The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-24 00:00:00

ctl ttenill

LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 1846

The Lords did not sit last evening.
The Commons assembled at Four o'Clock.
In answer to a question from Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
It was stated by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
that he could not consent to any alteration of the stand-
ing orders regulating Railway deposits.
Mr. MANGLES complained that the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER had taken a very one-sided view of
the question, which affected not only railway share-
holders, but all merchants and traders.
Mr. MASTERMAN also considered the reply of the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER as very unsatisfactory.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD,

Sir R. PEEL suggested the propriety of postponing
the question until after Monday, and the subject
dropped.
On the motion for bringing up the report on the

Address, •
Mr. COLQUHOUN rose, and in a long speech attacked
Sir H. PEEL, and defended the cause of protection to the
landed interest.

Mr. HUME expressed his satisfaction at the conduct
of the Government.

Sir R. PEEL said that in pursuing the settlement of
the great question which now agitates the public mind,
on just and equitable terms with that people with whose
welfare his' own was altogether bound up, he should not
allow any personal considerations or private motives to
make him swerve from the principles which he had
laid down.

In answer to questions from Lord J. RUSSELL on the
subject of Oregon,

Sir R. PEEL said that a proposal had been made by

the PRESIDENT of the United States, in which it was
suggested that a division of that territory should be
made ; but the terms that had been proposed fur this
division were so little likely to be accepted, that Mr.
PAKENHAM had intimated as much as that the proposal
might as well be withdrawn. Now, with respect to that
gentleman, he would only say, that though he enter-
tained fur him the highest respect, it would have been
much better had he transmitted to the Home Govern-
ment here the usual accounts of what had come to his
knowledge on this question. Since then the offer of this
country had been refused on the terms he had stated ; a
new course had been adopted, and it had been agreed
upon to refer the question to arbitration, but no answer
to that offer had yet been received.
The O'CONNOR DON asked if it was intended to in-
troduce any measure for the settlement of the landlord

and tenant question in Ireland ?
Sir R. PEEL hoped the question would be repeated in
a few days, when he would be prepared to answer it.
Mr. BANKEs expressed himself at a loss to conceive
what could have been the reasons which had induced
Sir R. PEEL to change his opinions on the subject of
Protection. He felt convinced that, when the occasion
should arrive, he (Mr. BANKES) should be able to give,
to many of the facts and statements of the Right Hon.
Baronet, a positive denial.
After a few words from Mr. S. CRAWFORD, the mo-
tion was agreed to, and Sir R. PEEL signified that her
Majesty would receive the Address at half-past two
this day.
Sir R. FREMANTLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill

for the extension and promotion of public works in
Ireland.
After which the report was brought up, and the House
adjourned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer,',on the sub
ject of the railway deposits, appears to us extremely
unsatisfactory. So far as reasons are concerned, it was
in fact no answer at all. To enable the railway de-
posits to be paid in Exchequer-bills, Government Stock
and India. Bonds would have no more to do with en-
couraging speculations than Tenterden's steeple had to
do with Goodwin Sands. The difficulty to be met is
not a difficulty as to getting in money for railway pro-
jects, but a difficulty as to paying into the Bank
money already got : and it is not the
railway speculators who are interested in the alteration,
but all the moneyed and commercial interests of the king-
dom. Not one railway company in difficulty for want
of funds would be helped over the stile by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer's consent to the propo,ed alteration;
but it would give a relief at this moment to the whole
commercial credit of the country, and more especially lo
the metropolis, and we only hope that it is not necessary
to save other banks from following in the train of the
two northern banks which have lately failed. These
two banks have failed owing to the difficulty about
railway deposits. They have to thank the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. If he had in November
the assurance
haveassuranceb e
ewnh
ni co a
h thelar
alarm
oi City d
im
y deputationeaudietybaybloludesired,thegiventlhwe,
railway
deposit question. The allusion m
yesterday to the railway speculation had nothing a
u3N
with the question ; and it is rather too hard that e the,
moneyed interests of the country should be sacrificed, b
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ignorance, to a mi.?'
applied moral ardour.
Reilway companies that have invested their funds in
approved securities until the time came for paying the
deposits have, under the present law, but to sell out in
order to deposit with the Accountant-General, and then,
after having deposited, buy in again. What is the use ,
at best, of this buying in and selling out? But it is no t
merely that it is useless, but absolutely a loss to tilt..
companies, and no earthly purpose of good. Over and
above the brokerage expenses, when all are selling out ,
the value of the securities fall, and, when all are buy in; ;
in again, rises ; so that there is no saying what IoE a
may not be incurred by railway companies. And th