The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 17.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURT took his seat on the Woolsack
shortly before Five o'clock.
Several railway Bills were brought up from the House of
Commons and read a first time.
SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLN RAILWAY.
A NOBLE Loan presented two petitions in favour of this
railway, one of which was from the mayor and corporation of
Grimsby. His Lordship also expressed a hope that the Bill
woukl receive the assent of their -Lordships.
LUNATICS BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Huntingdon against the Lunatics Bill of last session.
UNION SETTLEMENTS.
•
The NoisLx Doxx also presented a petition praying that
union settlements might not ake place.
POST-tOFFICE.
Lord BROUGHAM moved for a return of the revenue
and expenses of the Post-office for the year ending the 18th
of January, 1846, which was agreed to.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the
ehurchwardens and overseers of Bury, in Lancashire, praying
their Lordships to pass a measure preventing the sale of spiri-
tuous liquors on the Sabbath.
BATHS AND WASHHOUSES.
The Right Rev. PRELATE also presented a petition from
the churchwardens and overseers of St. Clements Danes,
praying their Lordships to pass a measure to entitle parishes
to borrow money for the purpose of erecting baths and wash-
houses for the poor.

SIGNING PROTESTS.
Lord REDESDALE called the attention oftheir Lordships
to the signing of protests by Peers who were not present at
the debates on the question to which their protests had
reference. He was fully aware that there was an impression
abroad, that unless Peers were present when questions were
put that they were not in a position to sign protests with
respect to them. He had referred to authorities,
and found an instance of a Peer signing a pro-
test who was not present at the debate on
the subject to which it had reference, in the person of the
Duke of Somerset, in 1823, who signed a protest when an
amendment was moved to an address to the Crown, he not
having been in his place at the time it was put, but as he was
present at the debate on the subject, leave was
given to his Grace to sign the protest. That
was the only instance he could find of recent
date.. He had also referred to the first three volumes of
" Grantham," in which he found three cases of Peers signing
protest, who were not present at the debates on the questions
to which they referred. The first occurred on the
3d of September, 1678, when Lord Clare signed a
protest to a Supply Bill; the next in 1720, fifty years
afterwards, by Lord Heytesbury, and the next by Lord Not-
tingham, who was not present. After referring to the stand-
ing order, he went on to say that there was nothing in it
requiring that Peers should be present at the discussion on
measures to enable them to sign protests with respect to them.
He had given their Lordships three instances in which it so
happened that there was a difference of fifty years between
the giving of those protests ; those Peers signed protests al-
though they were not present during the debates. The sub-
ject, however, was well worth an inquiry and alteration.
Lord CAMPBELL said that, in his opinion, those persons
only who were present during a debate were entitled to enter a
protest, because a protest was understood to come from a Peer
whose arguments had been overruled. But how could a
Peer who was never present at all during the debate be sup-
posed to be overruled in that sense ?
Lord BROUGHAM said that the Noble Baron (Lord
Redeadale) had, it appeared, given expression to the general
impression on this subject, but he did not exactly agree
with his Noble Friend's arguments as to the principles which
he had laid down with respect to the eternity of proxies.
Lord REDESDALE—Protests, not proxies.
Lord BROUGHAM—However, he hoped that these prac-
tices might soon expire notwithstanding the prayer which had
been offered by the Noble Marquis (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) for their immortality.—(Laughter.)
Lord LANSDOWNE—I did say colloquially, " immortal
may they be."
Lord BROUGHAM—" May they be"—( Great Laughter.)
Some conversation ensued on the subject, in which several
Noble Lords took part.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills.
SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLN RAILWAY.
Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition in favour of this
railway, and moved the third reading of the Bill.
The Earl of JERSEY opposed the third reading, and pro-
ceeded to allege residential injury in cases where compensation
could not be given. It passed for a length of two miles over
his property in a very objectionable manner—in such a manner
as he did not think the House would sanction. The Noble
Lord concluded by moving, that the order of the day for the
third reading of this Bill be discharged, and suspended until
February, 1847, in order that in the meantime the practicabi-
lity of forming a better and more direct line between Sheffield
and Lincoln may be considered, less obnoxious to the interest
of the landed proprietors, and more conducive to the public
interests.
Lord SOMERS replied to the remarks of the Noble Duke,
and said. that the Bill was well worthy of adoption on the part
of their Lordships. There were certainly some dissentients
on the line, but they were by no means numerous. He hoped,
in conclusion, that they would pass the Bill, and so act in ac-
cordance with the opinions of their own Committee which had
been appointed to inquire into this subject.
Lord HANBURY avowed his extreme distaste to all rail-
roads.—(Laughter.) Indeed he would, if he had the power,
consign them to a certain locality, to which he would not more
particularly allude.—(Great Laughter.) This line proposed
to mutilate his property in a most objectionable manner.
However he would not oppose, although he did not mean to
support the Bill. He believed, in his conscience' that the
line would be as beneficial to the country as moat of the lines
with which they were threatened.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl FITZ WILLIAM was not about to enter upon a general
crusade against all railways,lafter the manner of his Noble Friend,
but he must express his opinion that their Committees were
not constituted on just foundations. He denied that they
were free from the charge of impartiality and ignorance. In
an earlier period of the session he had the good fortune to be
a member of one of those Committees, and he knew that his
duty was to perform his labours conscientiously and imparti-
ally.—( Hear, hear.) But he was called upon to pronounce
upon a railway which would pass through a portion of the
country on which he had never put his foot; and, there-
fore, he knew not whether his decision was just or not.
It was a matter of notoriety that the Parliamentary agents
took good care to bring forward what was called "good wit-
nesses" in favour of their case; that was to say, men who were
not overscrupulous in what they said; and he was afraid that
such men had been brought forward in support of this Bill.
He objected to this Bill because it was not a proper line, inas-
much as it would not pass through the important district of
Rotherham.—( Hear, hear.) He had reason to believe
that the Committee on this Bill did not hear the engineer
that would have given evidence in favour of the rival Bill.
He would, therefore, gladly support the Noble Duke's very
reasonable proposition. That proposition would have the effect
of stopping the Bill this season, but it would be the most just
way of proceeding.
Lord BROUGHAM had no great opposition to offer to
the proposition, but inasmuch as the, stopping of this Bill, the
merits of which had been fully considered, would, in his
opinion, create great mischief, because it would set the bad
precedent of upsetting the decision of the Committees.—
( Hear, hear.) He had no wish to consign this or any other
railway to that place where the iron would melt—(Laughter)
—but he certainly did regret seeing the face of the country
cut up for the purpose of railways, and the good old mode of
English travelling superseded.—(Hear, hear.) If the railways
were not seat to that place which had not been named, pe:haps
the greater part of their promoters would —(Laughter.) He
should always objet to cases like these being sent back to the
Committee!.
Lord VAUX, as a member of the Committee, replied to the
observations of the Noble Duke, and contended that they
were justified in coming to the decision that it was the best
and most direct line. In fact the Noble Duke himself, he be-
lieved, was in favour of the line when it was projected.
The Duke of NEWCAS CLE—When was that ?
Lord VAUX—In 1645, he believed. He hoped their
Lordships would uphold the decision of the Committee by al-
lowing the Bill to pass a third time.
The Earl of RADNOR briefly supported the Bill. The
towns of Sheffield and Lincoln, if the Bill were thrown
out, would be deprived of a direct communication with
London, and many other advantages which it would confer
on them.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he by no means wished
to throw out this Bill. He also felt the mischief that would
follow the overruling of the decisions of the Committee ;, but
he really believed that the postponing of the Bill would be of
great service to the public.
After a few word from Lord KINNAIRD, in support of
the Bill,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE consented to withdraw his
motion.
. RATIFICATION OF THE OREGON TREATY.
The Mare uia of L A NSDO WNE said that he had great sa-
tisfaction in laying upon the table of their Lordships' House,
according to her Majesty's commands, the treaty concluded
between her Majesty and the United States, for the settlement
of the Oregon question, the ratifications of which had been ex-
changed this day.—.( Loud cheers.)
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE.
The Marcpis of LANSDOWNE moved that. the Earl of
Stafford be added to the Committee of Classification, in the
room of Lord Beshorough.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE'S AND LORD GOUGH'S
ANNUITY BILLS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third reading of
these Bills.
The Duke of It [CHMOND would not object at the present
stage of the proceedings, after the decision which had been
come to upon the subject. He thought, however, if passed,
they would lead to the establishment of a dangerous precedent.
He could not see why an officer of the army was not to be
rewarded in the same manner as a civilian. Then there was one
subject connected with India which had given him great regret.
It was, that more notice had not been taken of the gallant
officer Sir Charles Napier. He considered that he had been
as brave an officer as any one who had commanded in that
country. He not only conquered Scinde, he defeated the
robber tribes, penetrated into their fastnesses with great
military skill, and with a great deal of hrdwor k ;end
them,
having endured many privations, he succeeded in taking
and showed himself an efficient civil governor. brought
these tribes down, and made them cultivate the land ;t.he
eaythad
given up their predatory habits, and were now living
ate
of fieriest industry. He had conciliated the affectionsi of* the
soldiers under his command, and he was beloved by all the
people whom he had conquered. He therefore thought
that some mark of approbation, besides a mere vote of thank.,
should be bestowed upon him. He knew it was a very diffi-
cult subject to touch upon, connected as it was so closely with
the prerogatives of the Crown. Ile could not, howeeer,allow
the present occasion to pass without expressing his regret that
the gallant services of Sir Charles Napier had not been re-
warded in the manner they deserved.
Lord BUOUGIIA AI quite concurred in the opinion just
owpressed by the Noble Duke. He did not believe the history
of war presented a more gallant soldier or a more able com-
mander. Ile thought, that even in the field of India, where
so much gallant blood had been shed, and so much bravery
eehibited, the battles in which the Gallant General Sir C.
Napier had been triumphantly engaged would stand out
gloriously prominent. The Noble Duke, who at one period
of his military career had served with such talent and bravery
in India, had alluded on a former occasion to the incomparable
valour of Sir C. Napier. lie quite agreed with the Noble
Doke who had just sat down as to the delicacy of dealing with
this subject ; but he thought the present case was One so strong
that it really seemed to furnish an excel tion sufficient to justify
the exception to the general rule.
After a few words from the Duke of GRAFTON, who said
he thought sufficient thanks had not been given to Almighty
God for their late successes in India, the Bills were read a
third time and passed.
SUNDAY TRADING.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from a place,
fhe name of which we were not able to catch, praying her
Majesty's Government to pass as speedily as possible a general
measure of a sinaila,r nature to that which had received the
sanction of the Legislature a short time since; he meannthe.
Metropolitan Polices Act, which prevented public-houses and
beer-shops from opehing their shops for the sale of intoxicating
liquor4on the Lor9ll)y, He regretted the evils which arose
boa druhliiureatimong the laVouring classes. He trusted that'