The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, JULY 3, 1849.

altering them from time to time and adopting them to their
own wants, subject to this limitation, that such alterations
should be approved of by her Majesty, after having been
laid before the Imperial Parliament. Thus, any reform in
the Constitution of the colonies was virtually to be effected
by the colonies themselves. He thought it a principle of
great importance, and one the adoption of which should be
delayed as little as possible. As to the objection to two
Chambers. In point of fact the ground ol'objection in the
papers was not what the Noble Lord had stated. The great
objection was to the interference of Parliament at all. When
once a Constitution had been granted, the colonists depre-
cated all further Parliamentary interference; so that it
would be seen that all was in accordance with the feelings
of the colonists, as expressed in these papers. The Bill
further proposed to divide the district of Victoria from the
other parts of New South Wales, and it gave to the colo-
nies with constitutions thus formed the power of forming,
if they thought fit, a Central Constitutional Assembly, to
dispose of matters of common interest. But such a Central
Assembly could not come into operation except it was de-
manded by the legislations composed as he had described.
It was intended to omit the clauses creating a common
tariff among the provinces. The arrangement could not be
made without supplying a number of details which it would
be objectionable to supply here. With that alteration, it
was his anxious desire the measure should pass this year, in
compliance with the request of the colonists themselves.
The present state of things was most inconvenient and un-
just to Port Philip. If the measure were postponed now,
he would not be sanguine that they could entertain a better
period for discussing it next session, pressure of business
affecting questions of domestic interest. Such was the
course the Government intended to take; and from commu-
nications which he had with persons connected with the co-
lony, he was sure that any postponement of the Bill would
be much regretted. He might add, however, that if serious
opposition were offered to the measure, he feared it might
not become the law of the land.
Lord LITTLETON, without going into the merits of the
proposed scheme, supported the proposition of his Noble
Friend on the cross benches. The Bill, however, fell short
of what it ought to be, by not giving statutable security to
the colony of having their local affairs administered by local
legislation. He saw no indication of such a principle in,the
Bill.
Lord STANLEY ridiculed the idea of discussing at so late
a period of the session a measure containing principles of
such magnitude, and details of so great importance. If the
Noble Lord attempted to carry through any portion of this
important Bill during the present session he would unques-
tionably fail, for strenuous opposition would be offered to it
both in that and the other House of Parliament.

Earl GREY saw great difficulty in separating what the
Noble Lord opposite had termed the "comprehensive" from
the "simple" portions of the Bill.
The petition was laid upon the table, and the conversation
ended.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented the fourth re-
port of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations, and in
presenting some returns connected with the amount of bu-
siness before the Court of Chancery, he expressed a hope that
his Noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) would almost imme-
diately be able to resume his duties.

AUDIT OF RAILWAY ACCOUNTS BILL.
Lord MONTE AGLE moved the second reading of the
Audit of Railway Accounts Bill.
Lord LONSDALE disapproved of the measure, which he
regarded as an unjust interference with private speculation,
without any prospect of benefit accruing. When those
searching inquiries were not made by Government into other
companies, he did not see why such interference should be
caused in the case of railway companies. He then moved that
it be read a second time that day three months.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that as the Bill had been so
fully discussed and approved of last session, he did not see
why there should be any necessity for dividing on it now.
The Earl of YARBOROUGH said that he did not think
that the railway companies were dealt fairly with, because
they had no opportunity of knowing this Bill, as it had been
printed on Saturday, and proposed to be read a second time
on this day (Monday). He should therefore support the
motion of his Noble Friend (Lord Lonsdale).
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Contents ... ... 10
Non-contents ... 5
Majority ... ... —5
The Bill was then read a second time, and their Lordships
adjourned.

HOUSE OF GO.UMONS, July 2.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Five Minutes before
Four o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—

Charing-cross Bridge (Amendment of Acts, Powers to
alter authorised Approaches. &c).
East Anglian Rsilways (Ely and Huntingdon Rail-
way. Extension of Time).
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed

Lanarkshire (East and West Line) and Glasgow and
Shotta Turnpike Roads (Amendment of Acts, &c.)
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Acts Amend-
ment, Branches, and Deviations.
The report on the General Land Drainage and Im-
provement Company (Incorporation and Conferring of
Powers) Bill was considered and agreed to.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN.

Mr. DUNCAN presented nine petitions from South
Shields and other places in the county of Durham, in
favour of the Bill for the better protection of women.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a similar petition
from Lincoln.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a similar petition from
Macclesfield.

BEER HOUSES.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Gravesend and other places against the spread of beer
houses.

THE CHARTER.
Mr. HENRY presented a petition from Lancashire in
favour of the People's Charter.
Mr. CLAY presented a similar petition from Hull.

AGIIICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from York
shire complaining of agricultural distress.
Lord BROOKE presented a similar petition from
Warwickshire, agreed to at a meeting of 7,000 persons,
presided over by the High Sheriff of the county.
BANKRUPTCY LAWS.
Mr. BASS presented a petition from Derby in favour
of the Bankruptcy Consolidation Bill.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented a similar
petition
SANITARYfroIstn STATE OF DUBLIN..
Mr. FRENVEN presented a petition from Dublin,
praying for a sanitary measure for that city.
COUNTY COURTS.

Mr. HILDYARD presented a petition from White-
haven, praying for an extension of the jurisdiction of
the county courts.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh
against this Bill.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from
Brighton, praying for Parliamentary reform.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The Earl of MARCH presented several petitions
from Surrey and Sussex, complaining of agricultural
distress.

Major BERESFORD presented a similar petition
from the county of Essex.