The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-22 00:00:00

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The amendments of the House of Lords to the fol-
lowing Bills were further considered, and agreed to:—
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway; Kingsnorton,
Northfield, &c., Rates; Liskeard and Caradon Railway;
Liverpool Gas; Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and
Dublin Railway; Wexford and Valencia Railway (Kil-
larney to Valencia); Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth
Railway (No. I—Bruton, Pitcombe, and Redden and
Bradford deviations); Windsor, Staines, and South-
Western Railway (Staines to Ascot and Wokingham,
with Branches); Windsor, Staines, and South-Western
Railway (Richmond to Windsor, &e.)
THIRD READINGS. _

The following- Bills were read a third time and
pass9.d :—Caledonian Railway (Edinburgh Station and
Branches to Granton and to the Edinburgh and Glasgow
Railway) ; Eastern Union Railway (Branch from Man-
ningtree to Harwich) ; Exeter and Exmouth Railway ;
Great Northern Railway (Deviations between Grantham
and York); Wisbech Port and Harbour; York and North
Midland Railway (Hall Station and Branches).
BELFAST IMPROVEMENT BILL.

On its being moved that this all be read a third time,
Mr. ROSS rose to oppose the motion. He believed
that a large body of the most respectable parties in
Belfast, rnercha:its, hankers, magistrates, and inhabi-
tants, were all oppesed to the Bill. If he was asked
why so few petitions had been presented against the mea-
sure, he would answer that it was at first determined not
to bring the measure forward, and that was the reason
why the inhabitants had not assembled in public meeting
to petition against it. But then it might be asked how
it happened that Lis ( \Tr. Ross's) name was at the back
of the Bill? It was true that such was the case, bat he
had protested against it. Not a single person, he be-
lieved, professing Liberal principles in the town of Bel-
fast was in favour of the measure. He therefore moved
that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
After a few words from Lord A. CHICHESTER,
Mr. DIVETT, as Chairman of the Committee, stated
that the Committee had struck out several portions of the
Bill, and had only retained those portions which related
strictly to the improvement of the town. It had struck
the Committee that the law charges in the case were
most enormous, and he should certainly feel it his duty
to recommend to the House the propriety of not passing
in future any Bill of this nature, the promoters of which
could not give a fair and proper account of the expen-
diture of money authorised to be raised by them under
former Acts.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the amendment of the
lion. Member, and it was his intention to rote with him,
should the House go to a division.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought that it was the duty of the
House to support the decision of the Committee.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL supported the amendment. He
thought, as the Committee had thrown out nine-tenths
of the Bill, the House would act wisely in throwing out
the remaining fraction of it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The
House divided, when their appeared—
For the third reading 62
.Against it l2
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.

Sir 11. DOUGLAS presented a petition praying for
the removal of Smithfield Market.—Ordered to lie upon
the table.
NAVIGATION LAWS.

Mr. LIDDEL presented a petition from the butchers
and bakers of South Shields, against the Navigation
Laws.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. PUSEY presented a petition, signed by several
hundreds of farmers, praying that measures may be
taken for the improvement of agriculture.
CANADA.

Sir H. DOUGLAS, seeing the Secretary for the Colo-
nies in his place, wished to ask whether it was so that
the Governor Genes al of Canada had issued proclama-
tions, giving the United States vessels privilege to enter
the port of Montreal, and to use the free navigation of
the river St. Lawrence; and, if it was so, whether it did
not produce such an alteration in the navigation-laws as
to prevent provisions being conveyed into the British
dominions by the vessels of the United States, for which
there was a special proviso in the existing laws?
Mr. HAW ES said that the Government had not yet
received any information on the subject.
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. VERNON SMITH wished to ask his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hawes) whether any arrangement had been
entered into respecting New Zealand.
Mr. HAWES said that there had been an arrange-
ment entered into which he hoped to be able to lay
before the House in a few days. Most satisfactory
accounts had been received from Captain Grey, which
also would be laid before the House in a few day.
Messengers from the Lords brought up some Bills.
ANDOVER UNION.

On the motion that the orders of the day be now read,
Mr. VILLIERS said that in requesting the indulgence
of the House for a moment he was desirous to explain
that if he had had the most distant notion that there
was an order of the day which would enable lion.
Members to enter upon a discussion on the Andover
Union Committee he should assuredly have been in his
place, and he could assure the House that ho would
not refer to that discusion if it related
only to himself, as he would have been then
perfectly willing to let the matter remain where it was ;
but there was another person involved in the question ;
and, therefore, although he was aware that he was
rather out of order, he threw himself on the indulgence
of the House, assuming that where there was a
question involving the character of an Honourable
Member, the House would allow that Member to
make his explanation. He said that there was
another person involved in this question—he meant
Sir Frankland Lewis. When he (Mr. Villiers) brought
this matter forward, he did so simply because a letter
had been put into his hand on entering, stating that
that gentleman's belief was totally at variance
with that of the Honourable Member for Wey•
mouth. That gentlemin had heard with astonish-
ment that the question which he believed had been
put to him bad been denied, but nothing that bad
been said had altered his belief upon the matter, and he
(Mr. Villiers) fully agreed with him in that opinion.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Weymouth had
asserted upon his honour as a gentleman that he had
not done so. He (Mr. Villiers) was aware that an
Hon. Member's asservation should not be doubted,
but notwithstanding this he should make bold to
refer to what was really the property of the
House, namely, the report of the Committee. He proved
then, that the question No. 22,622, put by the Hon.Mem-
bar was this, whether there was not an arrangement that
on Sir F. Lewis's retirement his son should succeed him.
Now, that was a question which affected the arrange-
ment between Sir Frankland Lewis and his son. Sir
Frankland Lewis professed to explain the arrangement;
but he (Mr. Villiers) was not satisfied. But the
difficulty was not whether the question was put, but
whether it was a proper question, and not whether
be agreed with Mr. Chadwick, but whether he had
made any agretment with that gentlemen on his
accession to office. He had accordingly referred, on the
suggestion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury,
to see whether this question had been put or not,
and whether -it had been answered. On refer-
ring to the journals he found this question, " When
your son succeeded you did you guard him against Me.
Chadwick. He (Mr. Villiers) would say, then, that this
question had been put, and that if he had been
misled he had been misled by the report of
the Committee, not by the short-hand notes, but by
the report of the Committee, and in referring to that
report he found that this question had been put, and on
the representation of a Member of this House he found
that in the journals it was stated also not only that it
was answered, but answered in detail. Whether it was
a private question, and one therefore fit to be put
to the Committee was the matter fur another statement.
The question was thought to be an improper one, and
the room was cleared. The Hon. Gentleman got his
friends to con e down to the House to justify him.
Lord INGESTRE—I rise to order, Sir. The Hoe.
Member ought to confine himself to a justification of
himself, and not atack Hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. VILLIERS—I am not out of order. I did not
refer to any one.

Thy s KER—The lion. Gentlemen ought to emu-
'
Mr. VILLIERS then proceeded—He was not on the
Committee, but all the witnesses had complained of the
conduct and tone of the Hon. Member for Weymouth.