The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-06 00:00:00

NAME OF RAILWAY.

Week
ending

May 30

Arbroath and Forfar ••• • • •••• • • • •
Bristol and Birmingham •••••• • • • • • •
Chester and Birkenhead. • •• • • •• • •
Dublin and Drogheda• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Dublin and Kingstown • • • • ..... • • • • •
Dundee and Arbroath . • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Durham and Sunderland ..... • •
Edinburgh and 'Glasgow . •• • • • •• • • • •
Eastern Counties and North Eastern • •
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr • • • • • •
Glasgow and Greenock.• •• ..... • • • .
Grand Junction •• • .......... • .•
Gravesend and Rochester....
Great North of England
Great Western • • •
Hartlepool ..
Loudon and Birmingham, &c........
London and Blackwell.
London and Brighton. • • •
Londoa and Croydon •••• •• ••• • • -
London and Greenwich
London and South We5tern.........
Manchester, Bolton, and Bury .• • - • •
Manchester and Birmiugham• • • • • • • •
Manchester, Leeds, and Hull Assoc..
Midland Counties . •• •• • • •• •• • •
Newcastle and Darlington •• .. • • •• •.
Newcastle and Carlisle ...... . . .• • •
*ad 117.)8rt ohltoS
Paris and Rouen. • • • • •• • •
PNNNariooerrwtfsheaso,lkeljtioi;reib;ane.nil, and 0r1ean5.......
...
Preston and liTyTe• • •• • • • •
Sheffield and Manchester.. • • • . • • • • • •
South Eastern• • ••• •
Taff Vale .. - •
Ulster . ••• ••.• •• •• ......
Yarmouth and Norwich ••• • _ • •
York and North Midland.

June 2
May 31

June 1
May 30

Last
week.

June 2

May 31
29

June 1
1
May 30

730
1,633
384

483
3,415
9,411
2,303
1,094

269

20,927

842
38,282
1,339
5,205
2,007

9,389
1,172
4,478

11,4
E.:-.
VC

527
859
1,406
377
710
2,83 g
5,019
1,943
1,059,

199

16,703
2,758
2,200
514
1,475

17,483

6,974
6,297

809
1,941
7,880
1,381

33,957
1,1105
4,034
1,394

8,255

5,564

903
3,898
.5,945
I 4,18 T
2,207
1,568

247
1,708
5,771
5,241

683
4,980'
1,144

DISTRESS IN MAYo.—LORD G. BENTINCH.—At a
meeting of the poor-law guardians of Castlebar union, on
Saturday, the board, considering that some notice should
be taken of the opinions expressed in the House of Com-
mons by Lord George Bentinck, relative to the distress in
Mayo, which were grounded on statements attributed to
Mr. George Ormsby, Mr. Thomas Ormsby, and Mr.
Brett, and which these gentlemen disclaim, unanimously
adopted the following resolution
.—" Resolved, That as
the state of distress in the county of Mayo has been
made matter of discussion elsewhere, and as by far the
greater part of this union is in the county of Mayo, we
feel called upon to express it as our unanimous and
decided conviction, formed from various local personal ex-
perience, that the precautions taken by Government were
0,
not only'
judicious, but indispensable for the
supplyaft 01
the population. Although there' is a large
fhoaonddisnofthpearotioesunwtryho,
• y ;aand Indian corn to keep
taken by the introduction of maize part
nd honfd thist
stepsis inbetehne
tradeatill ian usury
middle classes. Besides, although the
is
sto purchase it, if sources
great, still the mass of the
that
hhe
ae
et
nmarketotifrenlra npbyryocoesfntdahtetailefair standard,
te,.ofthethheumpriilcleer,of
and food would
beyond
nameans
for them. The low price
of ernp o
of potatoes at present, and the abundant supply at the
lower class
icolf)a,msfsoenodhtaivanerethnneaotcmoue provided
various markets, are no criterion as to the true po-
sition of affairs, as all farmers who have potatoes
try by every means to dispose of them before they are
entirely lost by the disease, which progresses." We have
been informed the country surveyor received a letter from
Lord George Bentinck, in reply to one addressed to his
Lordship, inquiring on what authority he used his name in
theyscostauebiel
jtsleHeedeignOti
that
hocesnfoaetronte,
iffotaes
tifel
:El
lgoeyiLondonderry
Commons,dnreddlutdneehropcptaeneeeterdn
he had never used; his Lordship referred him to Mr. John
Browne for an explanation. Lord George states that the
letters regarding distress in Mayo which he read extracts
from in the House of Commons, were received by him from
Lord Stanlry, who derived his information from Mr. John
Brown. We understand Mr. Brett has written to Mr.
Browne upod the subject.— Castlebar Telegraph.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN.—We have the best autho..
city for stating
duration
nsiitinshgaoenntfaiuoottntni
the
ihneenra
sttt:earl
bnri e
sntedheteidn: comewEt a
la:
Government.
plcohrElvteoespe
meibranintv,lsaae
prevails
rnirost.
R.
ofillonibTttuetri
the appointment of the Lord Chamberlainship, tow vacant in
eadrrYwuarporlasbeirubtceutemhni
this
tarrangement,
circumstances.—Tory
named._ as
Totryhelo, probablef,
pcourse,r.
willsAlu caer
eqmsusaiostre
DEATH OF THE HON. E. ROBERT PLI7NRETT.—WO
regret to learn that letters have been received from the Earl
and Countess of Fingal!, in Italy, which convey the distress-
-1 ing intelligence of the death of the Hon. E. R. Plunkett, their
second son, who died at Milan on the 27th ult. The hon.
deceased was in his 26th year, having been born in November
1820. He entered the army in the 60th Rifles, but the service
being not according to his habits he retired after a few years.
The Hon. Gentleman was attached to the British Embassy at
1 Vienna, and had only left the Austrian capital a few iwyith,
1 to meet his relatives in Italy.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 5.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool-
, few minutes before five o'clock.
RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAY.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a numerously signed
petition, complaining of the desecration of the Sabbath by the
-present system of railway travelling on that day. The Right
Rev. Prelate proceeded to make some observations on the
subject, and was followed by
The Earl of FITZWILLI AM, who said he entirely concurred
in everything which had fallen from his Right Rev. Friend.
He was decidedly opposed to all commercial traffic passing on
railways on Sundays, and be thought it was the duty of Par-
liament to prevent the present Sabbath desecration on rail-
ways.
Lord CAMPBELL addressed a few words to the House in
favour of some restriction being made between commercial
and passenger traffic on the Lord's day.
The subject was then allowed to drop.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.
The Earl of H ADDINGTON presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Coldstream, against the proposed branch of
the North British Railway from Berwick to Wooler, which
was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Bill.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS ACT.
The Duke of RLHMOND presented a petition from the
rate-payers of Ross, in the county of Hereford, complaining
of the operation of the Lunatic Asylums Regulation Bill, to
which he would call the attention of the Government. The
Bill, he thought, was the worst of the many bad Bills that had
been introduced into that House, and one which he thought
should have been referred to a Select Committee_
ofat
the
the
•ime. There was one clause at the endf _
.
Slit to which the petitioners particularly
o referred.
It declared that every idiot was a lunatic. consequence of
In ,o
this great alarm was excited in the minds ofththr h that epoeutgitioners,a
well as throughout the country at large, as
with their
in-
terpretation harmless idiots, instead of staying
relations or being maintained in an inexpensive man-
ner in the workhouses, were
affection
cwt iiot
with
He considered that in the majority
sentto lunatic asylums.
was entertained by the parents for theirof ccari children ra great
affectede n
idiotey, and they would feel
an insuperable objection to having
their children takers from them.their He
chargeconsideredall the lunatics
that Govern-
mentnatics should take under
of the country, and that they should establish a
separate institution for those. persons affected with
t the earlier stages of madness or to cy, where, by a system of
kind and gentle treatment, the inmates might be restored to
their right and proper senses. The Noble Duke also presented
a petition from the board of guardians of the Ross Union to
a similar effect. The petitioners stated that their expenses,
which now amounted to 8001. per annum, would be increased
to 3,6001. solely for the charges of the maintenance of these
persons.
Lord ASHBURTONpresented a petition to the same effect.
Earl KINNAIRD presented a number of petitions from
manufacturing towns praying their Lordships to pass the New
Corn-Bill as speedily as possible.
LORDS HARDINGE AND GOUGH'S ANNUITY
BILLS.
The Earl of RIPON then moved that the House resolve
itself into a Committee on these Bills, and observed, that as he
bad already had an opportunity of addressing their Lordships
on the subject of the important services which had been ren-
dered to this country by these two illustrious individuals,
be would not detain their Lordships for many mo-
ments. The first of these B lls gave to Lord Hardinge an
annuity during his own life, and during the life of his two next
heirs bearing the title, the annuity:of 3,0001. per annum. He
was sure that their Lordships would not think that sum was
more than the justice of the case warranted or the generosity of
Parliament called for. But there was a peculiarity in that
Bill, and also in that which related to 'Lord Gough, to which
it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention. The East
India Compare", as their Lordships were aware from what
had fallen from him on a previous occasion, had granted
very liberal annuities to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, and
this Bill proposed that the annuities to be granted by Parliament
should be suspended whilst the East India Company continued
their annuities. The Bill relating to Lord Gough gave 2,000/.
a year to him during his We. He would therefore move that
it should go into Committe.
Lord MONTEAGLE said he had a strong objection to the
principle of the Bill, and he was sorry some more influential
party had not addressed the House upon the subject.
The Bills contained a provision unjust and unbecoming, and
which he considered would be detrimental to the public service.
His objection was to the clause which suspended the public
gratitude to those distinguished men because the East
India Company had recognised them. What will be the con-
sequence in future? Why, the East India Company will
not step forward, because they will find that they
are not rewarding public men, but th.at they are only
making a miserable saving to the Exchequer. Now he would
most strenuously protest against any such narrow principle
being adopted by their Lordships' House, because he believed
that if they did adopt it they would en.ail a bad principle upon
the country, which would finally do exceeding harm to the
country. The grant of the East India Company ought not
to diminish the grant of Parliament. They ought not to allow
that to influence them to curtail the grant, but it ought rather
to be a motive for increased liberality. It was well for the
East India Company to reward them for services performed to
them, but it was also the duty of the Government and the
British people to reward these distinguished officers for ser-
vice, not done for a commercial body, but for the nation at
large. The conduct of the East India Company should be a
reason for an increased allowance, instead of the grant being
curtailed, stinted, anti abridged, as it had been by the Go-
vernment.—( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND hoped that he should have an
opportunity of recording his vote against the Bill. It ap.
peared to him a shabby, mean, and saving piece of economy,
inconsistent with the desert of the gallant officers, and was a
disgrace to the credit of the country. He was not prepared to
give his sanction to a measure which he considered wrong in
principle and most shabby in practice.
The Earl of RIPON said that he would be the last person
in the House to propose anything mean or shabby to their
Lordships. The curtailment was not made upon a principle of
economy, but the Government had acted entirely upon pre-
cedent.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the suggestion
of the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle,) and he hoped h would
suggest it to the Committee in such a manner, as would not
fetter the Bill.
Tre Earl of WICKLOW considered that an adjournment of
the question should take place, in order to give time to search
for precedents up m the subject.
The Earl of RIPON considered that such an adjournment
would have no effect, as he admitted there was no precedent
to he found.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said, it was impossible for the
House to estimate in money the services which these distin-
guished men had done for the country. It seemed to him that
these individuals were entitled to a much larger amount than
these Bills proposed, and he for one should rejoice if her Ma-
jesty's ministers had thought proper to propose a more li-
beral sum.
The House having then resolved itself into Committee,
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the 3rd clause, which
provided that the annuities proposed by the Bill should be sus-
pended as long as the East India Company continued to pay
The annuities which they had granted to Lords Hardinge and
Gough should be suspended.—( Hear.)
The Earl of ?UPON said, if they acceded to the motion of
the Noble Duke, the Bill would be destroyed. It ought to be
borne in mind, that the grant of the Government was pro-
posed to be extended to the two generations next preceding,
which did not apply to the grant of the East India Company.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, that nothing was so easy as
for the Commons to bring in a fresh Bill should the
anemdment be agreed to.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the view taken
'by the Noble Duke.
Lord MONTEAGLE followed on the same side. Suppos-
ing the East India Company had not made the grant, would
not they have considered it their duty to have rewarded these
distinguished officers; or supposing that Parliament made :he
grant before the East India Company, and should the latter
Company agree to a similar grant, would that be reason
fur the Government suspending their grant? any
The Marquis of NORMANBY considered that if the
amendments proposed by their Lordships were not received by
the other House, they could bring in a fresh Bill on the sub-
ject.

The Earl of ST. GERMANS stated that had Lords Harding,e
and Gough been persons of large property no pension would
bare been proposed at ail.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Non-Contents...
Contents
Majority against the Clause
The Amendment was then agreed to.
The Duke of RICHMOND then proposed that the same
alteration should he made with reference to Lord Gough.
The Earl of RIPON would not trouble their Lordship
to divide umn the question after the opinion already pro-
nounced ir, Lord Hardinge's case.
Tha Amendment was then agreed to.
RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
Earl FITZWILLIA NI rose to move the resolutions of
-which he had given notice, with reference to railway legisla-
tion. From a retu-n which he held in his hand, the Bills
now in progress before their Lordships involved an expendi-
"are of 90,000,0001. The greatest loan that was ever
'raised in this country was 49 000,0 t. Of. The sum required I
for these railways was, therefore sum doublo the amount of
that sum. He expressed the feelings
nizant with monetary affairs "thualr'tof every individual cog-
should be put uprm railway' .was necessary a stop
He was not so
wedded to any elan of his ,iwnsP, etetlit'ttib)al he would withdraw
any portion of his resoltttion, if au better one could be sug..
gestcd. The great misfortune connected with the' Bills was,
that they were considered as private It was evident'
from the arrangements of both Rouses of Parliament, that
they considered them something more than mere private
for they had classified them in groups, according to the wants
of certain districts. The Government should take some large
and comprehensive measures with reference to them. The
Noble Earl then proposed the following resolutions : —l. That
all railway Bills, which had been read a second time in their
Lordships' House, should be referred to a Select Committee.
2, That it be an instruction to select Bills not exceeding
be
ceedingsethnet
'amount of sixty millions. 3. That a message should
to the House of Commons, requesting a conferenceurion
Noble
rieli
railways as were then pending in Parliament. The
Earl then moved the resolutions.
Earl DALHOUSIE thought that, however desirable i
might be to limit railway enterprise, and however they might
feel inclined to put a stop to railway speculation, still he sub-
Snitted that after what had taken plac- in both Houses of Par-
liament their Lordships could not, with common justice, sup-
port the resolutions of the Noble Earl. At the commencement
of this session a Committee was appointed in both Houses of
Parliament to consider the propriety of making a selection of
the Bills before the Legislature. That Committee came to a
report that it would not be advisable to make a selection of
these Bills. There was no intimation given to them by the
Government as to any course they should pursue. A great
number of these Bills had been now five months under the con-
sideration of Parliament. They have expended large sums of
money, and ne few of them have obtained the deliberate sanc-
tion of Parliament. In common fairness they could not now
turn round and say to them, " We shall now select those Bills
which we consider the best to be passed." It would be tanta-
mount to a Brea ih of faith on the part of Parliament. They
had also interfered by establishing a sort of keels pcnit2ntiar.,
in the shape of sessional orders. Thu parties had
held meetings under these orders, they had satis-
fied the tests which their Lordships had imposed
upon them, and it would certainly be unfair to turn round
noon them and say that they eauld make a selection of those
Bills. With reference ti) limiting the capital to be ex ended
to 60,000,(M01 , he was not repared to say that that wasP the
limit to which speculation could fairly be carried. Their
Lordships had a remedy in their own hands, in the
cise of the powers intrusted to them in committee ; if the strict every
would come to the consideration of the Bill, not so much with
a view of determining if there was any fatal objection to the
Bill, but whether they would, under the present circumstances,
be advantageously made. He hoped, therefore, that their
Lordships would not support the resolution of the Noble Earl.
Lord KINNAIRD quite agreed with the Noble Earl who
bad just spoken, that it would be a breach of faith on the
part of Parliament to compel these companies to go before
another Committee. He did think that if time were given to
the parties for consideration it would have a desirable result,
while it would not he a means of preventing any good lines