The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-17 00:00:00

trusted the House would oblige hliti with e 11 reply.
These gentlemen had an undoubted rigbt 'to a, ac-
cording to the rule afrlaid dekltn ntretrot Control.
- An Hon, Memetei, whose bathe was unknown, harbeen
requested to support etl* pirayer of the petition, which he did
with very great pttasure, because the claim was one of justice,
and every ebb of the best feelings of man must be enlisted in
tie favour. He was well acquainted with the service, to
nrhich England owed much. All the science which had been
applied to naval matters for the last 40 ye trs owed its origin
to the East India service. Within that time not even a junior
officer in that service but was eompelvtit td tiaVigate the
largest of his Majesty's ships to any part Of the world.
He would appeal to the person eiho was At the head of the
scientific department of the Admiralty, friith which source
he received the information he pessetsed. The Officers of the
East India Company were witlint exception the mist gallant
and the most detoteit N he ever witnessed. The Hon. Mem-
ber concluded bzlifiVing his most cordial support to the petition.
Sir JOHN U. HOBHO USE; could assure the Hon.
Member Who had just sat down, that, no man more
than 'airnself estimated the value of the services of the officers
a the East India Company. He questioned not their merits,
but he must confess after looking over again the papers with
r s.)ect to the particular case in question, he had arrived at the
same conclusion to which he had come before.
It was with the greatest pain that he felt compelled from a
sense of public duty to resist those claims, more especially
when, as stated by the Hon. Gentleman. (Mr. Young,) they
were recommended by the Court of Directors and the Court
of Proprietors. But the Hon, Gentleman made a slight mis-
take when he stated that. the Court ef birectors took in the
first instance the srae view as they did now. They had at
first decided that these clelms were not admissible, but they
afterwarlts changed their opinion. He, however, had no
reason to differ from the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, when
that Noble Lord was at the head of the Board of-Controul.
A total misapprehension prevailed as to the meaning of
the Act of Parliament. It was never contemplated that
the power of that House was to govern individual cases. If
it was to be occupied in that way, the whole t:lne of the
House would be taken up, to the exclusion of all other
business. He had certainly given the most attentive consi-
deration to the case of the petitioners ; and after the most mi.
nute investigation, he must say that he fully concurred in the
decision of Lord Ellenborough, that the petitioners had proved
no prospective loss. On these grounds it appeared to him
that the present was not a case for Parliament._-( Hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON thought the only question for the House
was, whether these parties had been injured by the discontinu-
ance of the East India Company's trade with China. In his
opinion they had, and their case was one of peculiar hardship,
and he might add of injustice. The Right Hon. Baronet had
stated that the Court of Proprietors had nothing to do with it.
Undoubtedly the Court of Proprietors had no pecuniary
interest in the matter, because their dividend was secured to
to them ; but they had a right to interfere, because they were
one of the three parties to the contract which had been made
between the Company,the Proprietor,and the Maritime Officers.
He was only anxious that justice should be done to all parties.
He was not aware of the intentions of his Hon. Friend, neither
could he then say whether he would take any ulterior pro-
ceedings upon behalf of other officers; but the,-case was one
which the House ought,--in fact it was incumbent upon the
House to enquire into the subject, and take some steps for
securing justice for the parties.
Mr. PRAI2D, after detailing the state in which the ques-
tion was when he was Secretary to the Board of Control,
said that be thought there was a strong claim on the part
of more than tone of tho officers of the East India Com-
r.eny.—( Hear.) With respect to the statements of the
Right Honourable Baronet, that Lord Ellenborough
had given a decided opinion on this subject, he begged to say
that that Noble Lord had not given any decided opinion on the
subject ; he had only given an opinion on the case before him,
stating at the time, that if a case of a different complexion
came before him upon the:subject, be should give it his consi-
deration.
Mr. V. SMITH did not think that the petitioners had
made out a good claim for compensation.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG would not occupy the House further
with this discussion ; he merely rose to give notice that on the
7th of July he would move that the petition he he had just pre-
sented be referred to a Select Committee.
IRISH CORPORATION BILL—LORDS' AMEND-

MENTSr
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appeared
at the Bar of the House, and being called upou, said, that as
Chairman of the Committee appointed by the House to draw up
reasons to offer to the House of Lords for disagreeing to certain
amendments made by their Lordships in the Irish Municipal
Corporations Bill, he was directed to state they had drawn up
those reasons, and to report the same to the House. The
Report having been presented, was read by the Clerk. It
began by stating the necessity that a good correspondence
should exist between the twe Houses of Parliament for the
enactment of good laws, and to promote the security, peace,
and tranquillity of the United Kingdom—it stated that
the Bill for the better regulation of Corporations in Ireland
was fsamed on the principle of a reform of abuses, retaining a
system of Municipal Government, but that the Bill which was
returned from the House of Lords abolished Municipal Corpo-
rations in Ireland altogether, and placed the Corporate funds
ueder a Board of Commissioners.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The
Bill, as amended, contained an entirely new principle.
and a new title, and must, therefore, be considered
as an original measure—that from an earnest desire of preser-
ving a good understanding and correspondence between the
two Houses, and considering it essential to the well being of
the Monarchy, that House had proceeded to take into conside-
ration the amendments made by the House of Lords, and they
hoped that the measure founded thereon would meet with the
concurrence of the other House of Parliament.
The Clerk then proceeded to read in detail the various
amendments made by the House of Commons, with the rea-
sons teeae for.
Sir ROBERT PE EL hoped that it would ee distinctly
understood that the reasons were given under protest, and
that they were not the opinions of the entire House.—
(Opposition cheers.) It was impossible to deny that
arguments might not be urged for not agreeing to those amend-
ments, but that could not be done without opening the whole
question and provoking a lengthened debate. By withhold-
ing or not provoking that discussion, he trusted that it would
be undorstood that these reasons were given under protest,
and with a distinct reservation on that side of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the understanding on such occasions, and as had been the case
last Session was, that these reasons were to be considered as
the reasons of the majority.—( Hear, hear, hear.) As re-
spected the minority of that House, the matter was a
mere ex parte proceeding. He would suggest that the
same course be now pursued as was done in the former
occasion. They were the opinions of that side of the House,
and of course did not in any way preclude the gentlemen of
the other side.
Sir R. PEEL doubted whether it would be a good prece-
dent to set, that the report of a Committee should be taken
and received as the opinion of the House.
14t. S. RICE said they were read as a mere matter of
curse.
nhe Clerk then proceeded with the reading of the reasons,
which having been agreed to by the House,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. P. THOMPSON,
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and a great number of Members
proceeded to the House of Lords, to request a conference
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordship! met at Three o'Clock, and were occupied
up to five o'clock with the examination of witnesses on the
Stafford Disfranehisament Bill.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. MACKINNON and others brought up a message
from the Commons, requesting their Lordships to allow the
Duke of Richmond to be examined as a witness before the
Committee appointed to investigate the subject of Tolls and
Turnpike Trusts in Great Britain and Ireland. Also',
that the Commons had agreed to allow one of their
Members (Mr. Williams) to be examined before their Lore'.
ships upon the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.
The Tralee Harbour Bill, the Oyster Fisheries Bill, a' d
the Administration of Justice in the Cinque Pcrts Bill, wcie
also brought up• from the Commons.

POST-OFFICE.
Lord MELBOURNE seeing his Noble Friend on the
cross-bench (the Duke of Richmond), wished to know whether
he would postpone his observations on the Report of the Post-
office Commissioners till some day next week.
The Duke of RICHMOND had no objection to consent to
this arrangement, but he should like to have an early day, and
if the House had no objection he would take Monday next.
CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.—IRISH
.MUNICIPAL BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, attended by a large
body of the Members of the House of Commons, appeared
at the Bar, to request a conference with their Lordships on
the subject of the amendment to the Irish Municipal Bill.
The Conference was agreed to, and consisted of the following
Noble Lords :--The Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal,
the Duke of Cleveland, the Earl of Tinto, the Bishop of Bris-
tol, Lord Crewe, and Lord Hatherton.
It was ordered to be held in Committee-room, No. 5.
After an absence of about a quarter of an hour the Coy-
fcrence returned, when
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE announced that the Con-
ference on the part of the Commons was conducted by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, His Lordship then prcc2eded
to vad the reasons of the Commons for disagreeing to the
amendments, which will be found in our report of the pro-
ceeds of the other House.
Lord M E LBO URNE then moved that the Bill as arnendA
by the Commons be presented and taken into conzideration on
Friday next.—Agreed to.

(LEFT SITTING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Ju.rs 16.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER klt it
his duty to say a few words upon the last petition presented
by the Hon. Member. It was from a gentlemen lately in
the Preventive Service. The occurrence took place in
the year 1822, and had been before successive Boards of
Treasury, and it had been decided against the petitioner
before he (Mr. S. Rice) came into office. It was due, how-
ver, to his predecessors to say, that he had been solicited
to take the case into his consideration ; he had done so,
and he found that it involved two particulars of complaint
—the first was a complaint against his professional capacity,
and the other complaining of the value of the cargo.
g to the subject, the
After full consideration had been iyen

tas4‘c Cos- n tit. had felt themselves compelled to negative
the u —(Hear, hear)—but Lord Spencer agreed
Ora a e lee should be made to the gallant Admiral
the Member for Devonport, the result of which was
to acquit him of any want of spirit. It was never exp2cted
by the Government that the Gallant Admiral would decide
the question of law. Upon applying to this individual, to
know why he had not applied earlier for the reward, he
stated to him (Mr. S. Rice), and he had a letter from him
to that effect, that he had been induced to forgo his claim
to the rewartb because tWo of hi opponents were of such
different biltiratteis, and he could not claim his
reward without includ:ng them. If the Gentleman who
had presented the petition would take the trouble to read
all the documents on the subject, he was sure he would see
there was no' foundation for the alleptions of the pe
titioner.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had read the
whole of the documents, and was of the same opinion
as the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other
people had captured the vessel, and in consequence the
petitioner had not claimed the reward. Years had passed
since then, and he now came forward to claim it. Tile pe-
tition was then ordered to lie on the table.
REVENUE LAWS.

Mr. BISH presented a petition from Leominster against
the power of distraining for King's taxes. One of the peti-
tioners had been sued and committed to gaol. The petition
stated that manslaughter was visited in a much less severe
manner than offences against the Revenue laws.
IRISH CORPORATION BILL.

Mr. CHALMERS presented a petition from Montrose,
praying the House not to agree to the Lords' amendments
on the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition against certain
clauses of the same Bill.
SINGING IN THE STREETS.

Mr. FOX MAULE gave some notice in reference to
the Turnpike Trusts Consolidation Bill, the nature of
which we could not learn. The Hon. Member took that
opportunity of answering a question put to him aday or
two before by the Hon. Member for Surrey, respecting two
persons who had been committed to prison by the magis-
trates of Hatton-garden for singing in the streets. He
had made enquiry into the matter, and he found that
the charge upon which they had been taken' into custody
was for creating an obstruction in the streets, and that they
had been only in confinement for an hour instead of seven
days, as the Hon. Member had been informed.
Major BEAUCLERK expressed his satisfaction at the
explanation of the Hon. Gentleman.
OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE STREETS.

Colonel SIBTHORP called the attention of the Hon.
Gentleman to the obstruction of carriages and other vehicles
in the streets, by which serious accidents were frequently
occasioned. He trusted that some regulations might be
adopted on the subject.
TRINITY HOUSE, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL.
Mr. HUTT trusted the House would allow him to in-
troduce the Bill for which he had given notice upon the
subject of the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull, and
the discussion might be taken upon it at a future stage.
Mr. ROBINSON objected to the introduction of the
measure, as it took him completely by surprise.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
no difficulties would be thrown in the way of the business
of the evening by opposing the motion.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Hon. Member for Finsbury had a motion upon the
subject of the Septennial Act, which was likely to excite
a prolonged debate.
Mr. WAKLEY *would withdraw the question for the
present, as he conceived it inexpedient to bring it for-
ward now. Independently of that, he was aware there
was a general anxiety to have the Registration of Voters'
Bill passed, and he should throw no ()bade in the way.—
( Hear.)
IMPROVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Alderman WOOD did not anticipate any opposi-
tion to the motion which he was about to bring forward.
It was to move for the appointment of a Select Committee
to consider the most effectual plan for raising money to carry
into effect the necessary improvements required in the
cities of London and Westminster, the borough of South-
wark, and the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, and for the
purchase of the interest of the proprietors of Waterloo
and Southwark-bridges, in order that they might be thrown
open free of toll. He had been considered extravagant in
the improvements he had projected in the City ; but the
new street which had been opened from London Bridge, and
the new street at the Post Office, and various other
improvements had been carried into effect in a satisfactory
manner, and bad, he trusted, satisfied those gentlemen that
his projects were not so extravagant.—(Hear, hear.)
He had attempted to carry the wide street from Waterloo-
bridge to the North-road, but he did not meet with that
support in the Committee which be expected ; the conse-
quence was that he failed, and the wide street was carried
only up to Bow-street, at an expense of 10,0001., while he
proposed to have carried it all the way to the North-road
for 100,0001. He proposed to get a fund for carrying
his project into effect by a tax of sixpence per ton upon
all coals imported into London, which would give an
annual sum of 51,0001. He calculated that the poor
man would thereby pay about Is. a year for the privilege
of passing free over the whole of the bridges. He did not
mean that the funds should be as heretofore, under the control
of the City, but that Commissioners should be appointed,
consisting of Members of Parliament, of the Corporation, and
of magistrates, who would give their services gratuitously.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to state his proposed
plan, and concluded by moving that a Select Committee
should be appointed to consider and carry into effect the
necessary improvements in the City of London and West-
minster, and the Borough of Southwark ; and also the
means of raising the money for that purpose.
Mr. HUME, in supporting the motion of the Worthy
Alderman, hoped it would be understood that he was not
sanctioning raising money upon coals. No one more than
himself thought it necessary that improvements should take
place in the City of London ; and he hoped that , the
plan suggested by the City of London would be carried
into effect. He was anxious to give them an opportunity
of submitting that plan to the House, and therefore it was
that he voted for the motion of the Hon. Alderman.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should object, if the public purse were to be called upon.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said he did not wish to do so.

Sir R. PEEL hoped that in any improvements that
might be suggested, some little foresight would be
shown before they were carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.)
Supposing it to be manifest that great improvements would
be made, he hoped that Government would not put a veto
upon them—or upon the advance of public money. He would
not say that the public should sustain any loss, or that the
metropolis had any claim upon the public money more than
other parts of the Empire. But it was possible that when
great improvements might be made by the Govern-
ment advancing money, which could not be made by any
other means, and when the public could sustain no loss, as
in the transfer of Exchequer Bills—in that case he thought
they might apply the public money upon perfect security.
Whether a Committee was the best mode of making the
inquiry, he was not prepared to say. He thought that a
Board of Commissioners would be better adapted to the
purpose.

The motion was then put and carried.
LOTTERIES.

Mr. O'CONNELL would move as an amendment, by
way of an instruction to the Select Committee, that an in-
quiry be instituted into the state of the law relative
to lotteries, and whether any, and what alteration, was
deemed necessary.—(Hear, hear.) Every Hon. Member
of the House must be aware that notwithstanding the law
restraining lotteries, they were carried on openly—they
were advertised in the newspapers. Foreign lotteries were
daily advertised, and tickets disposed of. Now, although
the sale of tickets was prohibited, persons were not prohi-
bited from purchasing them, and by means of agents here
money to the amount of between 100,0001. and 200,000/.
was annually exported from this country.—(Hear.) Now,
if there were an inherent immorality in these lotteries,
the House ought not to countenance it, but when they saw
what was going on—when they say 10, 20, 30, aye and 40
gaming houses open every night totally unrestrained, he
thought that the subject required investigation.—(Hear,
hear.) They ought to enquire whether foreign lotteries
should be suppressed or not, as his motion went that length,
or whether they should allow the establishment of home
lotteries?
Mr. HUME submitted that this was a proper subject
for a separate Committee.—(Hear, li:ar.) There was no
connexion between the objects of the two mations, and he
thought that a different class of individuals ought to be
put upon the two Committees.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
very glad that the subject had been noticed. His attention
had been already called to the subject, and he had a Bill
in preparation which he hoped was calculated to meet some
portion of the evils that were complained of. He would
introduce his Bill in the course of a few weeks, and the
House might then decide on it. On the contrary, he
should support the reference of the Bill to a Select Com-
mittee.
Mr. O'CONNELL e3.pressed his satisfaction at what
had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman.
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.
Mr. CHARLES LUSHINGTON had given notice
of his intention to present the petition from this body this
evening. As, however, it appeared to be the wish of the
House that other business should be proceeded with, he
would postpone it for the present.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ENDOWED COLLEGES.
Mr. TREVOR postponed his motion on this subject till
Thursday week.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied in the negative.
Mr. WASON then gave notice, that on Thursday next,
he would bring forward a substantive motion on the subject.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS' BILL.

The House resolved itself into a Committee on this
Bill--Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.

On Clause 2 being put,
Sir J. GRAHAM made some objection to the clause,
but the precise nature of the objection did not reach us.

Mr. WARBURTON defended the clause.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the clause.
Sir R. PEEL thought if the election was to take place
upon a given day, then that the old system should prevail ;
if afterwards, then that the new one should come into ope-
ration.

Mr. WAKLEY moved that his Majesty's name should
be substituted for those of the Lord Chancellor and the
Speaker.
An HON. MEMBER, whose name we did not know
moved an amendment, that the appointment should rest
with the Lord Chancellor solely.
After considerable discussion the House divided.
numbers were—

The

~.. 58
~.. 38

•
Ayes
Noes
Majority in favour of Mr. \Vakley's amendment —2O
On the reading of that part of the clause which pro
posed that the revising barristers to be appointed under
the Bill should be of at least five years standing,
Mr. MACLEAN proposed as an amendment that it
should be five years for those who practised at the bar
and were not special pleaders, and two years for barristers
who had been four years below the bar. He afterwards
altered the amendment to three years at, and three years
below the bar for all.
Mr. AGL lONBY proposed two years and a half a
and two years and a half below.
The House divided, when there appeared (as we un
derstood) for Mr. Maclean's amendment—
Ayes .....
Noes

'k.... 113

Majority - 111
Mr. PRAED said that, on the bringing up of the Re-
port, he would move that the power of appointing Barris-
ters be in future vested in the Lord Chancellor, the
Speaker, and the Judges of the superior Courts.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that he should object to the
clause altogether, as being calculated to impede the object
contemplated. By the present plan the eight Barristers
proposed to be appointed to do the business of 147 Barris-
ters, who had been engaged last year, would, taking the
average number of days and hours during which the late
Barristers sat, require 479 days out of the 365 in the year
to do the public business.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It
was utterly monstrous to suppose that eight Barristers
could have done the business of the 147.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the clause.
Sir W. FOLLETT said that it was not so much a mat-
ter of importance whether the number of Barristers was
large or small, as whether the appointment should be vested
in the Government.—(Hear, hear.) He had a strong ob-
jection that the Revising Barristers should be creatures and
nominees of any Government. The House, in adopting
the clause, would be acting with gross inconsistency. The
proposition of investing the Ministers with so tremendous
a power as the nomination of the Commissioners, on whose
decision the elective franchise all over the kingdom was to
be in most cases decided, was so objectionable and uncon-
stitutional that he should support the proposition of the
Noble Lord if he pressed for a division.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion BB
Against it 55
Majority —33

On clause 7 being.prop. osed—
Mr. GOULBURN inquired if a barrister acting *du.
ring 'the illness of a revising barrister, might stand as a
candidate at an election ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the nega-
tive, and introduced a clause to that effect.
Sir J. GRAHAM objected to the appointments being
in the Crown.
Mr. JERVIS said that the Welch Judges had been si-
milarly nominated.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the appointment of these
Judges was equally objectionable, and ought decidedly to
be abolished.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the objec-
tion arose from the Welch Judges having a seat in that
House ; but, according to the Bill before them, the barris-
ters would not.
The clause as amended was then passed.
Clauses 8 and 9 were passed without amendment.
Clause 10 was postponed.

On the motion that clause 11, as amended, stand par'
of the Bill, the House divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 12 was also agreed to with some verbal amend
ments.

Clauses 13 to 16, inclusive, were agreed to, with some
verbal amendment.

Clause 17 being put just when the hour of I 2 arrived,
amidst cries of " Adjourn," and " Go on,"

Mr. BROTHER-TON rose to move the adjournment.
He did not, in moving the adjournment of public business
at twelve, act from any personal consideration. He thought
that in so doinc, he was consulting, not only the conve-
nience and the health of Members themselves, but also the
public interests.

Mr. WARBURTON said the understanding of the
was, that no new business should be entered upon after
twelve.

Colonel SIBTHORP said, if the Member for Salford
had the least hesitation in moving the adjournment, he
himself would do it.—(Loud cries of " Divide," " Adjourn,"
and " Go on.")
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the public business
should not be thus interrupted at the whim of any particu-
lar Member.

Mr. PRAED said this was a highly important Bill, and
time ought to be given for full consideration of the clauses.
The Member for Salford often moved an adjournment of
any important debate, if a new speaker rose after twelve.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question that—l now
report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 25
Noes 39
Majority against the adjournment —l4
During the exclusion of strangers, Colonel SIBTHORP
moved the same question.
Mr. SHAW said he would support the motion.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said the understanding was that
no new business should be entered upon after twelve.
Mr. WALLACE said the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin himself spoke frequently fifteen or twenty
times after twelve. For his part he never did and never
should adhere to the rule of adjourning at that hour. He
must remind the Hon. Member for_the University of
Dublin, that while that Hon. Member was absent in Dub-
lin in the discharge of his duty, he (Mr. Wallace) and others
must be in that House at all times during the session. It
might be very convenient for Hon. Members to concur in
a motion for adjournment who were not in their places all
day, watching the public business.

Mr. SHAW did not recollect that he had ever moved
an adjournment of the House. If he was occasionally ab-
sent in the discharge of a public duty in Dublin, that was a
matter for the consideration of his constituents, and not of
the Hon. Member (Mr. Wallace.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was quite clear the result of a desultory conversa-
tion, such as had been carried on, would be to impede the
public business. Now, he proposed that those parts of the
Bill which were not to be opposed should be suffered to
pass through the Committee, while those might be reserved
on which a discussion was likely to take place.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said he would vote for the adjourn-
ment of the House. The public business was most unsa-
tisfactorily conducted by its being carried on to such late
hours. Besides which, no human constitution could stand
the fatigue. He thought no object whatever could be
gained by going on with the Bill at that late hour of the
night.—( Hear.)
The House then divided. On the gallery being opened
there appeared—
For the Motion 3O
Against it

Majority .

-53

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER again
suggested that the controverted clauses should be post-
poned, and the unopposed clauses taken. If that propo-
sition were not acceded to by the other side of the House,
they might justify their conduct as well as they could to the
country. _ _ _

Colonel PERCEVAL said that must of those Hon.
Members on his side, to whom they were accustomed to
look up, had left the House, on the understanding that no
business of importance was to have taken place after
twelve o'clock. Under these circtetances, therefore, he
did not feel himself justified in allowing the Bill to go fur-
ther, notwithstanding the assertions made by the other side.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE wished to know why did the
Right Hon. Members to whom the Hon. and Gallant
Officer had alluded leave the House ? But though they
left the House, they had left behind them those who un-
derstood the details of the measure in all their parts—the
Hon. Member for Yarmouth, the Hon. Member for Ox-
ford, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln.—
(A loud laugh from Colonel Sibthorp.) He (Sir J. C. Hob-
house) did not know the meaning of the Hon. and Gallant
Member, but there was an old saying, which he recollected,
that. " there was nothing so foolish as a foolish laugh."
Colonel SIBTHORP (who spoke almost inaudibly)
bad often heard language pass in that House which would

not be reileaied b'u't of it.—(Cries of "Speak up.") If the
Right Hon. Oenticnian Meant anything personally offensive
to him—(Laughter-- iii
/the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to be explicit. He asked hini itbether he meant any
personal offence to him in his observations ?--The Hon.
and Gallant Member then left the House.)
After Ott few war& from Mr. MACLEAN,—

Sir J. C. HOBHO USE' rose, and begged to state in the
most explicit manner that lie made no personal allusion to
the Hon, and Gallant Member for LineOln calculated to
hurt his feelings or wound his sensibility,
Mr. WASOH suggested that forty Members should put
down their names to sit as volunteers until seven in the
morning,
Mr. BARHAM hoped his side of the House would not
be deterred from doing its duty.—(Great confusion, uproar,
and outcry on the Ministerial benches, which drowned the
Hon, Member's observations.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that if Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House
were determined that the Dill should proceed no further
they had it in their power to prevent its progress. The
real object of the Government was to carry the Bill throurgh
the House, and not to oppose the adjournment. He should
therefore move that the Chairman be ordered to report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Speaker then resumed the chair.
Mr. BERNAL, in reporting progress, stated to the
House that certain words had passed between the Right
Hon. Member for Nottingham and the lion. Member for
Lincoln, which, as they were likely to lead to ulterior con-
sequences, he considered it his duty also to report to the
chair. It was for the Speaker to do as he choose in the
matter.

The SPEAKER inquired if the Hon. Members were
in the House ?—(Cries of no—let them alone ; let them
do as they like.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN had not heard anything fall from
the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Notting-
ham, which could offend any man in his senses.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
Mr. F. FRENCH said, that nothing had fallen from
either Honourable Members, which was incapable of being
satisfactorily explained, in the manner in use among Gen-
tlemen.7-(Hear.) _ _ _

Mr. R. WASON thought that both Honourable Mem-
bers should be ordered to attend in their places in the
House.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Hon. Members should be ordered to attend in their
places in the House. By that means they would be brought
under its jurisdiction.
The SPEAKER then put the question that Sir John C.
Hobhouse and Colonel Sibthorp be ordered to attend in
their places in the House.—(Cries of hear, and no, with
much laughter.)
During the interval which elapsed between the order to
require the two Honourable Members to attend in their
places, the remaining Orders of the Day were gone through.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he should this day
move that in future divisions, in Committees of the whole
House, be taken in the lobbies, as divisions of the House
are taken.

The SPEAKER then said that as the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member for Lincoln was now in his place, it became
his duty to say that it had been reported to the House that
certain words had passed during a discussion in Committee
which were liable to be misapprehended, and which, in-
deed, had been misapprehended, by the Hon. and Gallant
Member. He also felt himself bound to call on the Hon.
and Gallant Member to say whether any such feeling still
existed in his mind.

Colonel SI BTHORP said that he had no hesitation in say-
ing that he did still entertain such feeling, and that he must
still continue to entertain it until he heard from the Right
Hon. the President of the Board of Controul a disavowal
of the expression to which he had referred.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished
to say a few words on the subject, as it had occurred not when
the Speaker was in the Chair, but in Committee ; and in
what he was about to say he would wish to put aside, as it
were, the Hon. and Gallant Member himself, and appeal
to his personal and political friends around him. The fact
was, that a laugh occurred occurred during the speech of
the Right Hon. Baronet, on the opposite side of the House,
and his Right Hon. Friend applied to the circumstance a
Latin quotation, which he translated that " there were few
things more silly than a silly laugh."—(Hear.) Now, he
put it to any man whether there was the slightest cause
for personal offence in this.—(Hear, hear.) He was him-
self often one of the laughers on that (the Ministerial) side
of the House, and he certainly would be the last to con-
sider a laugh under such circumstances a personal matter.
—(Hear, hear.). The Hon. and Gallant Member had de-
prived the Right Hon. Gentleman of the opportunity of
making the desired explanation in his presence, for he left
the House immediately ; but when the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman did explain, he said most distinctly that he had not
meant to give offence.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped, under
these circumstances, that the Hon. and Gallant Member
would put an end to the matter by at once saying that he
was satisfied.

Mr. EATON said that at the request of the Hon.
Member for Lincoln he had had a communication with the
Rihgt Hon. Baronet, who had authorised him to state that
no personal insult had been intended.

The SPEAKER here called on the Hon. Member for
Lincoln.

Colonel SIBTHORP (who was almost wholly inau-
dible in the gallery), was understood to say that he had
acted, on the present occasion, in accordance with those
principles which had actuated him from his earliest life ;
and that he would rather at once vacate his seat in that
House, than put up with anything that he considered an
insult.—(Hear, hear.) As, however, the Right Honour-
able Gentleman said that no insult had been intended, he
was satisfied.—(Cheers.) _ _

The SPEAKER then said that here the matter was at
an end.

The House then adjourned at Half-past One.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JuNB 16.

The House was occupied from 3 till 5 o'clock in hear•
ing evidence upon the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.

IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.

Lord GREY presented a petition from Newcastle,
agreed to at a public meeting, signed by the Mayor in
favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation, Bill as passed
by the Commons, and praying their Lordships to re-con-
sider their amendments to that Bill.
CHURCH-RATES.

Lord DACRE presented a petition from some place in
Essex against Church-rates.
LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented three
petitions from merchants and traders in favour of the Lon-
don Grand Junction Railway.
The Duke of RICHMOND would take that oppor-
tunity of calling the attention of the House, more particu-
larly the attention of his Noble Friend who was the chairman
of the Committee, to the Bill that stood for a third reading
that evening. His object was this; it was well known there
were employed upon many railroads, passing through local
districts, locomotive engines. He was anxious their Lord-
ships should be assured there was no danger in those en•
gines passing through crowded towns. One engineer before
the Committee stated there would be no danger if five
wire screens were placed over the engine ; and another
engineer had stated he thought there would be no danger ;
but he considered the House ought to have the best evi-
dence, by which they would he assured that there really
would be no danger. He thought the best way would be
to postpone the tird reading, in order that a Select Com-
mittee might be appointed, before which more accurate in-
formation might be obtained.

Lord KENYON said that if their Lordships thought
sufficient information had not been obtained, he should not
resist further inquiry or investigation to remove any alarm
that might exist of this nature, pointed out by the Noble
Duke.

The Duke of RICHMOND thought there ought to be
a more extended enquiry ; and gave notice that he should
before the rising of the House move for a Select Committee.
LONDON, BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND
THAMES JUNCTION RAILWAY..
The Marquis of CLA NRICARDE moved the third
reading of this Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON rose to move the in-
sertion of a clause of which he had given notice on a former
occasion. Parliament should have time to consider these
measures, and to make regulations, in order to render them
efficient to the public, and to prevent their becoming mo-
nopolies to the great injury of private property, and the ruin of
individuals living under the protection of the Government.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE objected to the
clause, not only with respect to the particular Bill be-
fore the House, but as to other Bills. His first objec-
tion to it was, that he thought it was manifestly
unjust ; it ought not to be made retrospective as to those
Bills, and it would be inconvenient to bind Parliament
to an indefinite advance in legislation. If this clause were
adopted, railroads would be put a stop to altogether.
There was a great mass of capital in the country which
must be employed, and if it were not employed here it
would be abroad. Their Lordships should be cautious
before they offered any discouragement to
speculative
industry.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be very
unfair to those parties who had entered into contracts, and
incurred very great expense, to impose upon them a condi-
tion which they were not aware of,
before they had in-
curred so many heavy obligations. For these reasons, he
objected to the clause.
Lord MANSFIELD did not altogether approve of
this clause. The interest the public had in these railways
had not yet been brought before the House. The parties
petitioned for Parliamentary protection, and a monopoly, on

be corn
would never
the
t
the ground of its being a benefit to the public. He was atratu
many of these projected railways
pleted, which would be a great detrimentoh
es-
public, and the proprietors of land generally. It was,
etrhe
fore, necessary that some security should be given to
public, that the lines would not, only be completed, but
would be maintained, at whatever loss that might be to
the sliNtaholders. That could only be carried into effect byetr
making the shareholders liable to a sum la,er than th
subscriptions.
Lord HATHERTON submitted that the House could
not with justice insert such a clause in the Bills now,
on the table. The measure ought to be moved in the shape
of a Standing Order, saying that no Bill should. be read a
third time without such a clause. Thiit would afford the
come
parties notice of the obligations they were to
under. There was no precedent, either in that ort
in the other House, for such a step being ...taken, a
such a time.—(Hear, hear.) The usual course was/
to give notice of an alteration of the Stantling
at the end of a Session, by which parties were 111:re
aware of what alterations were to take place. Ile
could not agree with the statements that. . had be.?
made respecting railways ; he could not think that ran'
ways would ever become monopolies ; he could See
no difference between them and canals. About seventy
Order
or eighty years ago, when canals were first formed,
they were denounced in loud terms as monopolies, but !!•-
perience had proved that they were utterly unfounded. He
remembered the Grand Junction Canal being declared It
monopoly ; its fifty pound shares were then selling 11'
6001. There was no doubt whatever that the profits viers
good ; but the fact was, that subsequently to -theca Wei
—capital being then in great abundance—a nevv
vos cut, and then a railroad established, so that there
were three lines and no monopoly. In 20 years there would
be as little signs of monopoly in railroads. In 1825, when the
Liverpool Bill was under consideration of the House, he
lememberediLat Mr, Huskisson thought it expedient either
to limit the tern; of the duration of the Bill or to rer
strict the dividends.---(Liear, hear, bear.) He•had grel
objections to the first course, and took the latter, we',
knowing that it could never be carried into effect, but
by that means he conciliated the opposition, and got the
Bill. He suggested that it would be better to postpone
the Bills for another year rather than Introduce such a
clause as that proposed by the Noble Duke. If such a clause
were introduced, it would lose to the country many of the
advantages which would be derived to the public from future
improvements, and the lowering of tolls, and particularlY
after the parties had expended 20 or 30,000/. in earrYil
'a Bill through its various stages, on the faith that the
ir.
rights would be protected. On these grounds he thought
such a clause would be mostinjudicious.
The Earl of WICKLOW also objected to the clause'
It was a breach of faith to the subscribers of those railwaYs
who had paid their money upon the faith of existing ler'
At all events the clause should not have a retrospective
effect.
The Duke of WELLINGTON dofended the clause'
on
The Noble Lord opposite (Hatherton) ILO suggested
postponement of these Bills for a year, until the, considers
tioa
of their Lordships had been applied to them ; was the
very object of his (the Duke of Wellington's) p.ropositio.a.
He did not wish that any obstacle should be tr1e,.1,1:
their way, but he was anxious that the interests or "
public should be protected.
Lord ASHBURTON said that the question appeared
to him to be one of considerable embarrassment. ,
Bills had certainly gone through the different forms whie,
Parliament required, and they stood now for a third reaa-
ing. Nobody could for a moment doubt the right of Dr
liament to interfere, even at the very last stage ; for the
parties could not be said to have any Parliamentary
.nr,
equitable pledge until the Bill had gone through the tlur?
reading. Now the Bills appeared to him to stand in thlea
position : that Parliament having gone rather with railroa
speed into these matters the Ho use of Commons began ddoubt whether the public was suiqciently protected, an,.•
now expected the other House to consider the subje.c
That House had not yet had time to enter upon any in need,
He would suggest that a Committee should be appointed
t=on,
certainly without
wleaving e itb better
ebre t bandied arodoike data
tbho
which he had no doubt would satisfactorily' settle the °es-
It
eutcast;
a Committee, which need not sit more than eight or tea
days, and to let the parties know as speedily as Poss.:hie till
terms on which they would be permitted to engage ill see
enterprises. at
next lee abr.;
Lord KENYON said that he thought it would be e!;
tremely unjust to interfere with those railroads which had
already received the sanction of Parliament. In the ease
of the Bill now before the House, he hoped their Ler:i
ships would consider the expense to which the parties h
been put by merely coming to the House, and relying 1101
that degree of kindness and those privileges which ha
hitherto been extended to their predecessors. He, there'
fore, trusted that the House would not give the PrFti-est
cause to regret the confidence which they had placed in
con-
With respect to the general question, he entertained
siderable doubt ; but lie was most decidedly a opinionse that,
if any impediments were thrown in the way-of the rail'
roads, the result would be most detrimental to the mann'
facturing interests of the country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he was dy
sirous, before the House proceeded further, to state the
grounds upon which he felt inclined not to offer any opPa'
sition to the motion of the Noble Duke. He (the Mar
quis of Lansdowne) did not understand that the Nei°
Duke wished to prejudge so much of the question, as to
apply it to those Bills which had now passed into la:
but what the Noble Duke did prejudge was the ep.'
nion that, whenever it might be expedient to ante
fere, the right of Parliament should be recognised. P.c.
would freely confess that he did not grudge to the exist:22.h'
undertakings whiz+ had been the subject of law, and
had been carried into effect, any advantages they mighthBL
derived from that peeference. He considered them P.'"
neers of science and of public utility, who necessarily
ke'
curred more risk than those who followed in their wa
and reaped the benefit of their experience ; and, therefor bet:
he did not grudge to the many comparative differences in t
state of the law between their undertakings and subsequeuf
ones. The words of the resolution that he was desirous
seeing omitted were, " With a view to the advantegieci
protection, and security of the public." It cetainlY env
not have been the intention of the Noble Duke o
the possibility of these words being interpreted, out of the
House, so as tocreate alarm about to
amongst persons
enter these undertakings. In concluding, the Noble 0.". t
quis would again put it to the Noble Duke whether
e
would not be better to omit the words to which he h
referred. in
The Duke of WELLINGTON entirely agreed
what had fallen from the Noble Marquis, and he certainf
bile
o w
was of opinion that the question was entirely f a
P u
r
h-
a ure —'H, ar,
, hear.) He would nor, with the ,ern s
sion of the House, withdraw his motion, for the PeZP°bi:
of amending it according to the suggestion of the I.`e
Marquis.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that it' the
oula clause
The
were agreed to, it should be understood that it it
icsnted in all other Bills of this kind. •t 600
Lord W HARNCLIFFE said that he bad no he' ad ov
in declaring that if any limitation of time were ia-
the parties before the House, it would be a very great
hco
justice. He trusted that the time would soon conic ld
some general regulations respecting these measures woo
be passed. • ed
The Earl of WINCHILSEA was exceedingly bet
to the Noble Duke for having brought the question ors
the House. He sincerely hoped that the House s•ethe
agree to the proposition of the Noble Duke, and at.end
same time agree to the proposition of his Noble Fri
nd,.
for the appointment of a Committee to consider the eta'
ing orders of the House. curred
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY entirely cone ‘4
in what had fallen from the Noble Duke. He tho.ugra
that the House had a very strong argument before it
10
the shape of the Bill now before the Hunse—that W
under
the London Grand Junction Railway, wbich Was metro-
stood to continue the line from Birmingham to the heart
polis, which stopped at Camden Town, into the very ing
..
of the city. The Bill establishing the line fromnir.ll/ • e
nion°
ham had been passed some time, and if the Bill coou,
the line were also passed, then the House would be;e,,f
sating on two different principles with respect to one 1,01-Liid
road. He therefore thought that the Legislature nc'
con
adopt some mode for making general regulations to co
all schemes of this nature. that neon
The Marquis of SALISBURY gave notice,
Corn,
early day, he should move the appointment of
r _„..,
mittee, for the purpose of considering in what. inanne brute
gulations might best be introduced to protect the Pt' 0
s
from imposition through these plans, which were
numerous. hiPS
The Duke of RICHMOND said their Lords
should remember that parties had been put to it
penses in forwarding these Bills, and he did not thin
right for that House in that stage to present new dg geld
tios, and throw fresh obstacles in their way. He she&
vote for the motion of the Noble Marquis (Clanriear
and he should at the-same time declare his intention Of
supporting the motion for a Committee
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said. Noble Lords 013`
peared to have forgotteu that in all of these cases there
were two parties ; they considered only the interests of the
_
speculators—(Hear, hear, bear)—and forgot those, vino,
dissented. And when their Lordships were asked to grunt
a great boon—why, undoubtedly in those cases.in whichto
all parties were consenting, it might be a great boont.
consent to pass these Bills ; but what became of
ht.,e
dissentients ?—(Hear.) Did they not frequently, by gra'?
ing a great boon to the speculators, inflict the greatesttri;
jury and detriment upon those who dissented from .
scheme ? In behalf, then, of the interests of those parties,
•
and the public, he should acquiesce in the motion of the