The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

GREEK LOAN BILL.

Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask a question respecting
the Order of the Day for a Committee on this Bill. The
Bill had been read a first and second time without the
House being cognisant of its provisions ; and now they
were called to go into Committee on the Bill at, perhaps,
two o'clock in the morning. Papers had been put into
the hands of Members only that day, and he therefore
asked the Noble Lord to postpone going into Committee,
till they had time to consider the provisions of the Bill.
He was satisfied that the Bill would never pass till the
House had a fair opportunity of discussing its merits.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that lie would not ask the
House to go into Committee on this Bill this evening, and
he would take care that due notice was given when the
discussion was to come on.
Mr. ROBINSON said that the answer of the Noble
Lord was perfectly satisfactory.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the motion
For the Amendment ..
Majority in favour of the committal of the Bill to-
morrow

-50

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (DURHAM) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from
Mr. A. TREVOR, said he should give directions for any
thing to be done that was necessary to carry on the
machinery of the Court of Common Pleas of Durham.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—MR. CUNDY.

Mr. BENETT said that he rose for the purpose of
saying a fell/ words with reference to his personal charac-
ter. He had been informed by friends, as well as by the
reports in the public newspapers, that while he was
attending his duty at the Assizes for Wilts, Mr.
Nicholas W. Cundy had been brought to the bar
of the House, and had made sundry answers to questions
put by the Speaker and various other Members of the
House. He had a copy of those answers in his hand ;
and, if the House would allow him, he would go
through them for the purpose of showing how perfectly void
of truth almost every answer which Mr. Cundy had given
was. Mr. Cundy had stated that he never solicited the
attendance of Members on the occasion of the third read.
Mg of the Brighton Railway Bill. He (Mr. Benett) dis-
tinctly averred that Mr. Cundy bad called on him, and
had solicited his attendance on that occasion, when
he stated that a proposition would be made on the
the third reading of the Bill. Again Mr. Cundy stated
the conversation was not commenced by him.—(Hear.)
That was not the fact, because he (Mr. B.) knew nothing
of any of the reports that had been made ; and he declared
most solemnly that he had never heard anything of the re-
muneration to Landlords until Mr. Cundy mentioned it to
him. He said Sir C. Burrell was to have 15,000/. for six acres
of land over which the Railway passed, and further that
Sir Charles supported his line until the remuneration
was proposed, when he turned in favour of Stephenson's
line. Mr. Cundy then gave evidence of some conversation
held with him (Mr. Benett) relative to the compensation to
the Duke of Norfolk. Now the fact was that he never had
heard one word of the Duke of Norfolk, nor was
he aware that he was a Proprietor on the Line, till
he saw the Report of the evidence. Again, in his
evidence, he denied that he had- ever said any member of
the Committee had been tampered with ; the fact was that
he (Mr. Cundy), had told him (Mr. Benett) that the ma-
jority had been got in favour of Stephenson's line by
bribery, which had been extended to many Members of the

Committee. He had also told him that'the Chairman o.
the Committee had been very partial, because of his connee•

tion with the Duke of Richr-nOnd, whose interest was much
connected with Stephenson's line. He (Mr. Benett) had
seen Sir C. Burrell, and found out that these statements
as related to him were false, for that the whole compensa-
tion he could ever expect would not amount to 3,0001. Mr.
Cundy called upon him after, and was shewn in unexpect-
edly ; he ( Mr. Benett) said he did not want to say any-thing
to him, as his former statements had turned out false. Mr.
Cundy then repeated all he had before said ; and said he
had never denied one word of it to Sir C. Burrell.—( Hear.)
Instead of over-stating the case to Sir C. Burrell, he had
under-stated it. It was not his wish to bring any party to
the Bar of that House—all he wanted was to
assure the House that he bad not over-represented
Mr. Cundy. He should not have considered it necessary to
come to the House in a matter personal to himself, if the
Report had not gone further than the House ; but reading
the account he had done, he could not but think but that
the facts had been overstated with respect to Sir
Charles Burrell.—(Hear, hear.) He would say nothing
more ; he did not wish to conclude with a motion as he had
no desire to see Mr. Cundy at the Bar.
S:r CHAS. BURRELL regretted that his friend op-
posite had stated what he had done. There was a peti-
tion affecting his character before the House, and he should
have preferred that the statement should have been de-
ferred till that petition had been brought forward.
He was ready to justify every action he had been engaged
in, and every action he had had anything to do with, in the
course of these proceedings.
Lord G. LENNOX having been alluded to, begged
leave to say a few words. He understood the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wiltshire to say that he (Lord G. Lennox) had
been charged with partiality, and with being influenced by
his brother in his conduct on the Committee. It was
to vindicate his brother and not himself that he rose. He
could assure the House that he never had directly or in-
directly 'communicated with his brother, until long after the
Bill had been in Committee except on one occasion, when the
Solicitor for the Bill called at Goodwood, thinking to find
him (Lord G. Lennox) there.—(Hear, hear.) His bro-
ther wrote/go him, telling him that Mr. Clarke called
to ask him (Lord George Lennox), to bring in his Bill,
and recommending him to be cautious about pledging
himself to support it. This was the only communication
he had had with his brother. After the Bill had been in
Committee, the agents requested him (Lord G. Lennox) to
ask his brother if he would undertake it in the
House of Lords. He wrote to him to that effect,
and the answer was that he (the Duke of Richmond)
could not pledge himself to undertake the charge of
the Bill, as he was not at the time convinced that
the line was the best or the most beneficial.—(Hear,
hear.) It was not till long after the evidence was
printed and published, that he undertook to conduct the
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) As to any interest he had, this
railroad would not go within twenty miles of his
property. As to himself he would leave his conduct
in the hands of the Committee. The Hon. Member
for East Surrey (Captain Alsager) had himself moved
a vote of thanks to him 'for his impartiality as Chair-
man of the Committee.—(Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.)
There was a very full attendance of the Committee, and he
was proud to say that the vote was carried unanimously.
The subject then dropped.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, to move the Order of the Day,
when

Lord F. EGERTON took the opportunity of present-
ing a petition from various deans and chapters throughout
the kingdom against the Ecclesiastical Bills before the
House. The tone of voice of the Noble Lord prevented
us from gathering the exact nature of the petition from
hearing its prayer.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Man-
chester against Church rates, and against the erection of
Manchester and its vicinity into a bishopric, as proposed by
the Established Church Bill.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the canons of
the Cathedral of Christ Church, Oxford, against the pro-
posed Bills for interfering with the Established Church.
He deprecated the habit of speechmaking on the presenta-
tion of petitions, but be begged leave to direct the attention
of his Majesty's :Ministers to the fact that Christ Church
was a College as well as a Cathedral.