The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

The Earl ST. GERMANS inquired if the papers re-
ferred
to were " private and confidential ?"
The Earl of CLANCARTY said they were, but that
nevertheless they contained the instructions of the Poor-
law Commissioners to Mr. Gunston.
Lord MONTEAGLE also considered that AO public
body had any right to refuse the production of papers
required by Parliament. The House was not only left
without information, but by having only a portion of
the information they required, was in a worse position
than if they had none at all.
Lot d CLARE said he was a member of the Committee;
that Mr. Gulston stated that he was forbidden to pro-
duce the papers by the Poor-law Commissioners.
Lord CAMPBELL said he apprehended there must
be seine mistake in this matter, as Mr. Gunston would
not have been so ridiculously absurd as to have re-
fused those papers.—(Hear, hear.) The Commissioners
were bound to produce all papers that were necessary
to facilitate this inquiry ; and it was for the Committee
to decide what papers were and were not necessary, and
not for the Commissioners. This was the most important
public inquiry that had been instituted for some time,
and therefore every facility should be afforded it.
Lord BR4 )UGHAM said that Mr. Gunston wrote a
letter to the Poor-law Commissioners to know whether,
if he should be called upon to produce certain papers, he
should do so ; and the answer was, that the papers were
private and confidential, and should not be produced.
He would not have said so much upon this case
but that he was already cognizant of a defi-
ciency of judgment by those Commissioners in refe-
rence to Mr. Parker's case. He had defended
the Poor-law Commissioners when they deserved de-
fence ; and, therefore, he now warned them to attend
more to the letter and the will of Parliament, and to do
their duty without fear of the newspapers.--(Hear,
hear.) That was the charge he made against them, for
they had avowed their fear of the press.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CLANCARTY presented a petition from
the medical practitioners of the county of Clare, praying
for the repeal of the present law affecting their pro-
fession.

CORN-LAWS.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented three petitions,
from certain landed proprietors of the county of Devon,
against the present measure. The same Noble Duke
presented a numerously-signed petition from the yoemen
of Norfolk, who complained that in the event of the
present measure of the Government passing, they
would be subjected ,to great injustice by the
coeration of the present Act of commutation
of tithes, which fixed the sum of money
to be paid for tithes upon the septennial
average of the price of corn, and the Government pro-
posed that at the end of three years all protection to the
landed interest should cease. They therefore prayed
that, in the event of the present measure becoming law,
their Lordships would introduce an Act to authorise the
taking of the average price of corn either yearly or half
yearly, instead of septennially, as regaired by the present
law. The petition was numerously and respectably signed;
and if he might prophesy, he would say that if the un •
fortunate measure of Government should receive the
sanction of their Lordships' House, many thousands of
petitioners would hold the same argument ; and he
(the Duke of Richmond), for one, did not see how the
argument could be got rid of.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented two
petitions, to which he begged to call their Lordships'
attention ; one was for the revival of the Committee of
last year, and the second for the appointment of a Com-
mittee to inquire into the validity of the subscrip-
tion deed of the company, or rather into the
admissibility of the new subscription contract.
Ihe points which the petitioners raised were purely
points of law, and he thought that their
Lordships should appoint a Committee to hear the
matter argued. It appeared that a great number of
names who had signed the old subscription list had not
subscribed the new, and he doubted much whether they
could be legally released from their engagement under
that deed. Another point also was that the parties claimed
to come before Parliament as the proprietors of the
deposits paid by other parties. Now, it was a question
whether any such transfer could be legal or re-
ceived by their Lordships' House, inasmuch as it
would be an evasion of the Stamp Act. These were
points which ought to be seen into, and therefore he
gave notice that to-morrow he would move for a Com-
mittee of the House upon the subject. The petitioners,
he might state, were James Tyler and George Payne.
Lord BEAUMONT said that they had nothing
to do with the subscription-list of last year. There
could be no transfer from a deed not in existence.

Lord CLANRICARDE thought that the present
London and York projectors had in that case no right to
come in under the old subscription contract, and there-
fore no right to claim the advanced stage they were at
present in.
Lord BEAUMONT—The parties were now in a very
different position.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY did not think such a
condition could be complied with.
Earl GREY considered that it was quite necessary
that they should have a new deed.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that the present deed might
be considered a substitution for the old deed. Last year
an objection had been taken to the contract deed, and
a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject,
the report of which had not been received prior to the
dissolution of Parliament. The new contract-deed only
contained the names of 280 persons out of the whole
who subscribed to the old contract-deed. This was
a substitution of an entirely new instrument for the old
one. What was intended by the standing orders of the
House-was, that owing to the latenesslof the session, and
theinedequacy of Parliament to adjudicate on all the rail-
way Bills submitted for their consideration, parties should
be placed in as favourable a position as if the session
had been protracted. But if parties were allowed to sub-
stitute a different instrument in lieu of the old one, for
the purpose of protecting themselves from the charges
brought against them, whether true or false, they would
be put in a better condition than projects in which no
blemish rested, and which stood an excellent chance of
meeting with the approbation of Parliament. But this
was not intended; and, had it been suggested, would not
have been acceeded to. Their Lordships did not intend
to allow the Bill to stand over, unless it was produced in
the same state this session as it was left during the last.
The Duke of RICHMOND considered that they could
not bind those who had put their names to the deed, on
the understanding that it should be passed last session,
to be responsible for the Bill during the present session.
He considered that parties must withdraw from the con-
tract into which they had entered, as the Bill did not
pass last session. Besides, owing to speculating in rail-
ways, and other causes, they must have altered their
minds, and might not feel it convenient to renew the re•
sponsibility.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE would not then
reply to these questions. It would be a question whether
their Lordships would recognise those deposits as paid
by those parties as transferees or assignees, because
they could not show the proper stamped documents with
respect to the transfer.
Lord REDESDALE protested against the present
system of hanging up Bills, as one which was highly
unjust. It was impossiEe to treat this petition fairly.
The question had been decided before the Standing
Orders Committee last year, and, in all probability this
Bill would have been thrown out. He hoped that the
example which had been set of hanging up Bills would
not be followed.

Lord KINNAIRD said, that as this was a most
important Bill, he hoped their Lordships would give it
a favourable consideration.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that last session was
almost wholly occupied in the consideration of railway
Bills, and the result was the expenditure of enormous
sums of money in this particular project ; and he be-
lieved that, if their Lordships inquired into this matter,
it would be found that the manner in which the Bill
had been brought before Parliament, was most credit-
able to the parties concerned ; indeed, he believed that
was the conclusion to which the other House had ar-
rived. Under such circumstances, he could not but
think it considerably unjust, if their Lordships com-
pelled the promoters of the Bill to commence anew this
session.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BEAUMONT felt certain that if they did not
make some alloWances in favour of the promoters, there
never would be a road from London to York.
THE GREAT WESTERN AND PORT DARLING-