The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

J

".'tC)(7; Jt,NE 15.
Thr.! tool; the Chair at Four o'Clock.
BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

lf_.;;;t1 iiEORGE LENNOX presented a petition from
the Directors of four of the Brighton line of railways, which
Stated that the petitioners being arittious fully to secure the
interests of the public; had formed thernseites into one
Company—(Cheers)-=and had laid titit ti plats flit a line of
rails" to Brighton, which they prayed might be laid before
the Engineer appointed by the Government to decide upon
the best line to Brighton.
Capt. ALSAGER supported the prayer of the petition.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX trusted that the House
would allow him now to move that the petition be re-
ferred to the Government Engineer.
The SPEAKER said a notice must be given before
such a motion could be made.
Lord G. LENNOX trusted the House would dispense
with the notice, as time was of the greatest importance.
Sir E. KNATCH BULL thought a day's delay could
be of little or no importance.
Captain ALSAGER begged to say, that as the mover
of Sir J. Rennie's Inc be had been requested to support
the prayer of the petition, which he did most heartily,
Loping that this arrangement would be the first step to-
wards harmony.
Lord. G. LENNOX then moved that the petition should
be referred to the Government Engineer.
Mr. FRESHFIELD objected to the motion without
notice. He thon,;ht the public ought to be satisfied that
the plan proposed was. for their interest.
Mr. HARVEY n as happy to hear that these rival Com-
panies had at last the good sense to agree. That good
sense had no doubt been brought to light, as it was in al-
most all cases, by a diminution of fortune.—(Cheers.)
So long as these conflicting lines had plenty of funds, they
were opposed to each other, but the moment those funds had
decreased, they agreed among themselves upon the best
plan. The Noble Lord by his motion did cot ask the
House to adopt that plan, but merely to refer it to the
Government Engineer to determine on behalf of the public
whether the proposed line was, or was not the best.
Sir E. KNATCIIBULL thought the better way would
be for the Noble Lord to give notice of the petition, because
at present scarcely any one knew anything about it.
The SPEAKER said he had no interest whatever in
the matter, except to see that the rules of the
House were observed. The Noble Lord, if the House
did not object, bad a right to make the motion, and
he was not aware there was any rule of the House that
would exclude that motion. But, under all the circum-
stances, he thought it would be desirable that the Noble
Lord should give notice of his motion.
After a few observations from Mr. S. LEFEVRE and Sir
'F. FREMANTLE, who protested against the Noble Lord
making his motion without having given notice,
Lord G. LENNOX withdrew the motion, and gave no-
tice that he would bring it forward to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. LA MBTON, the Durham Junc-
tion Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir WILLIAM FO LKES, the
Ouse Bank (Norfolk) Drainage Bill was read a third time
and passed.
Mr. R. PRICE brought up the Report of the Commit-
tee on Farr's Estate. The Bill was then read a third time
and passed.
Lord W. BENTINCK presented a petition from the
Provost and Magistrates of the Town Council of Glasgow,
against such parts of the Sheriffs Courts Bill as would abo-
lish Guild Courts in Scotland. Also, a petition from
the Bridewell Commissioners of the town of Glasgow,
against the Bill for improving Prison Discipline in
Scotland. Also a petition from the East India Association
of Glasgow, in favour of Steam Navigation with India ; and
a petition from 7,600 inhabitants of Calcutta and other
parts of Bengal, in favour of a regular steam communica-
tion from all parts of India —(Cheers.) The Noble Lord
stated that the British inhabitants of India had subscribed
a sum of 30,000/. for that purpose.
Col. VERNER presented 26 petitions from Armagh
and 7 petitions from Tyrone, praying for an inquiry into
the present system of National Education in Ireland.
Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from Robert
Doyley of Cork, praying that assassins of character might
be included in any law for the alteration of the Law of Libel.
Sir R. DONKIN presented a petition from Berwick
against the Municipal Boundaries Bill.
Mr. WILKS presented a petition from Leicester, pray-
ing for the abolition of Church-rates.
W OPE N NY-POSTMEN.

Mr. HARVEY presented a petition, signed by 9,871
merchants, bankers, and tradesmen of London, including
almost all of those professions from Hyde Park-corner to
Whitechapel-road, complaining of the inadequate compen-
sation given to the Twopenny-postmen. The Hon. Mem-
ber then gave notice, that to-morrow he would present a
petition from Sheffield, praying for the repeal of the Poor-
law Amendment Act.
Mr. HUME presented petitions from the Glasgow and
West of Scotland Power-loom Weavers Association ; from
Marylebone ; from the Dundee Radical Association ; and
from the merchants, manufacturers, and others of Pollock-
shaws, praying for an extension of the suffrage to every
householder.
Mr. H. JOHNSTONE presented a petition from the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, complaining
that the Report of the Commissioners had not been taken
into consideration, and suggesting that it was the duty of
the Government to support the Established Church even
pending any inquiry.
Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he would pre-
sent a petition, praying that all public edifices which con
tained works of art might be opened to the public without
expense.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Col.
Bradley, complaining of the decision in his case. The
Honourable Member gave notice that on Tuesday
next he would move for a copy of all the correspondence
between the Horse Guards and Colonel Bradley relative to
the dispute between him and Colonel Arthur.

Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY presented a petition from
St. nmeris in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abo-
lition of Church-rates.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS presented a petition from a
place in Oxfordshire, in favour of the better observance of
the Sabbath.

Sir H. H A RDINGE presented a petition from an in-
dividual named Bennett, who was an out-pensioner
of Greenwich Hospital, who had lost his pension
by accepting a commutation, praying that a law might
be passed by which that pension would be restored. The
Right Hon. Baronet gave notice that he should to •night move
a clause to that effect in the Bill that was to be brought
forward.
Sir G. SINCL AIR presented a petition in favour of the
better observance of the Lord's-day.
POLLOCK AND GOVAN RAILWAY.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Lord \V. BEN TI NCK moved the further considera-
tion of the Report of the Committee on the Pollock and
Govan Railway.
Mr. SPEIRS said the opposition to the Bill did not
arise from any sordid or pecuniary motives, nor because it
interfered with any other line of railway. The objection
arose from its being proposed to cross the Glasgow turn-
pike road ; and, if a clause which he had the honour to
propose would be embodied in the Bill by the promoters,
he (Mr. Spcirs) would at once withdraw all objection to it.
The clause, as we understood the Hon. Member, was to
the effect that the railway should not cross the Glasgow
road, except by means of a tunnel or a bridge. If that clause
were rejected, he should reel it his duty to move as an
amendment that the. Report be-further considered that.day
six months.

For the Committee
Against it
Majority.

On our return to the gallery we found

Mr. J. MAXWELL said, the peculiar difficulty of agree-
ing with the Hon. Member's proposition was, that the rail-
way was already made, and had been for some years. The
undertaking 11,-.d received the sanction of the Glasgow au-
thorities, and the Trustees of the River Clyde, and lie
hoped the lion. Member would withdraw the clause, as it
was impossible now to carry it into effect.
Mr. WALLACE, as one well acquainted with the road
in question, was fully of opinion that the clause was not
required, and ought to be rejected.
Dr. BO WRING supported the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET would support the clause of the
Hon. Member opposite.
Lord W. BENTINCK said that not a single petition
had been presented against the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the insertion of the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —27
Bill to be ingrossed.
MR. GORE JONES.

Sir ROBERT BATESON then rose to move that, the
Committee Clerk who attended the Committee on Orange
Lodges in 1835, be ordeted to attend the trial of Gore
Jones v. Henry Hunter, in Di tin. He had also a petition
to present.

Mr. HUME protested against the Hon. Baronet being
allowed to proceed a ith his motion at present. He ought
to have first had the petition printed, and regularly circula-
ted with the votes.

Sir R. BATESON said it was only at the request of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex that the petition was
presented. The statements in the petition bore out the
assertion he made last night, as to the necessity of the
Committee clerk being ordered to attend the trial.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. The present was not
a case of privilege.
Sir R. INGLIS thought, as the Hon. Member had
risen to order, he should show in what particular the rules
of the House had been transgressed.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1831.

35
-16

Mr. nor,BucK—The Order of the Day is a motion
to. the gidleq; tthen up, Jump d the Hon. Baronet
to move the further consideratic;n d?ljotiittd 4.0141e._

Mr. TREVOR rose to call the Hon. Member for Bath
to order.—(Laughter.) It was distinctly understood that
the Hon. Baronet should be-allowed to bring his motion on
that evening.
Mr. ROEBUCK would be glad to know how an Order
of the Day could take prceedenee of eighteen notices of
Motions: The question seas merely of a personal nature,
and should tibt tie tillOteml to occupy the time of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed the lion. and Learned
Member for Bath had, strictly speaking, good rbillttt: for
his interruption. The Hon. Baronet bad, yesterday, given
way out of courtesy to the House, and perhsps, in point of
COUttesy, he ought now to be allowed to proceed.—( Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said his objection was to bringing for-
Ward such a motion without notice. It appeared No. Pi
among the Motions, and No. 7 amour the Orders of the
Day, in order to make assurance doubly sure ; and he
would be glad to know from the Hon. Baronet now,
whether he meant to make it as a Motion, or an Order of
the Day
Sir R. BATESON said, it had been distinctly under-
stood that he should bring the question forward that even-
ing at five o'clock. The trial to which it referred came on
on Monday, and could not be postponed, and therefore the
House would see that it was a matter of urgent necessity.
Dr. BOWRING hoped the Speaker would decide the
question for the House.
The SPEAKER could merely repeat what he had al-
ready said, that he supposed he had been consulting the
wishes of the House and promoting the proceedings in a
Court of Justice by calling on the _Hon. Baronet.
Lord MORPETH said as a point of equity, he thought
that the House ought to grant permission to the witness
to attend—(Hear)—and the sooner it granted that per-
mission the better.—(Chcers.)
_ Sir R. BATESON, after the declaration of the Noble

Lord, would not say a single word further than that he
had not brought the question forward from party motives.
The Hon. Baronet then moved that the Committee Clerk
who attended before the Orange Lodge Committee have
leave to attend and give evidence in Dublin.
Mr. HUME said that was not yet the question.
The petition had not yet been read, or even laid on
the table.—(Hear, bear.) The House knew nothing
of its contents, and could not therefore at once agree to the
motion.

The petition was then read at length by the Clerk a
the table.
Sir R. BATESON then renewed his motion.

Mr. HUME thought that, considering the protection
which that House ought to afford to those who were called
as witnesses before them, it was impossible that they could
agree to the motion—they ought not to afford facilities
to any party for persecutions of any kind. The usual way
for contradicting any charge was for the parties who thought
themselves calumniated to present a petition to that
House, so that the contradiction might be made as fully
known as the charge had been. Election cases were dif-
ferent from those in question, and he objected to giving the
permission required.
Mr. O'CONNELL differed from the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, thinking that the House ought to allow the
evidence to be given. It must be recollected that this
was not an action brought against Mr. Jones, but by him,
and the evidence was necessary for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON thought the House ought to
allow the evidence to be given.
Captain JONES supported the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the evidence ought not to be
given.
The motion was then agreed to without a dis ision.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the question of
Supply might in all probability take a considerable time to-
morrow, he would postpone the question relating to the
Irish Tithe Bill till Monday ; but, on
Lord STANLEY stating that it would be better there
should be a fixed day for the discussion of that important
question when it would be certain of coming on,
Lord J. RUSSELL fixed Friday se'ennight.
Mr. G. BERKELEY then rose to move " That an
humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that
ho will be graciously pleased to give directions for the im-
mediate carrying into effect the recommendation of the Se-
lect Committee of 1833, relating to the best means of set-
ting apart a portion of the strangers' gallery for the admit-
tance of ladies, both in the present and new Houses of
Parliament." In bringing forward this motion he was
solely influenced by a sense of public duty, and he thought
the House should assert its just prerogative, and insist on
the resolution being carried into effect. The subject was
now so well understood that he should not then enter fur-
ther into it—(Laughter)—but he could not help observing
that it was rather odd that the opponents of the measure
voted 4001. for the expense of the alteration, whereas the
estimated sum stated by those who brought it forward was
only 2801. It would seem from this that the object was to
defeat it on the ground of expences. For his part he could
not see on what ground the presence of ladies could be ob-
jected to, and he put it to any Hon. Member who had ever
the good fortune to have a bouquet of flowers introduced
into his chamber by a lady whether he did not feel the air
the sweeter for it ?—( Loud laughter.)
Capt. CHETWYND seconded the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —24
TWOPENNY POSTMEN

Captain POLHILL, in moving that the petition of the
twopenny-post carriers, presented on the 14th of April, be
referred to a Select Committee, hoped he should have the
support not only of the Government, but of both sides of
the House. The case of the petitioners was fully set forth
in the petition of the 14th of April, and he thought it was
one which fully justified him in moving that it be referred to
a Select Committee.
Colonel SI BTHORP seconded the motion.

Lord SEYMOUR thought the class of persons referred
to by the Hon. Member were not in a worse condition
than those belonging to other departments of the public
service. Theirsalarics were twenty shillings per week, with
an allowance of three or four shillings for extra duty. They
were, besides, allowed nine shillings per week in case of
sickness.

Mr. WEST begged to call the attention of the Govern-
ment to the case of the Dublin letter-carriers, whose duty
had been increased by the recommendation of the Post-
office Commissioners, and yet, after 20 years' service, the
salary of those persons was only 4.51. a-year. He put it to
the House whether it was fair to increase the duties of those
men and refuse an increase of remuneration ?

Mr F. BARING (lid not think it right that such ap-
plications to Parliament should be countenanced.

After a few words from Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Hamilton,
Dr. Bowring, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. O'Connell, the House
divided, when there appeared—

Mr. G. KNIGHT moving for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the asylum for lunatic paupers at Hanwell. He
thought if he were able to show that sufficient attention was
not paid to the pauper lunatics the House would not re•
fuse to grant the Committee. The reports showed that

the recoveries at Hanwell were much fewer than those in
any similar institution. Indeed, there was a difference to
a frightful extent, and one of the objects of the Committee
would be to ascertain the cause of this. Some of the re-
turns appeared very favourable, and in one instance 260
were returned cured ; but this was not the fact, as many
of those included in this number were returned more than
once. He moved for another return subsequently, from
which it appeared that 27 of the 260 were yet in the
asylum ; and even this second return was incorrect, for
there were more than that number in the asylum out of
the 160 at the time the return was made. If the cures at
Hanwell were few, the deaths were numerous in propor-
tion to those at other places. There were but half the
cures and double the deaths at Han well which took place
in the other institutions. There was a vast expenditure,
too, between the hobbying and jobbing.. Bad land had been
taken at 2501. per acre, whilst land much more eligible in
every way could be had for 1201. The building cost
124,0001., 10,000/. of which had been raised in a most in-

, .
formal way, by parochial assessment. Now this should be
seen to, if it were only to prevent the repetition of such a
proceeding.
Sir G. STRICKLAND seconded the motion.
Mr. C. BARCLAY was in favour of the inquiry. The
great proportion of deaths and the few cures was owing to
the fact, that, out of the 600 cases in Hartwell, 500 had
been sent from other institutions where they had been pro-
nounced incurable.—(Hear, hear.) He had gone through
the institution, and was greatly gratified to find 400 of the
inmates employed in various trades.
Mr. WAK LEY had heard that the treatment at Ilan-
well was better than in any other asylum in the kingdom.
With regard to the expenditure, he would not undertake to
speak. It was hard to know what object the Hon. Member
had in view, from the terms of his notice. The words
were—,, To inquire into the asylum for lunatic paupers at
llanwell." Now thii was very vague, as was too much
the practice in such notices. What were they to inquire
into—the financial or medical state of the institution ?
(Hear, hear.) Was the object to show a defective treat-
ment, bodily or mental ? The terms of the motion did
not tell. To bring forward such a motion at so late a pe-
riod of the session, would be productive of no good. It
would be better to withdraw it, and to bring forward a mo-
tion next session for an inquiry into all lunatic asylums,
private and public.
Colonel WOOD did not often agree with the lion.