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
existint, laws and regulations on the subject.
Lord 'WHARNCLIFFE said he would take the second read-
ing of the Bill to-morrow ; and if the Noble Lord persisted in
his motion, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
A desultory conversation then ensued, after which
The Duke of RICHMOND withdrew his motion, and the
subject dropped.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL. _

Lord STAIN LEY moved the second reading of the Com-
mons Enclosure Bill, and explained its provisions in detail.
He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Bill, and not
allow a subject of such importance to be delayed for another
sesion.

• Lo-d FITZ HARDINGE agreed in the general principles of
the Bill, but objected to the 151st clause, and was of opinion
that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to un•
der2'o the requisite alterations.
Lord STANLEY replied that the 153 d clause removed
what appeared to be objectionable in the 151st. He hoped the
Noble Lord wauld allow the Biil to proceed, as an) suggestion
he had to make could be considered when tho Bill went into
Committee.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday next.

MERCI-lANT SEAMEN'S BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON this Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Mon-
day next.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and_passed
WA STE LANDS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA).
The report on this Bid wa• brougiit up, and it was ordered
to he read a third time to-morrow.
The other Bills on the 'able were forwarded a stage, ar.d their
Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 24.
The House met at Twelve o'clock.
COAL DUTY BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN, this Bill was ieed
a third time.

On the motion that the Bill should pass,
Sir JAMES DUKE moved," That it be enacted, that from
and after the 31st day of Decemb,r next, there shall be allowed
upon the exportation from the port of London, westward of the
City boundary on the river Thames at Staines, of coals ex-
ceeding in quantity in one -oarge, lighter, or other vessel, twenty
tons, which shall not have been landed, a drawback of the ful:
amount of all the rates or duties which shall have teen paid 11
respect of such coals, subject, however, to such rules and regu-
lations as may from time to time be made by the mayor, ald,r-
men, and commons of the City of London, in Common Council
assembled, to prevent fraud in respect of such drawback, such
rules and regulations to be approved of by the Committee of
her Majesty's Privy Council for managing the affairs of trade;
ar.d if the master of any vessel, or any coal-weigher, shall in
any certificate or otherwise state any circumstance which is not
true, for the purpose of enabling the osner of such coal-, or
his agent, to obtain any such drawback as aforesaid, or if any
lighterman or other person employed to carry such coals to their
destina'ion westward of the C:ty boundary on the river Thames
at Staines, shall rot deliver the whole quantity of such coals at
some place to the westward of the said boundary, every such
matter or coal-weigher, lighterrnan, or other person, so offend-
ing, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not
exceeding one hundred pounds."
Mr. HUME thought that there should be a modification of
the duty.
Sir G. CLERK said that he could not consent to the in-
troduction of this clause. He was perfectly ready to admit the
fact that the South Sea trade had diminished, yet he was at the
same time confident hat the amount of shipping and the number
of seamen had increased. Since the introduction of steam
navigation, the coasting trade had certainly declined, but yet
the business and the prosperity had increased, and there was a
larger quantity of sea-borne coal introduced into the port
of London than had ever before been carried. The largest
portion of this tax, viz., eightpence in the shilling, was mort-
gaged by the Woods and Forests to pay for the lin' rove-
merits in the City and putt; and he thought, therefore,
that it was incompetent for the House to interfere with this tax.
Mr. FORSTER said that on the 4th of this month there were
266 tons of coals in the port, which cost 7s. 6d. a ton ; the
freight on this cargo was 7s. 9d. ; and there were other ex-
penses, to the amount of 2s. ; and this, with the port-dues,
brought the cost of coals to 1/. 3s. 6d. a ton to the buyer ; and
on the consumer the charge was, of course, proportionably
heavy.

M. STUART WORTLEY said that his Noble Friend
was proposing to continue this tax for seventeen years
longer, it having been previouAly continued for only
seven years, and was thus placing the coal trade in
a worse position than any other trade in London.
There could be no doubt if facility were given to parties to
bring commodities into the City of Lond,ii, a great portion of
those commodities would be brought Hear.)
The Earl of LINCOLN opposed the clause upon the prin-
ciple of justice to the creditor who had lent money.—(llear.)
He could not understand how it could be just, having borrowed
money for a certain purpose, and under certain conditions, to
attempt to reduce the security. He thought it would be
much better for the Honourable Member to withdraw the
clause now, and in another session to introduce a Bill em-
bodying the clause.
Mr. MASTERMAN could not agree to the clause, as he
believed the tax of Bd. a ton on coals was mortgaged to the
full extent, and, therefore, that the H tuse hm no right in
honour or justice to interfere.
Mr. WAR LEY hoped this would be a lesson to the House
how it taxed the necessaries of life. This tax hail been fas-
tened on the public, and when they would get rid of it, Heaven
only knew. There was no common-sense or justice in charging
one price on coals coming one way, and another price
on coals going another.—( Hear, hear.) If there were any
common sense .Nlembers present, he knew well which way they
would vote.—( Hear, hear. )

Mr. R. PALMER supported the clause.
After a few words from Mr. WA Wl`,
Mr. 111UNTZ protested against the inequality of the
principle of taxing the inland consumption, they were
easing the continental consumer in every way.
Mr. SPOONER opposed the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause ... —l3
The clause was consequently loot.
On our admission to the gallery ws? found
Mr. HURIE moving to strike out the clause that con-
tinued the penny duty. His objection to the tax was, that it was
paid by the poor, who we) e not so much interested in the pro-
perty it was intended to improve as the proprietors, and that,
therefore, they ought to pay the tax.
Mr. FORSTER seconded the motion.

?A

The Earl of LINCOLN objected to the motion. This was
not the imposition of a new tax, bufthe continuance of an old
one that was of little or no importance to the consumer.

Mr. J. STUART WORTLEY objected to the continuance
of the tax ; he thought it highly improper to continue it on the
face of the report of the Committee.
After some observations from Lord R. Grosvenor, Mr. B
Escott, Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Tufnell, and Mr. Wakley,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ...
Against it
Majority against the motion —l7
The motion was consequently lost.
Mr. WAKLEY congratulated the Noble Lord ( Lincoln,
that he had not made the tax 6d., and the period of its
duration fifty, instead of seventeen, years, because he was con-
vinced that in both cases the House would have adopted it.
Mr. HUME thought that measures like the present ought
not to be brought forward at the morning sittings. It ap-
peared to him that the course that had been adopted was a most
shameful lr ay of conducting the business of the House. He
was determined to divide the House on the question that the
Bill do pass.
strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, and the Bill passed.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.
The Small Debts (No. 3) Bill was reported, several clauses
were added, the Bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a
third time on Monday.
CHURCH BUILDING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Church
Building Act Amendment Bill.
Mr. HAWES objected to the Bill. It contained no pro-
vision whatever for the protection of the laity. It was still
more objectionable in another point of view, for it gave
power to the Commissioners to appoint the church-
wardens, which was in effect giving them the power of making
church-rates, for, according to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice
Tindal, churchwardens had the power to make rates when
the inhabitants refused to do so. Under these circumstances,
he thought the Bill ought not to proceed : there were
already no less than forty-eight Ecclesiastical Bile on the statute
book, and 400 orders in Council. The House ought not, there-
, fore, to add another Bill, but try to consolidate the present
Bills.

24

Mr. S. HERBERT said that the arguments of the Hon.
Member for Lambeth against this Bill were th• strangest he
had ever heard ; because there was a large number of Acts of
Parliament in existence, and the law was in an anomalous
state, therefore they were not to proceed to amend
the state of the law by any act of legislation. With
regard to church-rates, nothing had been introduced in the
Bill which would at all affect that question.
The clauses were agreed to with some amendments, and the
report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
The Lord,' amendments to the We,tminster Improvement
(No. 2) Bill were agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to the Bermondsey Improvement
Bill were agreed to.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
SCOT FISH CENTRAL RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
DUNDEE AND PERTH RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
ABERDEEN RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
GRIMSBY DOCKS.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LIVERPOOL AND BURY (BOLTON AND WIGAN

AND LIVERPOOL) RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
The South-Eastern Railway (branch to Deal and extension
of the South-Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and Margate
Railway) Bill was read a third time and passed.
9n 419 ;Room that the Bolton and Leib, Kenyon and

Leigh Junction, North Union, Liverpool and l'.lanchester and
Grind Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, be
read a third time,
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved the amendments of which
he had given notice.

Air. ESTCOTT doubted the propriety of suspending the
standing orders.

Mr. PATTEN said that his only object was to prevent the
Bill from being thrown out for the session. The amendments
were not of a very important charactt r.
After a few words from Mr. BROTIIERTON,
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he objected to the motion being
withdrawn, and he hoped the Committee on Standing Orders
would not sanction such a proceeding... It would be better to
throw the Bill overboard altogether. • .
Dr. NOWRING would have no objection to the • motion.
provided it would not have the effect of causing the Bill a y
risk ; but it would be a e y serious step to take if it would
have the effect of throwing out the Bill altogether.
After a few words from Mr. ST EWA RT WORTLEY and Lord
G. SOMERSET, the motion was withdrawn, and the third read-
ing of the Bill ordered to be resumed to-morrow.