The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-18 00:00:00

principle when considering the Ecclesiastical Duties
and Revenues Bill which had been before them since
the beginning of the Session. It was quite idle to i
give that as a ground for adjournment. How was the
business of the country to be carried on if such a course
were pursued? The principle involved in the Bill was
known when the Bill was first introduced. It had been
stated on moving the second reading, and every one
knew that the time for stating objections to it was
when the report should be brought up. It would most
certainly be better to bring the discussion to a close
now than to break in upon another day, which might
be devoted to the business of the Government, and
which would be the result of the course recommended
by the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.)
Mr. EASTHOPE thought the public would be
obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his ex-
position of the merits of the question. Here was a
question involving great public and private interests,
confessedly one of great difficulty, en which the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite avowed he had changed his opi-
nion, brought forward in such a way that until very
recently the principle involved in it had not been gene-
rally known even in that House.—(Cheers.) It was
brought forward through the medium of a private Bill,
and the only notice given in the Votes was amendments
to be proposed, the House being left entirely in igno-
rance of the nature of those amendments—those amend-
ments having for their object the decision of one of the
greatest public questions that could be brought under
the consideration of the House. Was that dealing
fairly by the House or by the :public—(Cheers)--to
bring forward such a question through the medium of
a private Bill ? He should be sorry to stand in the
way of the public business proceeding, but he would
incur all the peril of being accused of offering a factious
opposition rather than sufer such a principle to be de-
cided in disguise, and without full and ample discus-
sion.—(Cheers.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said that no such opposition
as that which the proposition of the Hon. Baronet was
meeting with, had been offered to the measures intro-
duced by the Hon. Gentleman opposi' e. What was
good for Peter, however, was good for Paul. He
trusted so factious an opposition as that offered to the
measure would be defeated, and that the Noble Lord
opposite would not sanction the course pursued by his
followers.

Sir R. H. I NGLIS was determined on proceeding with
his motion. He did not think that there was a want of
notice on the occasion, anymore than in the case of any
other private Bill ; and he was justified in the course he
was taking, by that pursued with regard to the Weaver
Churches Bill.

Mr. DA RBY said that though the original proposi-
tion were agreed to, Hon. Gentlemen opposite would
have another opportunity, of opposing the principle of
the measure on the third reading.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when the numbers were—

For the amendment
Against the amendment
The SPEAKER then gave his vote in favour of the
amendment.
The debate was therefore adjourned till Monday.

RAILWAY -BILL.
On the Order of the Day being moved for the fur-
ther consideration of the Report on the Railways Bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he wished to ask the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer whether he had directed his
attention to the last report of the Committee on Rail-
roads, with respect to taxation, as it now existc,d on
railroad passengers. He would also ask the Right
Hon. Gentleman, whether, if he had considered that Re-
port, he was prepared to found on it a measure during
the present Session, which would change the mode of
taxing passengers.
Mr. HAWES wished that a day should be fixed for
the Committee on the Railway Biil.
Lord SEYMOUR wished to postpone the Commit-
tee till te-morrow at twelve o'clock.
Mr- HAWES objected to the day.
Lord SEYMOUR would fix the Committee for
Thursday next.

Mr. IiENIBLE wished to know what Bill the Noble
Lord intended to bring in to-morrow ?

The CHANCELLOR of the Exchequer wished to
answer the question of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Aiember for Pembroke. He had turned his attention
to the:Report of the Committee on Railways, and he
was aware that that Report recommended an alteration
in the mode of taxing passengers. But the evidence en
which that recommendation had been founded was not
yet .printed, and he could not at present pronounce an
opini.-.7n on the subject. He was not, therefore, pre-
pared to say whether he would feel it his duty to intro-
duce such a measure as that alluded to by the Right
Hon. Baronet.

Sir J. GiitalAM. then ;we notice that that on Thurs-
day next, on the motion foßWing -Committee on
the Railway Bill, he would move as an amendment that
the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House for the purpose of considering the mode
of taxing railway passengers.