The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-01 00:00:00

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that to-morrow he should
move for the production of the report which was made to
the Guvernment on the subject of an alleged attack upon
the house of Mr. P. B. Ryan.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN gave notice that he should to-
morrow move for an address to her Majesty, praying her
Majesty t 9 institute inquiries into the case of eviction on the
Gerrard estate in Ireland.
THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Sir R. PEEL said that he had a notice which he would
give for to-morrow. Two or three days ago it was his grati-
fying duty to announce his intention of proposing a vote of
thanks to Sir 11. Smith and the army in India, for the very
signal and glorious victory that had been achieved
under his direction on the banks of the Sutlej.
Since that time accounts had been received of
another victory, not perhaps more glorious, but more
important in its results. It would, therefore, be his duty,
and be was sure that it would meet with the universal
sanction of the House. to propose another vote of thanks
fur the second victory. The British army was now within a
few miles of Lahore. In order not to diminish the effect of
their tribute of respect to Sic Henry Smith, he should pro-
pose two votes of thanks for the two victories.—(Cheers.)
DROPPED NOTICES.

Mr. SMITH OTRIEN said, that as only ten Irish
Members had voted for the Coercion Bill, and thirty-four
against it on Monday, he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet
would not press the Bill at present, after such an un-
equivocal expression of opinion on the part of the Irish
Members.

Sir R. PEEL said he was very unwilling to revive the
discussion Of Monday upon this subject. The Hon. Gentle •
man did not appear to recollect what the discussion of Mon-
day was upon. They had not yet come to a discussion on
the merits of this Bill. The Hon. Baronet who made the
motion on Monday distinctly stated that be meant only to
call fur a discussion as to whether the Irish Bill ought to have
precedence or not. The main question had not been dis-
cussed at all. The llon. Gentleman seemed desirous of
having a decision on this. Why could they not take it on
Friday next ?
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that the Irish Members had un-
equivocally given their opinion that the Irish Bill ought not
to have precedence of the Corn Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said there were two Bills of the utmost lin-
portance to Ireland ; one was the Corn Bill, and the other
the Bill for the Suppression of Assassination in Ireland. The
first and second readings of the Corn Bill bad been taken, and
the Government felt it their duty to take the first reading of
the other Bill at once. Why could they not take th first
reading, and reserve their opposition for the future s ages
of the Bill, ample and frequent as those opportunities would
be ? After the Corn Bill was disposed ot, the Government
would go into the fullest discussion of the Irish Bill in all
its stages.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving that the order of the day for
the first reading of the Irish bill be postponed till to-morrow,
wished to explain an inaccuraey into which he had fallen in
making his statement on Monday. He referred to the case
of Mr. Wilson. He had stated that Mr. Wilson was com-
pelled to leave his home and the improvement of his estate in
consequence of threatening notices which he had received.
He (Sir J. Graham) had stated that an address on this sub-
ject was made from the altar of the parish chapel before the
first threatening letter was sent. He should have said
after. He had also stated that Mr. Wilson knew the
parties who had sent the threatening letters. This
was an error—he did not know, for if he had it would have
been his duty as a magistrate to cause them to be appre-
hended. In every other particular the statement which he
had made was correct.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN objected to this Bill, because it would
not give protection to life. The Bill was a libel upon Ireland
generally. He could assure the Government that they had
been much misinformed upon the subject of this Bill. State-
ments had been made only to frighten old women and old
Ministers. All that was required was to make the gentry of
Ireland do their duty.
After a few words from Mr. D. BROWNE,
Sir R. PEEL said he felt the deepest anxiety with respect
to the distress into which the people of Ireland had been
thrown. Ile had given ample proof as a public man of the
sincerity of his feelings. He had done all in his power to al-
leviate the distress which must inevitably attend anything
like scarcity. Having given that proof, he thought he might
ask Hon. Members to read the Bill a first time, and reserve
their oppo-ition for the future stages of the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not like to he ungrateful to the
Right Hon. Baronet for the steps he had taken to avert
famine in Ireland. He acknowledged most readily, and, he ,
might add, most gratefully, the plan the Government bad'
adopted for the relief of the people of Ireland. He was,
however compelled—reluctantly, he would admit—to op-
pose this Bill in every stage, simply because he
believed that it would deprive his countrymen of the rights of
the constitution. He would ask why not postpone the Bill
to Friday and not till to-morrow, as tomorrow the notices
of motion must occupy the whole night. lie would also ask
the Right Hon. Baronet whether he bad any objection to
lay before the house the documents which he had used in
his speech on Monday evening.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it would be impossible to
go into the Bill to-morrow it was true, but he
thought it would be as well to place the notice
on the book, in order that if the notices should be disposed
of in a reasonable time, they might go into the adjourned de-
bate on the Irish Bill. As the documents to which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had referred were all official docu-
ments,
he could have no objection to lay them before the'.
Mouse.

Mr. O'CO:,.;NELL said that the motion he contemplated
would not in the slightest degree affect the vote of thanks to
the Indian army.
ADJOURNMENT OF VIE HOUSE.
Lord DUNCAN inquired for what period the Hon.
Baronet intended to move the adjournment of the House for
the Easter recess

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that, under any circum-
stances whatever, he would not move the adjournment of the
House before Thursday week
and the longest period lie u as
prepa-ed to allow would be the shortest-that was ever given,
which would be about eleven days-
Lord INGES.IRE rose to bring under the notice of the
House the case of Mr. Wood, the proprietor of the Wolver-
hampton Chronicle, against whom an action for libel had been
brought by certain private individual,, for the publication of
a Government report upon the subject of the Lichfield
schools. He wished that some security should be given to per-
sonspublishing authentic documents.TheGovernment had pro-
tected the publisher of the report and paid the damages of 40s.
which the jury found against the publisher, while M r. Wood,
against whom the action had been brought for the same
Publication in his newspaper, had
been subjected to a fine of
501. for costs, whic!i the Governinent refused to liquidate.
Mr. CARDW ELL said that the two cases were quite dis-
trict ; th_• publisher of the Treasury was entitled: o protec-
tion, while Mr. Wood had no claim upon the Government,
he having made the publication in pursuance of his srdinary
avocation ; besides, it would be establishing a very bad prin-
ciple,r that the Government should pay the damages foand
aga n t every person who was made answerable for tie publi-
cation of Goverommt repco ts,, which often necessarily con-
tained some unintentional libels.
The ATTORS EY-GENERAL said he felt it due both to
the situation in which he was placed and his duty to his
clients to act in the manner he had done.
Mr. CHRISTIE thought that the Noble Lord had acted
perfectly right in bringing the subject before the House.
He begged to diffsr from the opinions of the Learned

Attorney-General upon the subject, and considered that the
proprietor of a newspaper should not be held responsible for
publishing in his paper copies of any official reports.
Lord SANDON thought it not surprising that the editor
of a newspaper in the neighbourhood of a school where such
a state of management existed, and seeing that state, should
notice it in his paper. He felt very deeply for the
poor man, who, no doubt, thought that he was acting in a
perfectly proper manner in publishing a part of what he
thought was an authentic document.
Mr. MUNTZ would be the last man to interfere with the
liberty of the public press. Mr. Wood had, in a manner most
unfoundedly and untruly, made comments upon the report.
Had he only published the report he thought he would have
had a strong case.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought the question was simply
whether the proprietors of a newspaper could publish reports
of this House, whether contained in their blue books or other
documents. He hoped, in the present case that some in-
dulgence would be shown to a person who had only acted in a
manner generally acted upon by the press at large.
Mr. EWART thought the House should not involve itself
in any collision with the courts of law.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not think the present was a case of
publishing reports of the House, but rather one in which unfair
comments had been made upon the reports of the editor of
the paper. The case had been submitted to two juries and
two verdicts, and he thought it highly improper that the
House should interfere.
Lord INGESTRE then withdrew his motion.
RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL.

Mr. MOFFATT then moved the second reading of the
Railway a- posits Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
object to the second reading, as some amendments which be
would wish to introduce might be introduced in Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL made some remarks, which were
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. MOFFATT would object to amendments being made
in Committee.

Mr. W. COLLETT thought that the great inconvenience
and loss attending railway deposits should be prevented by
some alteration in the law.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow.

(LEFT BITTINO.)

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Committee sat at eleven o'clock, and resumed the hearing of
evidence in the case of the

GROUP XXI.
LONDON AND OZWORD.

The Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour. Pre-
sent—Mr. Finch, chairman; Mr. Wodeheuse, Capt. Layard, and Mr.
Lawson.

The promoters proceeded to call evidence in support of the line.
Mr. Joseph Gillett, farming about 750 acres at Little Hazley, Ox-
fordshire, on the estate of Mr. Walter Long, through which the line
will run for two or three miles, stated that some of his produce was
sent to the Walling-road station of the Great Western Railway, 13
miles distant. He generally sent heavy sheep by the line, whilst he
sent the ligleer kind by foot t • the London market. He should at-
tend the Uxbridge market and send the whole of his sheep and cattle
by the line if it was made. He had made a calculation of the amount
of traffic which the country for a distance of 16 miles, and 6 miles
on each side of it, from Oxford to London, would yield, which was to
the following effect:-192 square miles were comprised in
these 16 miles, there were 640 acres to the square mile,
and the whole of the average 122,880. He deducted one-tenth for
waste and other lands, leaving 110,592 acres of producing land. He
averaged one fat sheep to each of these acres ; lambs, one-eighth of
the sheep, or one to every eighth acre, making a total, with the sheep,
of 124,416. He had deducted one-third for home consumption and
the Oxford market, leaving a gross total of 84,550 lambs and sheep.
The average distance which they travelled was forty miles. Their
transit by the railway would cost a halfpenny per head per mile, pro-
ducing a revenue of 6,9121. He averaged three beasts to every forty
acres, or 8,294, from which one-third had to be deducted for home
consumption and the Oxford market, leaving a total of 5,580, which
would cost 2d. per head per mile, or 6s. Bd. each for the journey of
forty miles, producing 1,8431. There would be 5,530 calves; after a
similar deduction, the cost of transmitting which would be three-
farthings per head per mile, or 2s. 6d. the whole distance, producing a
revenue of 691/. He gave ten pigs to every forty acres, or, 27,648,
which after deducting 9,216, or one-third, left 18,432. The transmission
of pigs cost the same as calves, and would realise 2.304/. ; total,
11,7501. He gave five quarters of wheat per acre, so that the arable
land would produced 23,256 tons of corn, which traversed, on the
average, twenty wiles of railway, which at 3d. per ton, per mile, or
ss. per ton the whole length, realised 8,0641. All these items gave a
total of 19,8141. He had omitted from this calculation minor articles
of consumption, such as coals, butter, wool, timber, rags, which
could not fail to realise a considerable revenue.
The witness in his cross-examination, stated that the line from
Thame to form a junction with the line at Aylesbury, would not be
of very great advantage, as the sending of goods to the north was
not a very profitable speculation. Of course if there was a better
market in the north for wool, it would be sent to them.
He believed the London and Birmingham Railway unloaded
sheep at Harrow, for the Southall market. The line from
Wycombe to Maidenhead would be of advantage to those
living in the district, and desirous of attending the Maiden-
head and Southall markets. He expected that the cost of conveying
sheep the whole course of the line would be Is. 6d. or 2s. He was
not aware that the Great Western charged 7d. per head for sheep
from Maidenhead. He had himself paid 2s, for that line. A few
sheep would go to Southall, because London was the last market.
By Mr. CALorm—The Great Western was about fifteen miles
from Carsington, and was approached with difficulty from that
point of the country, on account of its running for a considerable
distance on the west or oppOsite side of the Thames.
By Mr. WODEHOUSE—Uxbridge was a better market than Read-
ing. Wycombe was a good barley market.