The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-31 00:00:00

NEW MEMBER.

Sir J. DUKE took the oaths and his seat for the
city of London. The Right Hon. Gentleman was in-
troduced by Mr. Masterman and Mr. Duncan, and as he
advanced up to the table to be sworn, he was warmly
cheered by both sides of the House.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considerad and agreed too:—
Louth Markets and Improvements.
Norfolk Estuary (Amendment of Acts and Power of
Contribution by the Eau Brink Commissioners of
Drainage, and by the Corporation of King's Lynn).
LONDON CORPORATION RILL.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, upon the motion for agree-
ing to the Lords' amendments to this Bill, objected
to them on the ground that they were calculated to
diminish the number of electors in the city of London.
He should, therefore, move that the amendments of the
Lords be rejected.
Sir JAMES DUKE did notagree with the observations
of the Honourable Alderman, for he could assure, the
House that the Bill was highly. satisfactory to' the city
of London, and would not occasion any inconvenience in
its operation. He hoped, therefore, that the House
would agree to the amendments of the Lords.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the amendments
were agreed to.
YORK, NEWCASTLE, AND BERWICK RAIL-
WAY, AND MARYPORT AND CARLISLE
RAILWAY.
On the motion that the Lords' amendments be
agreed to
oc oungshitd enroetd t
ot hpa
at s
sday t tthhraet e
periodm o n t h s.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved that the amendments be
of the
stehsosuiegh ta t
Bh
lyl
hgileyhobtjheec ted Railwaya nd i n Boardwhieh
theyhad onwe
re publicex e
ugrounds
stotrown
the standing orders of the House to introduce any
clause for the protection of the public, or the parallel
lines which were affected by it He had, under the cir-
cumstances of the case, to move that the amendments be
considered this day three months.
Mr. HEADLAM opposed the motion on the ground
that it sought to throw this Bill over the recess, because it
contained a clause respecting a railway audit, about
which the House had not come to any decision on the
general principle.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM supported the amendments
on the ground that it was of the highest importance that
the competing lines should be kept in independent hands.
He would not then discuss the audit claims of the Bill;
but, looking at the whole state ofthe case, the House, he
thought, could not fail to be of opinion that the Bill
would give a monopoly to the eastern line from Edin-
burgh to the injury of the interest of the western line,
who deserved the consideration of the House. The in-
terest of the public would be served by the rejection of
the Bill.

Mr. LABOUCHERE called attention to the great
inconvenience that resulted from the House taking into
consideration the details of private Bills, which came
properly within the province of Committees of the House.
He for one should be at all times most unwilling to vote
against the decisions of Committees up stairs. He should
vote against the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Perth, and at the proper time should be happy to state
his reasons for supporting the Bill.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM reminded the Right Hon.
Gentleman that he had not told the House whether or
not it had been the intention of Lord Granville to in-

troduce clauses on behalf of the Board of Trade, but he
was prevented from doing so by the hasty passing of the
Bill.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it certainly had been the
intention of the Railway Commissioners to introduce
some limitation clauses.

Mr. CARDWELL said, great injustice would be done
to the public if the Bill were passed in its present shape.
It was objected to by Lord Dalhousie, the Railway Corn
missioner, and now by the Right Honourable Gentleman
at the head of the Board of Trade, bat a Committee of
that House and of the Lords bad approved
of it without hearing the parties who were
affected by its provisions, and for that reason
they were not called upon to pass the Bill without
amending its provisions. If the Rouse would consent to
the introduction of the proposed clauses there would be
an end of the opposition, and he hoped the technical dif-
ficulty would be waived to enable the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman to accomplish his object.—{Hear.)
Mr. GREENE knew that the vote he was about to
give would be exceedingly unpopular with his consti-
tuents, but it would be a considerable encroachment

upon the rules of the House if this proposal were adopted,
and he must therefore object to it in the strongest manner.
Besides the objections now urged against the Bill went to
affect its principle, and ought to have been brought
forward on the second reading. The promoters had,
been put to considerable expense in bringing the Bill to
its present stage, and it would be a serious hardship
upon them to throw it out now.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether these two
clauses were rendered necessary by the alterations the
Lords had introduced into the Bill.

Mr. LABOUCHERE apprehended they were not.
Mr. SPOONER considered that certain parties had
been most unjustly dealt with by the hasty legislation
of the House, and he should, therefore, give his cordial
assent to the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend.
Mr. FORSTER opposed the amendmont.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment ... 61
Against it ... 42
—l9

Majority ...
The Bill was therefore thrown out.
HUNGARY.

Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition
agreed to at a large public meeting held on the 24th
inst. in Marylebone, praying that the House would ad-
dress her Majesty to recognise the independence of the
Hungarian nation.