The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-15 00:00:00

lidERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAs'r EVENING•

The LORD CIILNCELLOR took his seat on the woalsack at
the usual hour.

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was in the
House during the early part of the evening.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Rosendale Union Gas Bill was read a third time and

passed.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND)
ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Earl ST. GERMANS, in moving that this bill should
be referred to a select committee, said that it had been drawn
up by the Crown officers of Ireland, had received the sanc-
tion of the Lord Chancellor, and had passed the other
house. The object of the bill was to assimilate the law in
regard to railway and other companies with that of Eng-
land, and the greatest anxiety was felt in Ireland for the
passing of the measure.
The Marquis of CLANRICAR.DE having adverted to the
defective state of the law in Ireland in regard to railway
companies, said that the bill was not to be rejected merely
because it had &retrospective operation, because that would
refer to different acts of legislation by which different acts
of indemnity had been passed. The fact was that this
bill proposed to relieve shareholders from liabilities
which they had never intended to incur. An error
of a very serious character had occurred in their previous
legislation in regard to this matter in Ireland, and that
error they were bound to rectify.
Lord DONOUGHMORE objected to ex parte de facto
legislation, but had no objection to a measure assimilating
the law between England and Ireland, provided the rights
of existing creditors of railways were respected.
The bill was then referred to a select committee.
BRITISH KAFFRARIA BILL.
This bill went through committee.
ELECTION PETITION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill also went through committee.
THE CASE OF MARY RYAN.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH called the attention of
the house to the papers presented in the case of Mary
Ryan. The noble lord said that this was a case which
required the fullest inquiry. A young woman was
brought to the pier of Dover in a straight waistcoat,
and she was ultimately placed in a lunatic asylum on the
continent. He contended that the capture and confinement
of the young person was most unjustifiable, for it appeared
that she had been taken away on the authorfty of a Roman
Catholic clergyman, who designated himself the Vicar-
general, and two nuns, and placed in confinement, where
she was unable to communicate with any person who was ,
in a position to assist her or obtain her release. Such an
act-was entirely at variance with English law and should
not be tolerated, at least without a stringent inquiry. He
referred to the letters by the Protestant Alliance on this
subject, and read copious extracts from those documents.
He strongly condemned the conduct of the Government in
not publishing these letters.
Lord RUSSELL said it was not unusual for nuns afflicted
with insanity to be removed to establishments abroad. But
the practice, though usual, was really illegal. In this case,
however, every facility had been given to the investigation
directed by the Government, and it had been fully ascer-
tained that the young woman was insane. She was well
taken care of, and, as the parties who had removed her did
not appear to have been actuated by improper motives, it
had not been thought expedient to prosecute them.
Lord MILMESBURY was convinced by a perusal of
the papers that Mary Ryan was mad, and that the Govern-
ment had done all it could to investigate the case. The
parties had no doubt acted in ignorance of the law of the
country, but in some instances, as when magistrates sent
persons to lunatic asylums without sufficient inquiry, such
ignorance deserved a public reproof from the Home Secre-
tary. A private rebuke was useless. In this respect he
thought the case had been treated too lightly.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING.
The SPEAXEIt took the chair at 4 o'clock
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bill was read a third time
and Midhurat Railway.
The following bills were read a second time :—Utiliza-
tion of Sewage and Land Reclamation (Ireland).
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE, AND GREAT

—Chichester

EASTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,

Lord GALWEY moved the rejection of the bill, because
it had been but very slightly altered in order to suit the
legislation of last session. The alterations in the bill had
been made to suit the convenience of certain landowners,
and he was sure if those alterations were considered by a
committee they would most inevitably lead to the rejection
of the bill. He did not take up the position he then occu-
pied on behalf of the landowners concerned, but he would
say at once that he did it on the part of the
Great Northern Railway. He thought that after
two companies had had a fair stand up fight, which had
caused the expenditure of a great deal of money, it was
unfair and unjust to allow the company that had been
defeated to again apply to Parliament to sanction that
which was almost identically the same scheme which was
rejected in 1864.
Mr. CHEETHAM supported the bill, and said it was not
at all similar to the bill brought forward lastsession. If the
measure was sanctioned by the Legislature it would prove
of immense advantage in cheapening the charge for the
conveyance of coal, and this creumstance alone ought to
be sufficient to secure the passing of the bill. Ail that the
promoters of this bill desired was that their case should be
heard. He appealed to the house not to allow the bill to
be defeated by a side wind.
Mr. MITFORD said ho had gone through all the plans
iu the Private Bill-office, and he felt bound to say that the
bill was practically the samo as was before them last year
under the title of the Great Eastern and Northern Junc-
tion Railway Bill.
Mr. CHILDERS said the people of Yorkshire had peti-
tioned in favour of this bill, and ho did think that, as they
only asked that the convenience offered by the projected
railway might be fairly considered, it would be unfair to re-
ject such a reasonable demand.
Mr. EGERTON opposed the bill. There were three rail-
way systems at present in existence, which he thought was
quite sufficient to meet the requirements of Lancashire
and Yorkshire.

Mr. BRIGHT thought the house was asked to reject the
bill on very insufficient grounds. (Hear, hear.) It was said
the bill was before Parliament last session, but was that
any reason for its rejection this year. He felt it was too bad
at this time of day to stand up for protection to the
Great Northern Railway, because if that system had been
adopted years ago we should have had but very few long
lines of railway. • If the present bill was agreed to it would
occupy five years in the construction of the railway. He
hoped the house would not reject the bill, but allow it to
receive that consideration to which it was entitled.
Mr. B. STANHOPE opposed the bill, because he consi-
dered the gradients were exceedingly objectionable. The
bill would interfere with the navigation of the river Trent,
and would entirely destroy a great extent of private pro-
perty, and on those grounds he hoped it would be rejected.
Mr. AYRTON should support the second reading of the
bill, especially as it was said the making of the railway
would tend to cheapen the cost of coal in the metropolis.

Mr. M. GIBSON said of course the matter of the inter-
erence with the navigation of the Trent would be care-

till considered and reported on, and the committee would
ha made acquainted with the result of the inquiry. Under
all the circumstances of the case, he should give his vote
in favour of the second reading of the bill.

Mr. J. R. ORMSBY-GORE should vote for the rejection
of the bill.

Lord BURY, as a resident in the Eastern Counties,
should support the second reading of the bill, because it
would tend to cheapen the supply of coal.
Col. JARVIS thought the details of this bill ought to be
considered in committee, and not discussed in that house,
and although there were so many gentlemen present he did
not believe there were eight or nine amongst them that
really understood what they were talking about.
(Laughter.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 162121
Against it
—ll
Majority
The bill was consequently lost.
SOUTH AMERICAN BEEF.
Mr. J. EIVART asked whether any order had been
issued for the indiscriminate seizure of South American beef
when exposed for sale to the public either in London or
Liverpool ?
Sir G. GREY said no order had been issued, or seizure
made of the description alluded to by the hon. member.
lie saw by the public newspapers that an application had
been made to the Lord Mayor by the sanitary inspectors
.o condemn a quantity of certain meat, not because it was
jerkedlieel beef, but because it was unfit for human food. He
that certain country magistrates had recommended
the vd
trial of jerked beef as an article of food in prisons.
THE POOR LIW COMMISSION.

Mr. O'REILLY ;I;lliwhether it was the intention of
the Goverment to fulfil
the promise understood to be made
eardwai
by Mr. Secretary in 1800, that an Irishman and
a Roman Catholic should be appointed to the first vacancy
amongst the Irish Poor-law Commissioners.
Sir R. PEEL said ho was h
could
hon. gentleman any positive informationCupcLn the subject.
not give the
CAPTAIN COLE'
Mr. DAMER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if
Captain Cole's cupola had been tested by fi •
n
any heavier guns than those used in the ex at it with
pe/sitments,
namely, 40-pounder Armstrong, on board the
Trn
withyth to
e
if not, whether it was the intention of the Admiryalt; and
make any further experiment before proceeding
further construction of vessels on the same system ?
Lord C. PAGET said no experiments had been made on
the cupola with steel 3001 b. shots. Some experiments had
been made with 100 and 63-pounder Armstrong guns, and
the result had been that the cupola had been indented, but
the working of it had not been injured. At present it was
not deemed desirable to make any further experiments on
other ships.
• VOLUNTEER OFFICERS AS JURORS.
Mr. WATKIN asked the Secretary of State for the

Home Department, whether he had received Any commu-
nication from the War Office on the subject of relieving
Volunteer officers from liability of service on juries ; and
if he was prepared to take steps with a view so to relieve
such officers, in consideration of the time devoted by them
to their duties as Volunteers ?
The Marquis of HARTINGT ON said a deputation had
been to the War-office on the subject, but no communica-
tion had been addressed to such officers, as it was not at
clear that such orders could be issued with advantage.
WRECK ABSTRACTS.

In reply to Mr. BMTTECCX,
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said he would endeavour, if
possible, to obtain some reliable information on the sub-
ject, and if he succeeded he would give the hon. gentleman
the Information he required.