The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-10 00:00:00

THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and passed
Ayrshire, Bridge of Weir, and Port Glasgow Junction
Railway ; Ballochney Railway (Shotts Branch) ;
Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, Railway, and harbour;
Bristol and Exeter Railway (Crewkerne Branch); Broms-
grove Improvement and Small Tenements (No. 2);
Buckingham Railway (Tring to Banbury) ; Edinburgh
Paving ; Great. Grimsby Gas ; Leeds and Thirsk
Railway (St. llelen's Branch and Deviation); Leeds
and Thirsk Railway (Knaresborough Branch Extension);
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (North Eastern Extension—
Wath to Hartlepool) ; Leith Paving; London and South
Western Railway (Farnham and Alton Branch) ; London
and Birmingham Railway (Camden and Euston Stations
Enlargement) ; Manchester, Sheffield, and Midland Junction
Railway ; Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland Junc-
tion Railway; Midland Railway (Leicester and Swanning-
ton Alteration and Branches) ; Midland Railway (Notting-
ham and Mansfield) ; Newcastle-upou.Tyne Improvement;
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway ; Scottish Central
Railway (Alloa Branch ); Scottish Central Railway (Perth
Termini and Stations); Sittingbourne Improvement.
RAILWAYS.

Mr. GREENE moved to repeal the following standing
orders :—The order as agreed to by a resolution of the House,
April 3, 1846,in lieu of standing order 135 repealed, and to sub-
stitute the following :—" That seven clear days' notice be given
by the Clerk of the Committee of Selection to the clerks in
the Private Bill-office of the day and the hour appointed
for the meeting of the Committee on every private
Bill that shall have been referred to the said Committee,
that in case of Bills not referred to the Committee of Selec-
tion seven days' clear notice, and in the case of a re-committed
Bill three clear days' notice, shall be given by the agents for
the Bill to the clerks of the Private Bill-office of the day and
the hour appointed for the meeting of the Committee on
every private Bill, and that all the proceedings of any Com-
mittee of which such notice has not been given, shall be void."
—Agreed to.
The standing order 137, and to substitute the
following in lieu thereof :—" That notices in writing
be given by the Clerk of the Committee of Selec-
tion to the clerks in the Private Bill-office of the
postponement of the first meeting of any Committee
on a private Bill, which shall have been referred to such
Committee on the day on which such postponement is made;
and that in case of )3ills not referred to the Committee of
Selection, one clear day's notice shall be given by the agents
of the Bill to the clerks of the Private'Bill-office of the post-
ponement of the first meeting of any Committee on a private
Bill."—Agreed to.
The order made on the 20th day of February last, for
referring the Mold Junction Railway Bill to the Committee
of Selection be read ; that the same order be discharged; that
the said motion be withdrawn.—Agreed to.
The HON. MEMBER then moved that the Committee on
Curtis's Divorce Bill have leave to sit and proceed on Friday,

at three o'clock.—Agreed to.
The HON. MEMBER also moved—That it be an instruction to
the Committee on the Worcester and Porthdynllaen Railway
Bill to entertain all petitions which shall be presented against
the Bill on or before the 11th day of this instant June.—
Agreed to. That the report from the Select Com-
mittee on standing orders, in the case of the Great Munster
Railway Bill, be read, and that the said order be discharged
and the Bill withdrawn.—Agreed to. That the report from the
Select Committee on Standing Orders, in the case of the Ban-
don and Bantry Railway Bill, be read, and that the said order
be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.—Agreed to. That,
the report from the Select Committee on Standing Orders,
in the case of the Cork, Macroom, and Killarney Railway
Bill, be read, and that the said order be discharged and the
Bill withdrawn.—Agreed to.
Mr. SPOON ER moved that the Midland Railway (Burton
and Nuneaton Railway and Ashby Canal .Purchase) Bill be
re-committed to the former Committee, with leave to sit and
proceed to-morrow, and to report forthwith.—Agreed to.
The Lords' Amendments on the following Bills were then
considered and adopted :
Brighton and Chichester Railway (Steyning Branch);
I Brighton and Chichester Railway (Bognor and Little Hamp-
ton Branches) ; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway De-
viations, and Eastbourne, Hailsham, Seaford, and Newhaven
Branches ; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
Amendment and Branches (No. 1); Glasgow, Paisley, Kil-
marnock, and Ayr Railway Amendment and Branches
(No. 2); Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
Amendment and Branches (No. 3) ; Midland Railway (Sys-
ion to Peterborough); Sligo Harbour Improvement.
FREE CHURCH (SCOTLAND).
Mr. FOX MAULE presented several petitions from mem-
bers of the Free Church in Scotland, complaining of the re-
fusal of sites for churches, which they experienced from the
landowners in Scotland. He had to present one hundred and
forty-seven petitions on the subject, signed by twenty-seven
thousand persons.—(Hear.)
THE MILITIA.

Mr. MUNTZ presented several petitions from Birming-
ham, praying against the calling out of the militia, or any-
thing which would have a tendency to induce war.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. DUNCAN patented several petitions against the pu-
nishment of death. The Hon. Gentleman also presented se-
ral petitions in favour of the members of the Free Church
in Scotland, which alleged that sites for the building of
churches had been refused to them by the landed proprietors
in Scotland. The petitioners prayed that the House would
take some measures to remedy their grievances.
RAILWAY LEGISLATION. _

Mr. EVELYN DENISON gave notice, that he should to-
morrow put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury,
whether he was prepared to make any statement on the
subject of railway legislation farther than that already
made ; and whether he would have any difficulty in laying
on the table of the House memorials which had been pre-
sented to Lord Dalhousie on the subject of railways ?
THE DANISH CLAIMS.

On the order of the day being read that the House resolve
itself into Committee, for the purpose of taking into conside-
ration the Danish claims,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and
said—Sir, although the House on a former occasion con-
sented to the motion of my Hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes), that
on the present day we should go into Committee on this
subject, I think there are strong reasons why the
House should not fulfil the object of the vote which
they came to on that day, and I therefore rise
at this early stage of the discussion for the purpose of
moving an amendment to the motion of my Hon. Friend. I
am sensible, sir, that in doing so I labour under very consi-
derable difficulties, because I have always found, upon every
successive occasion when these claims have been brought
before the House, there has been stated in the course of the
debate some new circumstance apparently calculated to in-
fluence the decision of the House adduced at a period when
it is difficult to afford a reply to them—statements are made
for the purpose of inducing the House to support the pro-
positions which are made to them with respect to
these claims, yet on another day those very state-
ments turn out to be altogether void of a just
foundation, and to be such as should not influence the de-
cision of the House. Now, for instance, on the former occa-
sion the Hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of his reply,
adduced an additional argument which we had not heard of
before in support of these claims. He did not folf
dispute that there had been a war between Great Britainaedmemo in ment
Denmark, but he stated that a declaration w
same
resyteothat,
lit of the cap-
arre,d
peacewhich
to cured
Denmark t hep;r eavniodusth.daetclatahrsarefnoreo,
Britain made no attempt to declare the f Great ar
November. He impressed,
thhcerHouse should restore to their
tures, because the declaration offelrveapr
hirpleans nthote House
eutnhtaitl
it was just and proper that t
of the war. But, sir,
former position those
tv
c personao theret
Copenhagen
ha tangheeancl
foundationswaa
sfferseudr
surrendered
enf
oncrdoetnrhseeedtq uenc
theree
judg-
ment? Of course when
was a capitulating which ppreovideidiroegnfouorulartatihboe restoration of
such goods as had been taken during the war. The
wToeherenetDletmoanainbsh:
Government itself issued an order in which it was stated
that during the war certain
observed as to English subjects, expressly nullify-
ogeufse ttohbeelieve that these capitulations
w
the war ; expresslyfitonore nullifyingeiserviateinsndh dt
sub-
jects ya
ts
hen
re
en
int heo et _assertionm wished
ade thedduring
ea theettret
afterwards,
nerd e, declaration
hostilethat m
eot
ahf
seu
rtwehsaer
wwiatsh Government
trheesnpecin
were to be taken in consequence of the war. A
new case was adduced by the Hon. Gentleman on the
former occasion, for the purpose of inducing the House to
agree to his propositions. Sir, I have thought
it my duty on various occasions to oppose an
address to the Crown for the purpose of remunerating
the claimants on account of the Danish losses, and I have
done so, Sir; first, upon what I consider to be a most im-
portant constitutional principle; and next, because I do not
admit that there is any justice whatever in the claims
which are submitted to the House. Sir, this House
has very wisely determined that they will not admit
any grant of money, or any remission of duties
due to the Crown, unless it come down to the House, recom-
mended by the respectful suggestion of the Crown ; and
they have done it for the best of all reasons, in order that
the House may not be imposed upon by specious or plausible
statements made in the course
_of a debate on an

uninvestigated claim. The object of that determination
has been that individual Members may not be influenced—
that they may not rashly vote away the money of thepeople to parties who by means of great exertion, active
canvassing, and constant representation of facts more or less
accurate, have acquired an influence over the minds of Mem-
bers, and who persuade them to vote away the public money.
And, Sir, this House has laid down a wise rule, and I am
not quite prepared to get rid of it by a sidewind proceeding.
When the case waasubmitted to the predecessors in the office
that I hold, and when it had been submitted to me also, we
each of us, acting under a sense of our public duty—which
is not to recommend to Parliament to make a grant of money
unless we are satisfied that the grounds on which the claim
is made are just—have refused to assent to the petition to
this House, praying for the granting of these claims.
And upon the same principle, I will not wil-
lingly consent that the Crown should be placed
in the situation of having an address presented to it,
when the Crown has not. been advised to recommend to Par-
liament the payment of these claims. Sir, this is a very dan-
gerous experiment. It is, in fact, virtually getting rid of the
control which the House has established for the purpcse
of preventing an undue expenditure of the public money. It
is truly a dangerous experiment, because it would not put
ss
limit to the extent to which these claims may go.—(near.)
If during the war with Denmark you are prepared to give
the sufferers by that war the sum of 250,000/., or a quarter
of a million of money, because the country with whom
you were at '3' ar did not make certain regulations as to the
capture during the war, there is no telling to what extent
these claims may now, and at future times be made,
for if the principle of this grant of money is good
with regard to Denmark, the principle is good with
respect to every country with which you may be at war,
whatever their potion may be, and however ample their
means as to trade ;stand I say, therefore, that it is the duty of
those who have any care for the mode in which the public
money is to be expended, to oppose this first step, which shall
introduce this new principle that you are to indemnify your
own subjects for losses at sea during a war between
this and any other nation. Sir, observe I am not
here standing up to defend the rights of the
Crown, I am defending the rights of the people
of this country generally. You tell me there is justice in Ike
claims of these individuals whose property has been rear
ficed at sea, and that these merchants who have lost their
ships and cargoes during the war have sustained a loss for
which you are bound to show them commisseriition
and to make them some compensation. Sir, whether it be
right or wrong, captures at sea during war are the inva-
riable practice of nations, and that, as a totally different
question from captures on land, is not the question now before
ho House.