The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-12 00:00:00

PRIVATE BILLS.

Lord MORPETH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regu-
late the course of private Bills.
SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.

On the order of the day for this Bill being read,
Lord .MORPETH said that if the Hon. Member (Mr.
Mackinnon) would consent to withdraw his Bill for the present
session, in which there appeared little probability of its passing,
he would assure him, on the part of the Government, that he
would give his best attention to the subject, with a view to its
settlement, early next year.
Mr. MACKINNON felt himself to be in a delicate situation,
for he had this very day received communications from Liver-
pool, Leeds, and Manchester, urging him to press
the Bill forward. From a' printed statement, it appeared
that not less than 60,0001. a-year were spent more in soap,
in Liverpool alone, than would be necessary if the smoke
nuisance were abated, and taking the whole of the manufac-
turing districts, there were net less than 180,0001. a-year
absolutely lost in this way, so that there was every inducement
to urge the matter on. He had indeed been already censured
for supineness by the public prints. Yet he felt by
persevering in this course, he would be Injuring his
own cause, for he was aware that at this perio of
the session it was impossible for any individual
Member to press any measure against the opposition of the
Government. All an individual Member could do was to
keep a matter continually before the House, until the public
were alive to the fact that it was to their interest to have it
carried into effect, and thus to create that pressure from with-
out which would have a salutary effect within. He had done
all that one individual Member could do, and he trusted
that in thus handing his pet child over to the Noble Lord, that
he would be exonerated from blame by those influential papers
which had previously accused him. He trusted that hit child
would be properly nursed, and at last carried into a healthy
existence.

Lord MORPETH trusted that the Hon. Member would be
satisfied with his assurance.

Mr. MACKINNON intimated his assent, and the Bill was
withdrawn.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.

This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn
mitted to-morrow.

TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Friday.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.

The Committee on this Bill was postponed till to-morrow.

WRECK AND SALVAGE BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL.
On the motion for the House going into Committee on this
Bill,

Mr. WALPOLE objected to the Bill being taken up now, on
the ground that it was so similar to another Bill previously in-
troduced in the present session by the Hon. Member for Kin-
sale as to place it in that catagory which precluded its being
adopted according to Parliamentary usage.
The SPEAKER decided that it was not so similar as to put
it into that position.
Mr. ESCOTT conceived that it would be better to go on
with the Bill, but believed that the Bill as it came down from
the House of Lords was the best form it could be placed in.
Yet he believed that the amendments which he hid to pro-
pose were necessary to make it perfect. These discussions
were always painful, and by settling the question now, the
evil of another discussion would be altogether saved.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that if the Commons were
to send up Bills with a number of amendments, which en-
tirely altered the nature of the Bill, they could not
expect otherwise but that it would be thrown out.
The truth was, that the Bill introduced by the Hon.
Member for Kinsale was only lost by a majority of four on the
motion for going into Committee, in a House of 200 Members..
The Bill as it came from the Lords had been very maturely
considered, and he certainly should oppose any amendments
that might be made in it.
Mr. HENLEY thanked the Noble Lord for his straight-
forward dealing in the matter, and said that the Hon. Member
for Winchester proposed the curious anomaly of saving the pain
of having one more discussion next year, in order that he
might have the pain of two discussions this.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that as he had been the means of
causing the rejection of the previous Bill, he had been asked
what course he intended to pursue on this occasion. To this
he replied, that, seeing the state of the case, he was prepared to
allow the Bill to pass as it was; he should oppose any amend-
ments of any kind, come from what side of the House it might.
Mr. SHAW should also oppose the amendments of the
Hon. Member for Winchester.

The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY approved of the
amendments, and if his Hon. Friend divided the House he
should feel it his duty to divide with him.
The House then went into Committee, and the first and
second clauses were passed.
On the third clause being put,
Mr. ESCO rr proposed the introduction of the words in part
of it " consequent thereon," which would have the eifCct of
doing away with the penalties, which the Bill in its present
state did not.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that his object was to carry this
Bill in the form in which it had come down from the House
of Lords. It had been prepared by Lords Lyndhurst, Campbell,
and Brougham, and the whole of the matter had been fully and
duly considered. They did not propose to make that lawful
which was previously illegal by common law, Lut only to
abrogate the penalties imposed for that which was now allowed
to be no fault. Ills desire was to carry the Bill as it came
from the Lords.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL contended that the clause
as it now stood was perfectly correct, and better without the
proposed words than with them. The Bill took away the
severe penalties, but left any breach of the common law just as
it stood before.

Mr. ESCOTT believed that the Noble Lord was of his own
opinion, and he thought that opinion ought not to be made to
succumb to the House of Lords.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that he objected to the
discussion being taken on the point at that late period of the
session, when but a small number of Members interested in the
subject were present.
After some conversation the House divided, when there
appeared—
For the Amendment.
Against it 53

Majority against the Amendment .... 43
Mr. R. YORKE appealed to the Hon. Member (Mr.
Escott), after the decision of the House, the lateness of the
session, and the small number of Members present, to with-
draw the remaining amendments.
Mr. ESCOTT had great respect for the :opinions of the
Hon. Member; and although he was dissatisfied with the de-
cision of the Committee, and considered that the House
of Commons would also be dissatisfied, he should
not press the other amendments to a division. At the same
time, he wished to state that he should not relax his °position
to the Bill in its futare stages.
The amendments were then withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
Mr. SPOONER objected to the next clause on the ground
that it would violate the oath of supremacy and the oath taken
by Members of that House, which set forth that no foreign
pontiff should be allowed to interfere in any way with the
religious opinions of the subjects of this realm, whereas the
Pope would have the power of issuing bulls affecting the
opinions of the people of this country by this Bill. He pressed
the Noble Lord to postpone the clause until next session, in
order that it might be more fully discussed. He moved the
omission of the objectionable words, and expressed his
intention of dividing the House on the subject if the explana-
tion of the Government was not satisfactory.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the clause, and held that
as it was framed, the Pope would not have the rower of inter-
faring with the religious opinions of the people of this
country, or any portion of them professing religion,
in the way pointed out by the Hon. Gentleman.
According to his understanding of the oath, he did not think
there was anything in the oath which was inconsistent with the
fact, as it is or would be after the passing of this Act. If the
introduction of any bull were unlawful at present, it would
be unlawful hereafter; and if there were any bull
which it would be lawful to introduce now, it would be
lawful hereafter. What he understood by the oath was, that
there was no jurisdiction to be exercised in this country by the
Pope which could be enforced by any of the courts of law, or
recognised by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
4cnth. Thsro was a bull of the Voge a short

time since •Nltich forbid the Rowan Ca.ilwlic Bishops
to interfere in any political question, as their
coneein v.as entirely Witii spiritual affairs. Ilis HGII. Friend
represented to him that the rescript said that they should
not too much concern themselves in any political transac-
tions.— (Laughter. ) Would his Honourable Friend think
that the Roman Catholic bishop was criminal for attending to
that rule, and wittdrawing from Conciliation Hall, or ceasing
to inter fere with the repeal agitation ? He did not see in the
Act then before the House anything at all to aft,et the oath
of supremacy as it then existed,
Mr. ESTCOURT made some observations which did not
reach the gallery.
Mr. SHAW said that it was quite clear, as the Noble Lord
had said, that in all respects, except as to the penalties and
punishments, the law should remain the same as it was then.
He thought that these punishments were unnecessarily severe,
and ought to be withdrawn.

Mr.WALPOLE thought that it would be unjust to retain
those penalties referred to by the Noble Lord, and he hoped
that the Hon. Member would not press the House to a division
on the clause.

Mr. SPOONER said that it was a dangerous principle to
put a construction upon the oath of supremacy which was
different from the terms of that oath. The omission of the
words in the oath showed that such a construction was never
intended to be put upon it. He, for one, would not consent to
allow any jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, by any foreign
power, over any subject u ithin these realms.
Mr. SHELL said that the words of the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary for the Home Department, " bishops and
archbishops," recognised the persons bearing that title as
persons having spiritual authority. The word " ministers"
was formerly used.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that the passing of this Act was
opening the way for sweeping away all this rubbish, and the
time would come when they would cease to punish men for
their religious opinions.
The remainder of the clauses were agreed to without dis-
cussion. The Bill was then reported to the House, and or-
dered to be engrossed, and read a third time to-morrow.
GAUGE OF RAILWAYS BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. MUNTZ rose to add a clause to the Bill. It was
in order to give the people of Birmingham that accom-
modation on both gauges to London to which they were
entitled. According to the provisions of the present Bill,
the inhabitants of Birmingham, would be in a much
worse position than the people of Wolverhampton,
who would have lines on both gauges to London,
whereas Birmingham would be restricted to the narrow gauge.
The clause he proposed was in effect to make it imperative
that the Birmingham and Oxford line from Birmingham to the
point at which it joined with the Oxford, Worcester, and Wol-
verhampton Railway, should be laid down on the broad as well
as the narrow gauge. In justice to the people of Birmingham,
he felt bound to submit this clause.

The clause having been brought up, and read from the chair,
Mr. MILNER GIBSON rose to oppose the adoption of
the clause. In doing so he went into the circumstances that
led to the introduction of the present Bill. It was founded on
the report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the gauge question, and a Committee which had sat on the
question confirmed the recommendations of that report. The
Bill had passed through the House of Lords, from whence it
had come down to the present House. He complained of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham proposing his clause
at this late stage of the Bill, when he had had
many opportunities before of submitting his amend-
ment, and when he might have brought the special
case involved in his clause under the consideration of the Com.
mittee that sat on the question of the gauges. Had the case
been submitted to the Committee, and they considered it
founded in fairness, they would, no doubt, have specially re-
ported in its favour. Under the circumstances he must give
his opposition to the clause.
Mr. SPOONER supported the clause, as absolutely neces-
sary for the great trading interests of Birmingham. He had
heard no reason whatever against the clause, but the complaint
that his Hon. Colleague had introduced it too late. If
the clause was a just one, he thought such an objection should
not for a moment be entertained against it.
Mr. P. M. STEWART begged to inform the Hon. Member
for Birmingham that the suggestion for making the broad
gauge from Birmingham to Oxford was submitted to the Com-
mittee referred to, but after a full consideration of the
point, and referring to the report of the Commissioners,
the suggestion was laid aside. But he opposed the
clause on national grounds, as he would not be a party
to support an extension of a gauge which he had no
doubt would ultimately be given up by the whole country.
The break of gauge was a great inconvenience, and any exten-
sion of the broad gauge would, in his opinion, increase that evil.
Some equitable mode should be discovered for making a
uniform gauge throughout the country. This resolution
would militate against the recommendation of the Com-
missioners appointed by the House. If he were a
shareholder in the Birmingham and Oxford Company,
he would object to the broad gauge principle.
The Bill would go beyond the resolutions of the House; and
then came the proposition of the Hon. Member for Birming-
ham to sanction for the length of thirty miles what was
looked upon as a great evil—viz., a diversity of gauge.
Uniformity must eventually be established throughout
the country. If the alteration contemplated in the gauge near
Birmingham was ever to be made it had better be deferred
until the country had resolved upon an uniformity of gauge
from John e' Groat's House to the land's end.—.(Hear, hear. )

(LEFT SITTING.)

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Room C.
IMPORTANT DECISION.
OLDHAM, LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER,

AND ZURIEENIIMAD JUNCTION.
The Committee having heard during the early part of the
morning the conclusion of the evidence on this Bill, have
come to the following decision .
That the Oldham people are entitled to a better line than
they have at present; but they do not think that the one
before them is the best line that can be found; therefore the
preamble is not proved.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)
Mrs. Blewitt, the widow of Blewitt, the unfortunate victim
of the youth Graham's carelessness, appeared to-day to make
an application to Mr. Henry, with respect to the money sub-
scribed for the benefit of her child, which, it will be remem-
bercid, she endeavoured to obtain some part of a few days
after the conclusion of the case at this Court. She stated
that Mr. Le Raux, a Catholic priest, and a person of consi-
derable influence and authority at the Catholic school in
Clarendon-square, Somers-town, had undertaken to get the
child into that establishment, on payment of certain fees of
trifling amount. She was, therefore, anxious to have the
money, or some part of it, given up to Mr. Le Raux. She
herself intended, as soon as she could get the child provided
for to go to service. If she failed, however, in getting her
child into this school she would bc obliged to have recourse
to parochial assistance. _ .

Mr. HENRI, was perfectly willing to give up any part of
the money, if he was convinced that it would be for the
benefit of the child alone. He feared, however, that the ap-
plicant only wanted to get possession of the money herself.
However, if Mr. Le Raux would call at the office and satisfy
him that the money would be applied to the uses of the child
alone, he would be willing to give it up; or if the applicant
should determine upon applying to the parish, he might
perhaps give it. up to the parochial authorities for the purpose
of placing the child at their school.
Mrs. Blew itt preferred having the child at the Catholic school
where she " would know the child would be taught as she
should wish," and it was therefore settled that Mr. Le Raux
should be requested to appear here on Saturday.
[Mr. Le Raux is the superior of this school; he is cele-
brated in the neighbourhood for his benevolence and un-
ostentatious charity, and is universally esteemed and re-
spected by the inhabitants, more especially of the poorer
classes, of the vicinity.]