The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1836.

all expense of 5001. a day, and it would be a serious expense
to him, as well as an injustice to the other promoters of the
Bill, if these new names were now to be added.
The SPEAKER had expressed an opinion upon facts that
had not turned out to be so. The Members for Kent were not
members of the Committee, unless the Hose thought that
there was some sufficient reason for their being so. The ques-
tion for the House was whether it would depart from its usual

course.
Mr. KEMP said, that after the opinion that had been ex-
pressed from the Chair he should withdraw his motion.
Mr. PE ASE presented a petition from York in favour of
the Great Northern Railway Bill.
SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY.
Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition against certain
clauses in the South Durham Railway Bill.
NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAILWAY.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition against the New-
castle and North Shields Railway Bill.
LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the London
Grand Junction Railway, also a petition from the inhabitants of
the liberties of Stafford Hill to the same effect.
DOVER IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. PLUMPTRE moved that the second reading of this
ill should be postponed to this day week.—Agreed to.
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Edenbridge in
sour of the South Eastern Railway Bill.
DROGHEDA RAILWAY.

Sir W. RAE presented a petition from certain persons in
Dublin against the contemplated line of railway from Dublin
to Drogheda.
LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition in favour of the Lon•
don Grand Junction Railway.
LEEDS AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.

hiMs
irt.aßilwAalyNßEil.
Slpresented a petition from Leeds in favour o
LEEDS WATERWORKS' BILL.
Sir J. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds agains
this Bill.

upon that very principle no one had a right to vote upon any
matter in which he had a pecuniary interest.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that so far from being
the law of Parliament, it was still a questio vexata. In 1825
a motion was made that no Member should vote on any ques-

tion in which he had interest ; but the motion was
got rid of by putting the previous question. It was better
that the House should pause before it laid down so strict a rule,
as it was very difficult to define what was or what was not a
direct interest. The question was of so delicate a nature that,
in his opinion, it would be the best to leave it to the honour of

Members.
Sir R. PEEL did not consider that a direct pecuniary in-
terest could disentitle a Member from voting. Many matters
of a public nature might affect Members of that House in
a pecuniary way, and yet they would not do their duty to
their constituents if they did not vote upon them.—( Hear,
hear.) For instance, the, remission of taxes, in which
Members might, and most probably must, have a pecuniary
interest.—( Hear.) The principle on which Parliament acted
in those cases was laid down in a note to " Hansard," in the
case of Mr. Seymour, in 1604. The Right Hon. Baronet
here read the note, which was to the effect that
the exclusion did not apply to questions of great public inte-
rest, but to those of lesser importance, and where private in-
terests might be involved. The writer went on to say that,
as regarded private interests, the rule had been long neg-
lected, and ought to be revived. It would be difficult to pre-
vent Members voting on occasions when their individual inte-
rest were concerned, and unless some reliance were placed in
their honour, he could not see how the objection could be
remedied.
Mr. G I SBORNE had some transactions of this nature, and
had seen his name, though a director, omitted from the pro-
ceedings. When he inquired why it was so, the answer was,
that they intentionally kept out the names of Members of Par-
liament--(A laugh)—but at the same time they told him his
shares were secured. He might and would have voted on the
question if it came before the House, because he did not see
why his being a Member of Parliament should prevent his ta-
king shares in a railroad which came near his property.
After a few wcrds from Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Brotherton,
Mr. Villiers, Sir James Graham, Mr. Grote, and Lord John
Russell,
Mr. BERNAL said that the present system of conducting
the business of the House could not last long. Could it be'
admitted in any other tribunal that an interested party should
sit and vote both as judge and jury in his own case. And
what would be repugnant to the feelings and rules of justice
acted on in other tribunals should not be countenanced in the
House of Commons. The case was not a private one—all
were interested in it.—(Hear, hear.) It was, undoubtedly,
difficult to point out a remedy. But the same remedy should
be devised for this present sacrifice of all the ends of justice
and fair dealing.
Mr. El AWE S withdrew his motion.
Mr. P. THOMSON thought the House was called on to
lay down some general rule, to check the present bad system.
Mr. WAKLEY moved, as an amendment, the adjournment
of the debate for a week, in order to give the House an oppor-
tunity of devising some comprehensive plan that would meet
all the contingent cases that might arise.
The House then divided, when there appeared for the
amendment--
Ayes
Noes

. 50
90
-40

Majority
The original motion was then carried.
Captain PECHELL begged to ask of the Noble Lerd (J
Russell) if it was intended by the Government to interfere it
the case of the woman Anne Campion, whose ill-treatment
was already published to the country, as he had a motion to
make on the subject in case no redress was given.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the case
would be inquired into.
THE CARLOW INQUIRT.
Mr. HUME begged to ask of the Member for Bradford
whether it was his intention to bring forward to-morrow the
motion of which he had given notice, in order that gentlemen
might be prepared to discuss the case.
An. Hort. MEMBER (we believe Sir J. -Brabam) said Mr.
Hardy was absent at that time.
Mr. HE ATHCO ATE wished to know what new system
the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to substitute for the
present one of post-horse duty ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
a law to be in operation for a year only, in order to see what
permanent and satisfactory measure could be adopted, would
be introduced for the present.
(Not more than a few words of the 'question and answer
were heard in our Gallery.)
AUSTRIA.

Mr. HUME begged to ask of the Noble Lord (Palmerston)
whether an Ambassador had yet been sent to the Court of
Austria, as the lale Ambassador (Sir F. Lamb) had been now
i❑ this country for nearly one year and a half; and,. if he was
not to return, whether during his absence he was to be allowed
his full salary ; for it was monstrous to give Ambassadors
10,0001. a year unless they discharged duties for the salary.
In the present posture of affairs we ought not to be without an.
Ambassador to Austria, for it was there the threatened dispute
with Russia should be settled—(Cheers)—for on the nature of
our relations with Austria depended, in a great measure, the
success or failure of the encroaching schemes of Russia in
Europe.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the late Ambassador
(Sir F. Lamb) would set out on his return to Vienna on Mon-
day next ; and that since his return, about sixteen months ago,
half his usual salary was deducted.
Mr. HUME complained of the evils that must arise from
witluit awing the principal functionary.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the general good would
ct secured by the occasional absence of the Ambassador, as it
was desirable that he should make personal communications
with the Government. Such was the fact in Sir F. Lamb's
instance.