The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-03 00:00:00

WORCESTER.

In the room of Sir T. WILDE, who has been ap-
pointed her Majesty's Attorney-General,

DUNGARVAN.

In the room of the Right Ilon. R. L. SUIEIL, who
has accepted the office of Master of the Mist.

PERTH.

In the room of the Right Hon. FOX MAULE,
who has been appointed Secretary-at-War.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and
summoned the attendance of the Commons to hear the
Royal Assent given by Commission to various Bills (for
which see Lords' report).
OUTRAGE ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Thomas
Brodigan, Esq , Pilton House, County Meath, a magis-
trate of that county, complaining of the outrage to which
be, in common with other British subjects, was subjected
on the occasion of his visiting Jerusalem on Good Friday
last (detailed in the correspondence which appeared
in the The Sun of yesterday), and praying that
effective measures may be resorted to by the English
Government, which will cause the Sublime Porte to
exert a more repressive authority against such outrages,
and thus protect British travellers visiting the East.
CLARK'S DIVORCE BILL.

Lord DUNCAN moved that a message should be sent
to the Lords, requesting their Lordships to furnish this
House with a copy of the minutes of the evidence taken
in Clark's Divorce Bill.
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time:—
Clark's Divorce.
Ely and Huntingdon Railway (Bedford Extension).
Howell's Charity Estate.
Sheffield and Lincolnshire Extension Railway.
Somerset Small Debts Court.
GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION RAILWAY.
Mr. HODGSON moved thus the further consideration
of the report on this Bill should be postponed until the
evidence had been printed.
After some considerable di .cussion strangers were
ordered to withdraw.
On our re-admission we found that no division had
taken place, but that the postponement of the question
had been agreed to.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
several of the shareholders of the South-Western Rail-
way Company praying that the House would not grant
any power to the Portarlington Railway Company,
which would allow that Company to purchase their line
of railway. They also prayed that the decision of the
Committee with regard to that railway might be allowed
to stand.
Mr. F. FRENCH, in moving the re-committal of the
Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway) Bid,
said that there was naturally and equitably a
feeling in the House to support the de-
cision of its Committees, and such a feeling
should not be departed from unless upon some strong
and peculiar grounds. This Bill had received the sanc-
tion of the Board of Trade and had actually passed both
Lords and Commons. The evidence on which the decision
had been come to, and the decision of which he com-
plained, was in the bards of every Member of that House.
The Committee came to the decision that they would not
allow parties to be heard in opposition to the preambl e
of tho Bill, notwithstanding which they admitted such
evidence. The line was recommended by the Board of
Trade because it would open up railway communi-
cation between the eastern, western, and southern
ports of Ireland. After stating that the Bill ha
received the sanction of the House of Lords, he
said he called for a revision of the Bill on the broad
ground of public interest and national justice.
They had witnesses to prove that another line would
have been more consonant with the public good, but the
Chairman refused to hear the evidence. He looked in
vain for any reasons which would have justified
the Committee having thrown out the line which
he (Mr. French) advocated. The opposing counsel to
it admitted that they had completely proved the pre-
amble of the Bill, yet the Committee came to a far differ-
ent conclusion. Their great object was to open the
western district and thus open the fisheries,
for which a Dutch company, in the reign
of Charles the Second, paid for liberty to fish 5,0001. per
annum. They depended on the fact of being able to
connect Liverpool with America by a voyage of seven
days ; and with such evidence betore them he wondered
how the decision had been arrived at by the Committee.
Mr. W. COLLETT, in rising to second the motion,
expressed his astonishment at the decision the Committee
had come to, seeing that the Dublin and Galway line
was the only railway that proposed to accommodate
Galway, and thought, as Parliament last year all but
sanctioned the measure, the House ought to support its
decision of the former Committee.
Mr. MACKENZIE defended the course adopted by
the Committee. He denied that the Bill was the same
as the one which was before the House last year, and he
would therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. REDINGTON believed that the Committee had
acted conscientiously, but their decision was nothing
less than absurd.--(Hear, hear.) All his lion. Friend
sought by his motion was, that the House should give
effect to the decision given by the House of Lords on
this subject during the last session of Parlia-
ment. The Bills were not necessarily competing
Bills, and the House of Lords, looking upon
them in that light, had passed them. Be-
lieving that his Ilonourable Friend had made out a
sufficient case for his motion, he should give him his
support. If the motion were not agreed to, he considers d
that the vast population which would be accommodated
by this railway would be most unjustly treated.
Mr. B. BALDWIN briefly supported the motion.
Mr. ARMSTRONG thought the line under con-
sideration objectionable, as a means of communica-
tion with the West of Ireland. The proper route for
Galway was by Mullingar. He should as soon
think of going to Bristol by way of Southampton,
as go from Dublin to Galway by the route of Mullingar.
Ireland should be supplied by three great trunk lines—
to the north by Belfast, to the south by Kilkenny, and
to the west by Mullingar.
Mr. ROSS said he would say a few words on the pe-
tition presented that evening against the recommital of
the Bill. He was informed that the promoters of the
Dublin and Galway Railway would not make the line
on their own responsibility, for the shareholders had
held a meting, and agreed not to go on with the Bill,
unless it was leased to another company.
Mr. BLAKE opposed the re-committal of the Bill, on
the ground that the town of Athlone would not support
two railways.
Mr. MOFFATT was also of opinion that the decision
of the Committee ought to be supported as it was quite
carried out by the evidence.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE said, that in consequence
of one or two observations which had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Roscommon, some answer was required
from him. What were the reasons which the Hon.
Member for Roscommon adduced the recommittal
of the Bill. The first ground of complaint
was that he (Mr. Duncombe) as chairman of the
Committee, did not turn a Parliamentary agent out
of the room for giving his counsel the lie.
What was it that the Honourable Member for Roscom-
mon (Mr. F. French):proposed ? Why, that the
Bill should be re-committed, but that it should
not be sent back to the same committee ? What
was this but saying that it shall be sent back
to some other Committee, whose decision was to over-
throw the decision of a Committee properly conslituted,
and this he believed to be so contrary to the usage of
the House that it was not at all likely to be adopted.
The Honourable Member for Dundalk had stated that
he should have been satisfied if the Committee had
passed both lines, and that good feeling would
thereby have been secured ;
but he must say in
reply to this, he (Mr. Duncombe) was bound to assert
that he had never in the
whole course of his
life seen such bad policy and so much jealousy as had
been exhibited by both parties in this Committee. It
should be recollected that this line had last session
been thrown out by the Lords. The same had
occurred with regard to the Portarlington line, as
well also in the case of the Mullingar and Galway line.
The Cashel line, it was notorious, was to be sold to this
Company, and he thought therefore, that, taking all the
circumstances into consideration, there was every reason
,
for the decision at which the Committee had arrived.
Then the Irish Great Western, by an agreement, was to
cease to exist if they obtained this Act, as they had en-
tered into an agreement to sell it to the Cashel
Company. What guarantee had the public
that this line would be made to Gal way ?
He maintained, therefore, that the Mulllingar
Company ought not to be entrusted with the construc-
tion of this line of railway. Then it was necessary three-
fifths of the shareholders of the Cashel Company
should be in favour of carrying out this
bargain, but thefevidence adduced before the Committee
was to the effect that that Company would not con-
sent to such an agreement. The petitions, too,
presented from parties holding shares in the Company,
were to the same effect. What operated on the minds
of the committee was, that the Carlisle Company ware
not the parties to make this railway. Sir John Bur-
goyne, whose official position rendered him an impartial
witness, was also of the same opinion, and considered
that there ought to be three main branch lines—one
radiating from Dublin down to Cashel and the

-
southern part of Ireland—the other going west
by Mullingar, through Athlone to Galway, and
the other from Dublin to Belfast. The lion.

Member here produced a large map of Ireland