The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-14 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

A new writ was moved for by Mr. BERESFORD, for
North Nottinghamshire, in the room of Henry Gaily
Knight,. Esq., deceased.
RAILWAY BUSINESS.

Lord DUNCANNON brought up the report on the
Hauchester, Matlock, and Buxton Railway Bill, wl.ich
was ordered to be read a first time.
The following Railway Bills were read a second time,
and ordered to he committed:—Wakefield, Pontefract,
and GoOle Railway (Methley, Askern, and Oakenshaw
branches) ; Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield,
Huddersfield, arid Goole Railway ; Leeds and Bradford
Railway-(alteration of levels in Bingley).
Mr. STRUTT brought under the notice of the House
the fact that several petitions for private Bills had been
received by the House in consequence of some irregu-
larity which they contained having been overlooked.
There were several instances where the standing order,
1 I I A, had not been complied with.
Mr. GREENE gave a notice of motion to the effect,
that in all cases.of private Bills no petitions should be
received unless they had been prepared and properly
signed by the parties themselves.
Mr. ENT WISLE said, that complaints had fre-
quently been made of the operation of the standing
orders in reference to matters of a minor and very trivial
nature, and parties were often put to enormous expense
by being compelled to attend here, and then all
that was lost by reason of the Bill being
thrown out upon some matter of a very trifling
nature, and they were told that they had been defeated
by a non-compliance with the standing orders. With
regard to what the lion. Member for Lancashire had
said, he would just make this observation, that the
number of petitions was so great that It was quite
impossible for this House, to take cognizance of the con-
tents of the whole of them. It would be well, there
fore, if some measure were introduced to prevent this
useless expenditure of thousands of pounds before a Bill
'had pasSed the standing orders.
Mr. STRUTT said his observations did not apply to
the Standing Orders' Committee, but to the omissions
of this House.

Mr. E. ELLIS said that much inconvenience had
arisen by reason of the vague manner in which the
standing orders required the notice of a Bill to be in-
serted in the " first part" of the petition, without defining
the particular part.
Mr. GISBOIINE said lie could not at all -understand
on what grounds his Hon. Friend had submitted his
motion to the House. The House itself had established
certain rules, and they were neither few or unimportant,
with which all public companies were compelled to
comply. He believed they amounted to about 120 or 130,
the slightest infringt meat of any one of which was suffi-
cient to cause the rejection of their petitions ; and
now there were petitions presented to them by parties
who had only two standing orders to comply with.
Ele' thought it, therefore, extremely unreasonable
to ask for " this indulgence in the House, with-
out any notice having been given of the intention
to present th, m, although they concerned property to a
very large amount, and. when in fact the House knew
no more about them than if they had just dropped from
the clouds.. He could see .no reason for assenting
to the proposal of his Hon. Friend, and if his motion was
persisted in, he should certainly divide the House ageinst
him.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE begged to explain that the
resolution upon which the Committee had acted was
one which had been impost(' by the House. It was not
founded upon any general apprehension of the standing
orders, but was a specific direction of the 111th clause.
Although many directions of the standing orders
were general in their character, yet, whenever any
particular rule of proceeding was to be observed, it was
clearly laid down, as was the case in No. 9. The Com-
mittee, therefore, could not dispose of this case, and he
conceived the Hon. Member for Derby was perfectly
right in repeating it to the House, instead of disposing of
it summarily.
After ,a few observations from Sir GEORGE CLERK
and Mr. GisnonNEp.which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. R. HODGSON said if the parties referred to had
made a mistake, they might petition the House to allow
them to rectify it. The case was precisely similar to one
which occurred in the House a few nights ago. The
27th ordtr required that a list of the assents and dissents
to a Bill should be delivered to the Clerk for
Private Bills, who was desired to endorse the fact of
their receipt on the back of them. In the case
to which he referred, this endorsement had been
omitted. The parties petitioned the House to permit
them to rectify the mistake, which was granted. The
case was perfectly analagous, and the parties in this
case might adopt the same course.
The report was then ordered to lie on the table.
Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER presented a petition
against the Birmingham and Leicester Railway Bill.
Mr. BARRY BALDW‘IN presented a petition against
the Direct Union Railway Bill.
Mr. VILLIERS gave notice, that he should, on
Wednesday next, move for a return of any direction of
the Poor-law Commissioners fir the incorporation of the
parish of Farnham, in Surrey, with other parishes in
a poor-law union, and the copy of any memorial that
may be presented against it.
LORDS OF THE ADMIRALTY.

Mr. FERRAND gave notice that he would, on Mon-
day next, put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of her Majesty's Government, (if he should
then be in office)—(A laugh)—whether it was his inten-
tion to fill up two offices lately vacated—he alluded
to the offices of Lords of the Admiralty—(Laughter)—
as, in the event of his not doing so, he (Mr. Ferrand)
should move that the offices be abolished as being quite
useless to the country.—(Renewed laughter.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORI) gave notice of his
intention to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet
the First Lord of the Treasury, as to whether it was the
intention of Government to propose any measure on the
subject of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S SOCIETY.

An HoN. MEMBER inquired whether it was the inten-
tion of Government to bring forward any
measure in
the present session in reference to the Merchant Sea-
men's Society, as the matter had been strongly rtcom-
mended to the consideration of the Legislature by two
Committees appointed on the subject?
Sir G. CLERK replied that he had been for some
time in communication With some of the most eminent
merchants on the question, and he hoped in a few days
to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question.
Mr. FORSTER said he had no doubt the petition
spoke the sentiments of the Ship-owners' Society. He
must, however, protest against these parties coming for-
ward in the way they had done of late, and stating that
they spoke the sentiments of the great body of ship-
owners. That society had been invariably opposed
to relaxation.—(Cheers.) lle was not, however.
opposed to discussion on the subject of which
they complained, as the more they entered into the in-
vestigation they found that they had no reason to com-
plain.

Mr. LIDDELL said he was not desirous of bringing
on a discussion then, but he could not allow the re-
marks of the Honourable Member for Berwick
to pass without a reply. It was his intention to make a sub-
stantive motion to the effect that the petition be printed, when
it would stand before the House on its own basis. The chair-
man of the General Society of &hipowners had signed the
petition, and he believed it expressed the opinions of the whole
of the members of that body. I t was a matter of little conse-
quence to him whether Hon. Members said the petition was got
up or not.--( Hear.) By printing it, it would be placed before
their observation. He should take an early opportunity of re-
ferring to the subject.
Mr. WALL said he was prepared to support the allegations
in the petition.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
RAILW Al DISTURBANCES.

Mr. JAMES asked the Hight hon. Bart. the Secre-
tary of State, if he had received Any official account of