The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-22 00:00:00

EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF TRADING ABOL

TION (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
RE WARDS FOR THE APPREHENSION OF

OFFENDERS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid upon the table of the
House a return of the amount of moneys paid as rewards for
the apprehension of offenders.
SPEEDY REMOVAL OF NUISANCES BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDO\VNE moved that the House
shculd resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of con-
sidering the provisions of this Bill, and took occasion to state
the nature of its operations. He stated that the Bill
had been called for in consequence of the late un-
healthy season, and the prevalence of epidemic disease.
Among other provisions there were several providing
for the due and proper whitewashing of dwelling-
houses, and making it compulsory upon the landlords
to remove all offensive matter, and other nuisances.
The expense thus created was to he defrayed either by
the owners or the occupiers of the houses ; and it was pro-
posed that this enactment should be carried into effect
by town councils, commissioners, and boards of guardians.
That the Bill was necessary it was superfluous to bring
forward any details to prove, as he was sure their Lordships
would concur in its propriety. He would conclude by moving
that the House should go into Committee on the Bill.
The Marquis of LAN SDOWNE, in reply to Lord Ranfurly,
said that another Bill of a similar character was proposed to be
brought forward, having reference to Ireland.
The Bill then went through Committee, and was ordered to
be reported to-morrow.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Bill would be
read a third time on Monday, and he would then take an op-
portunity of referring to the Land Valuation (Ireland) Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, August 21.
RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS' BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
HENLEY would not object to the Bill, if it merely
transfeCred the powers of the Board of Trade to the new de-
partment, but the latter part of the Bill gave additional
powers, to which he objected, and the due consideration of
which could not take place in the present thin state of the
House. If tht: Noble Lord would consent to his suggestion,
and limit the provisions of the Bill in the way he stated, he
would not object to it, but, otherwise, he would oppose those
clauses when they came under consideration.
Mr. HUME defended the Bill, and considered that a body
of the kind proposed to be appointed was, in the present state
of railway business, absolutely necessary. If the Hon. Gentle-
man who had objected to the powers conferred by the Bill had
been, like him, on the Committee which suggested the ap-
pointment of the board, and had heard the evidence of the
engineers and others who were examined, he would not con-
sider the powers too extensive, or more than were required
tinder the circumstances.
After a few words from Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET,
,The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it
won,
'd be time enough when the House went into Committee
to cousider the objectionable clauses. He was fully aware of the
inconvonience of bi inging, forward the question at this late period
of the session, but if they did not appoint a railway board now,
they would be in the same position next session as they were
at the beginning of this session, and, under these circum-
stances, he thoaght it much better if they passed the present
ESTCOURT made some observations which did not
reach the gallery.
HORSMAN thought at present the functions of the
Board of Trade and the Railway Committees were very un-
defin ed, and left every member of a Committee in doubt as to the
power the Committee could exercise. He therefore thought
that the establishment of such a board as that proposed by the
present Bill was very necessary.
Mr. P. HOWARD thought that the Commissioners, when
they shoul be appointed, should have their attention directed
to the great .speed now applied on railways, as it was a matter
of :much irnpovtance to the safety of the public at large.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that the speed on railways was a
great public convenience, and should not be reduced. He
should, however, in consequence of wher circumstances, join in
suggesting that he consideration of the present question should
be deferred until the ensuing session.
Lard J. RUSSELL said that he had not the smallest wish
for the introduction of this Bill, but he understood that it was
the opinion generally of Committees of that House, and of all
persons .connected with them, that it was desirable such a Bill
should be introduced. He thought, however, as the opinion
of the House was so strongly in favour of this Bill, that it ought
to be proceeded with. It would, however, be impossible to invest
the Commissioners under this Bill with all the powers at present
exercised by Railway Committees.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought that the Bill ought only to be
made temporary—to continue until the end of next session.
After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON,
MUNTZ said that the object of the Bill appeared to
biot to be to save the railway companies the enormous xpe
attendant upon their being compelled to bring up witnesses to
The Commissioners would have powers to make local
investigations, which powers were not possessed by the Board
of Trade.
Mr, WA KLEY said, that considering the gigantic evils
%chic+ were said to emiet, both in and out of that
House, with reference to the railway system, any-
thing 'novo incompetent to remedy them than the
present measure he could not conceive. Ile could not dis.
cover that the five Commissioners to be appointed could render
any effectual service. He should be most willing to support
any vote of the public money for the establishment of any
office which could really be of s !rvice, but he certainly should
dissent from any vote for so inefficient a tribunal as the one
71.-oposed, and he thought that the further consideration of the
pi\ .sent subject should be postponed.
Ildr. WILLIAMS hoped that her Majesty's Government
would not consent to any postponement of the measure, as he
considered that the Bill, as a temporary measure, would be
am} sly efficient for all the objects intended.
A tter some further consideration the gallery was cleared for
a div ision, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —64
The. House then went into Committee on the Bill, when
Col onel SIBTHORP upbraided the conduct of those
gentle men who, after having spoken against the Bill,
Yet v oted for it when the House came to divide.
'Thank: God'. he had never been guilty of such
..despic able conduct; his course had always been con-
sists*: :and independent. The introduction of such an bal.

portant Bill as this at so late a period of the session was nothing
less than a gross trick played upon unsuspecting and
absent Members. Had he chosen last night he could
have stopped the further progress of the Bill this session, he-
cause there were not forty Members present at the time that it
was read a second time, but he scorned taking advantage of any
underhand work.
Mr. WILLIAMS, in reply to some remarks that had fallen
from the Hon. and Gallant Member, said that he did not an-
ticipate being appointed, nor would he consent to receive any
appointment under this Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP—" Hear, hear."
Lard G. SOMERSET made a few observations on the Bill,
which were inaudible in the reporters' gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Government were of opinion that the President of the
new Commission to ba appointed under this Bill should
be a Member of either that or the other House of Par-
liament, so that he might be prepared to furnish any
information connected with the Commission to such Mem-
bers of the House as might desire it. He was
happy to find that the jealousy of members •of such
boards holding seats in Parliament was rapidly dying away.
The object of the Government in introducing this Bill was to
appoint men in the place of the former Commissioners
who would command the confidence of the public, which,
from some reason or other the late Commissioners did not,
notwithstanding their great talents and fitness for their office.
The only new burdens which this Bill would impose upon the
public would be the payment of the services of the President
and two Commissioners.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that the arrangement for ap-
pointing the head of the proposed board bore very much the
character of a job, and he should oppose the Bill by all the
forms of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied any
knowledge of any job, either existing or intended.
Atter some further discussion, in which Mr. Borthwick,
Mr. Morris, Mr. Escott, Mr. Turner, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and Mr. Henley took part, the clause was agreed to.
Clauses 2,3, and 4 were then agreed to without a division.
On Clause 5 being proposed,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK moved an amendment to the
effect, that instead of the words " and two other commis-
sioners," to substitute the words " vice-president and secre-
tary."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it
better to leave the clause as it stood, so as to have two per-
manent working commissioners.
Mr. ESCOTT thought so many Commissioners as five
quite uncalled for. He did not think the railway business of
the country would be so much as to require the services of so
many persons.
Colonel SIBTHORP took a similar view of the question.
Mr. BORTHWICK then withdrew his amendment.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, which did not
reach the gallery, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 6 being proposed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the salary of the president of the board would be
2,0001. per annum, and the salaries of the two paid Com-
missioners would be 1,5001. per year.
After some observations from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Mr. B. ESCOTT moved that the salary of the president be
reduced to 1,0001.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought that the salary was not too
high, for it would require a man of very considerable talent,
and would entail considerable responsibility on him, and
there would be no officer in that House who would be so fre-
quently called upon to explain the conduct of his board.)
Mr. BORTH WICK agreed with the Noble Lord that the
salary of 2,0001. would not be too much, but he objected to the
principle of estimating a man's talents and usefulness by the
pounds, shillings, and pence which he received.
The amendment was then put and negatived.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved, as an amendment, that the words
" one thousand five hundred" be struck out from the clause.
After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 6 was then agreed to.
Considerable discussion took place on the next three clauses,
which wese ultimately agreed to.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. MUNTZ proposed an amendment to give greater
effect to the local examinations to be instituted by the Com-
missioners as to any projected railway.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no ob-
jection to the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. ESCOTT and Mr. P. M. Sum..
A RT, the amendment was agreed to.
The clause was then adopted.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the House re-
sumed. Report to be brought up to-morrow.
POOR EMPLOYMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the receiving of the report on
this Bill being read,
Sir D. NORREYS said that he had an amendment to move
in reference to this Bill, and he wished to know from the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government what course he
should take ?
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the Bill should be re.
committed, and
The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee on
this Bill.
Sir D. NORREYS said he would postpone his amend-
ments till the third reading.
The report was then gone through, and ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow.
PATENT COMMISSIONS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
RECTORY OF NOCTON—EXPLANATION OF
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK.

Lord G. BENTINCK rose and said, that after the accuse-
,on that had been made on his conduct in this transaction else-
where, he was sure the House would grant him its indulgence
while endeavouring to justify his own conduct, and to defend
his character. He would not atop to excuse himself
for having hastily made on last Wednesday a retractation
of some expressions he had uttered. It bad been stated that he
could make that retractation as unfoundedly as he could make
the charge, without investigation. Now if he had made any
unfounded charge he would be as ready as any one
to admit his error. Now it should be remembered
that he made this retractation on an investigation
of the Clergy List. But he took leave here to say that the
nobleman who had made the charge should have been the last
to do so. The Clergy List was a copy of the ecclesiastical
report. That ecclesiastical report was made by a Government
of which Sir R. Peel was the head, and the nobleman to whom
he alluded was the Lord Chancellor. The recommendation
was signed, amongst others, by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the Archbishop of York, by the Bishop of London, and by the
Bishop of Lincoln, in whose diocese the living was situated ;
and by Mr. Brewer, and a great many others ; and would have
been signed in the ordinary course of things by Lord Lynd-
hurst. He thought, therefore, it was not on light grounds
that he made the charge; and when a conviction seized him
that he might have been in error, he came immediately to the
House and withdrew what he had stated. He said before that
it was a matter of great suspicion. He did not pretend to say
that in a matter of this kind, in which transactions took place
between two Cabinet Ministers—between two colleagues—he
could be expected to produce any letters or any contract that
was made. lie thought that the House and the country, not-
withstanding the explanations that had been given elsewhere,
would still be of opinion that great suspicion attached to this
distribution of patronage, and, to say no more, that it was a
friendly exchange. It wool be in the recollection of the House
that it was stated by his Right Hon. Friend the President of
the Board of Control, that Sir H. Roper received, not an invi-
tation, but an offer on the 2'2d of November, and that his reply
(as he understood) was on the 14th of February, and received
on the 27th of March. Now, by the admissions elsewhere,
they had learned that the first appointment was offered, and not
given—offered to a gentleman of eminence at the bar at the
time, and that it took place without any consultation with Lord
Lyndhurst. That offer was declined. This probably took
place some time between the 27th of March and the Bth of
May ; and, if a Committee of Inquiry were appointed on the
subject, they would find that in answer to the applications made,
a great part of them were made to Lord Lyndhurst, who in-
variably replied that the office of Chief Justice of Bombay was
not in his gift, but in the gift of the President of the Board of
Control. On the Bth of May, the Dean of Windsor, incum-
bent of Nocton, died suddenly. As admitted in the corres-
pondence read elsewhere, and which had been published in the
papers, it appeared that Lord Brownlow applied for the
presentation to that living—a living worth, as he
(Lord George Bentinck ) was assured, 800/. a-year.
What happened afterwards? They were told that the Lord
Chancellor sent down the names of six or seven gentlemen of
reputation to the President of the Board of Control.—( Hear,
hear.) They did not hear who those gentlemen were, or what
degree of recommendation was given to each • and if he
had a Committee of Inquiry he thought he should be in a
condition to show that the patronage was forced upon Mr.
Pollock in order to make way for Lord Lyndhurst's secretary.
Now the advice of Lord Lyndhurst upon the subject was not
asked until the Dean of Windsor was dead, and then it was that
virtually there was an exchange of the patronage of the church
for the patronage of the law.—( Hear.) They were told that
Lord Lyndhurst had nothing to do with the law appointments,
but upon an investigation he should be able to show that the
Noble Lord had a good deal to do with it.—( Hear, hear.)
But the appointment of Chief Commissioner was not an ap-
pointment removable at pleasure, but was one maintained by
good behaviour, and only removable by the Crown, on the joint
addresses of both Houses of Parliament. And in this in-
stance they might observe the second case, where the occupant
of the office, without his resignation, was superseded. The
appointment of the Commissioner of Bankruptcy was the
second infringement of the constitution, and a direct violation
of the Act of Parliament. He did not wish to impugn the
merits of Mr. Perry. They might be equal to those of Lord
Lyndhurst or any other great man, but he had a right, in the
name of the public, to charge those who had the disposal of
such a position—involving, as it did, the commercial
affairs of the empire to a great extent—with
a gross neglect if it was not filled up properly.
The public had a right to expect that this office should be filled
up in an efficient manner, and that the person appointed should
be a barrister eminent in his profession, and who enjoyed the
confidence of the commercial world. He dared to say that if
they appealed to the bar, they would find that the profession
were not satisfied with the appointment of Mr. Perry as Com-
missioner at Liverpool. He asked the House, did they think
the bar would be satisfied with a gentleman who was stated
not to have been in practice for ten years? nay, he was in-
formed that very day that it was nineteen years, and not ten,
since he had been in practice. Did they think such a gentle-
man could command the confidence of a great commercial
community ? He now came to the original charge—the ap-
pointment of Mr. David Pollock as Chief Justice of
Bombay. It had been endeavoured, in defending that transaction,
to show that the proceeding complained of was only an error
or oversight.
But he wanted to know whether the Govern-
ment could show any single instance in which a chief justice
bad been suspended, and
like another
to
saepepoainlitetdhe, olenttaeresotTlaittiohnaadl
, resignation . He should
passed relating to the resignation and appointment of chief
justices, and he would venture to say there would not any of
them be found like to the one in question. Sir Henry Roper
did not offer to resign; but offered to resign on the 2d of No-
vember, when he would be fully entitled to his retiring pen-
sion; but, in the face of this, her Majesty's Government took
upon themselves to remove him before that time, thus depriv-
ing him of the retiring pension of 3001. a year, to which he
would have been entitled. He thought, though the Crown
had that right, vet, as such a proceeding was contrary to jut-
tice—contrary to the spirit of the constitution—this proceed •
ing, if it had stopped there, would not have obtained the ap-
probation or sanction of Parliament. But it did not rest there.
They were told that that was the first time that the blot had
been hit, but he took leave to remind the House, and to re-
mind the friends of Lord Lyndhurst, that he (Lord G. Ben-
tinck) was not the person who had hit the blot. The blot
was first hit by Mr. Stephen, the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies. The President of the Board of Control was
warned that he was doing that which was contrary to law.
The first patent that was sent to the Colonial-office, on the
16th of June, was returned dishonoured by the Colonial-office ;
and the President of the Board of Control—though they heard
from Lord Lyndhurst that he was no lawyer—the President of
the Board of Control for this purpose was made a lawyer—
for he was told that that patent was contrary to law which
should seek to confer a reversionary grant of this Chief Jus-
ticeship of Bombay upon Mr. David Pollock? Well,
was the matter abandoned? No such thing. The
letter from the Colonial-office, he believed, was withdrawn
The first proposition was withdrawn. But then, with refer-
ence to Lord Ripon, no appointment could be made unless the
absolute resignation of the Chief Justice of Bombay had taken
place. He (Lord G. Bentinck) would not use any harsh
language—( Hear, hear)—he would content .
himself by saying
that they
adopted a legal Fictionin reference to ibis appoint-

ment.

ment. And this was no form, for without it it was not pos-
sible to create a vacancy which should be at the disposal of
Lord Lyndhurst—the office of Commissioner of Bankruptcy at
Liverpool—worth 1,8001. a year. Well, then, Lord Ripon, as
they were told by his Right Hon. Friend the President of the
Board of Control, wrote a letter to the Colonial-office, in
which he stated that the Chief Justice of Bombay had actually
resigned ; and the patent was drawn up and signed by Mr. Se-
cretary Gladstone, affirming—deliberately affirming—( Hear,
hear)—not through any oversight— (Hear, hear)—but of ma-
lice prepense—affirming that which he knew not to be true.—
( Hear.) The patent recited that Slr H. Roper had resigned.
He must call the attention of the House to these facts. The
Lord Chancellor appointed a friend of Lord Ripon's to the
much desired living of Nocton ; Lord Ripon appointed to the
office of Chief Justice a friend of Lord Lyndhurst, making a
vacancy which Sir James Graham filled up by appointing Mr.
Philips to the office of one of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy
in Liverpool. That last appointment was made two days before
the office became vacant. He thought, now, that having dis-
posed of these accounts, he might perhaps be permitted to say
a word with regard to himself.—(Hear, hear.) He had been
compared to Napoleon, and it had been stated that there was
nothing too great for his ambition, or too small for his rapacity.
It had been said, also, that a charge proceeding from such a
calumniator as himself (Lord G. Bentinck) was not to be
attended to.—( Hear, hear.) He was not ashamed of
his associations or habits. He had not abandoned those
associations, and it was still his pride to say that he was the
steward of the Jockey Club.—( Laughter.) There were gen-
tlemen on the turf as honourable, as high-minded, as any other
class in the kingdom. Respect for the high station of the
Noble Lord who had made this attack on him, respect for his
great abilities, respect for the position which enable-I him to
make that attack, would not prevent him (Lord G. Bentinck)
from saying what he thought of that charge. Now it was im-
puted to him that there was nothing too small for his rapacity,
and that he was governed by selfish and sordid motives. Now
he did hope that the whole course of his political life, in which
he had been honoured with the friendship of Mr. Canning and
Lord Stanley, was sufficient to repel that charge.—(Hear.)
Eighteen years he had been in Parliament, and eight years
before he had been in the service of the country, but
from that time to the present he had never been guilty of
being actuated by selfish, sordid, or base motives. —( Hear,
hear.) He defied any one to say that his past conduct would
not bear the strictest investigation, but he admitted with Lord
Lyndhurst that his own mode of address was not so refined as
his (Lord Lyndhurst's). The Noble Lord in continuation
said—When he charges me with base motives, with sordid mo-
tives, and with selfishness and rapacity, I must say I think if
he could carry his memory back to Friday, the 10th of July
last, he ought to be the last man to prefer such charges
against one with whom he was willing to associate. Sir, if I
had displayed any malignity—if I had displayed any venom in
my attacks upon the late Government, those attacks were
made previously to the 10th of July last. Sir, my Lord Lynd-
hurst condescended to send a messenger to me on Friday, the
10th of July last—a messenger who was attended, though I saw
him not, by one of his own secretaries—a messenger whose
truth I can rely upon, for he is is a merchant of the City of
London, respected not in the City of London only, but in
each of the four quarters of the globe in which he has
transactions—my Lord Lyndhurst condescended to send to
me a messenger who waited upon me, certainly not before I
was out of bed in the morning, but before nine o'clock in
the morning, on special and important business ; and a pro-
position was then made, whilst an exposition was given of
what had passed in the Cabinet of the Queen—a proposition
was made to me, perhaps with no more truth than the
charges that are now made by that Noble and Learned Lord
against me—a proposition was made to me, in anticipation of
the debate on the sugar question, that I should join with
the minority in the division, which was represented
to me to have taken place in the Cabinet of the Queen upon
that very question of the sugar duties. I don't know
whether my Lord Lyndhurst told his three colleagues what
he intimated to me. I don't know whether they were to
come and serve with me or not ; but this I know, that if
I had been ambitious—if my object had been to obtain power
and strengthen my own party, the opportunity was offered
me.—(Hear, hear.) Whilst the breath which had an-
nounced the royal assent to the passing of the Corn Bill
was yet scarcely cold a proposition was made to me that I
should join with those members of the late Government,
whe, whilst they had supported, condemned the measures of
that Government.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was
proposed by Lord Lyndhurst that he should personally wait
upon that " selfish, sordid, and base " individual who is now
addressing you.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it was not necessary for
me to do more than to decline the honour of the visit, and
refer my Lord Lyndhurst to Lord Stanley, and I intimated
in strong language the manner in which my feelings revolted
against any such propositton.—( Hear, hear.) Whilst I said I
would not interfere with others, if there were any, who were
willing to join in any such coalition, I said for myself 1 could
not be a party to it.—( Hear, hear.) And now, Sir, I trust I
have at least justified myself in the eyes of the House of Com-
mons and the people of this country that on the 10th of July
last I was not, even in the estimation of Lord Lyndhurst him-
self, that " base and selfish and sordid" individual which he
now chooses to consider me.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. STUART WORTLEY would not presume to under-
take the defence of the Noble Personages alluded to by the
Noble Lord, but the Noble Lord had alluded to an humbler
person, he meant Mr. Perry, and he could not sit there with-
out making some defence of that gentleman.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK was understood to retract
what he had said regarding Mr. Perry, and to express his re-
gret that he had unintentionally mis-stated some circumstance
connected with that gentleman's appointment to the Commis-
sionership of Liverpool.
After a few words from Mr. STUART WORTLEY, who
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.
Colonel T. WOOD wished to know whether the messenger
who waited upon the Noble Lord upon the occasion mentioned
by himself did go with the authority of other members of the
then Government, who formed the minority of the Cabinet as
well as Lord Lyndhurst.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK replied that the messenger
distinctly stated that he had been sent by Lord Lyndhurst.
ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
reported to-morrow.
LEASES (IRELAND) BILL.
The report en this Bill was brought up and received, and the
Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER (IRELAND) BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' BILL.
Sir GEORGE GREY stated that this Bill had been post.
poned for some time, in order to allow an opportunity for the
medical profession to make an examination into the details of
the Bill. Many of the profession had forwarded representa-
tions strongly in its favour, while he was bound to say many
objections were offered to it in its present state. As it did not
seem, therefore, that the Bill would receive that justice and
consideration which it deserved at this late period of the session,
he hoped the Bill would be postponed till next session, when
he would give the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley)
every assistance in his power, in order to secure the enactment
of an efficient measure.
Mr. WAKLEY said, after the handsome offer of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's assistance next session, and in the present
state of the House, he had no other course before hire but to
assent to the withdrawal of the Bill ; pledging himself, how-
ever, to introduce this Bill, or a similar one, early next session
of Parliament.
The Bill was then, with consent, withdrawn.
WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted to-morrow.
LEASES (IRELAND) BILL.
The report of this Bill was brought up and adopted, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

PAWNBROKERS' BILL.
This Bill, after the presentation of petitions by Mr. Wak.
ley and Mr. Hawes, in its favour, was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Small Debts
Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 18 being proposed,
Mr. S. WORTLEY objected to the powers given in this
clause to Judges, under the Bill, having power to examine
into and report on suits pending in Chancery. It was intro-
ducing a new principle into the Bill, after it had passed
through the House of Lords, and would, in fact, be giving
the Judges the powers of Masters in Chanct ry.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said the powers referred to
were only to be exercised under the surveillance of the Lord
Chancellor, and it was not likely that he would admit them to
be exercised unless they were absolutely required.
Sir G. GREY said there was some ambiguity in the clause,
but he should take care that the powers should be exactly de-
fined on the bringing up of the report.
Captain PECHELL liked the clause, because the lawyers
seemed to be against it, as it would take business out of London,
and cause inquiry to be instituted in the country.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 19
and 20.

Clauses 31 to 35 were, after some verbal amendments,
agreed to.

Clause 36 was agreed to.
Mr. Wakley's amendment as to the travelling expenses was
negatived.

Mr. HENLEY wished to know what were included in these
expenses?

Sir GEORGE GREY said only the loaomotive expenses
were meant.

The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 54 inclusive were agreed to without amend

On clause 55 being proposed,
Mr. S. WORTLEY said the effect of that clause would be
to admit actions for a different purpose than that contemplated
by the Bill, which was merely the recovery of small debts.
1 his ought not to be the case. He threw out the suggestion,
but he would not divide the House on it.

. The clause was agreed to without amendment, as were
clauses 56 to 59 inclusive.

A variety of verbal amendments were introduced into the
Bill, which were agreed to, and the Bill passed through Com-
mittee.

The House then adjourned.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(I ESTERDAY)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Room A.
MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON.
The Committee met this morning at eleven o'clock, Lord
Monteagle in the chair.

Mr. 'TALBOT, Q.C., resumed his address, and entered at
great length into the question of distances. lie said the
population within three miles of each side of the line during
its whole course was under 100,000, showing that the local
traffic could not be otherwise than trifling ; that
the produce of the district could be conveyed by
the existing lines cheaply and quickly ; and that
looking at the expense of the proposed line, the district, and
the lines authorised by Parliament for affording accommoda-
tion north and south, he confidently called on the Committee
not to prove the preamble of the Bill.

Evidence was 'then called in support of the opposition of
le Great Western.

Mr. E. Datigertield, coach proprietor, of Cheltenham—
Was the proprietor of the. only coach which ran between
Cheltenham and Southampton, but it was discontinued in
1814, owing to its not paying.
By Mr. Sergeant IiIIANGIIA3I—There might be sixteen
coaches daily between Cheltenham and Cirencester. A
mail and another coach ran daily from Gloucester to South-
ampton ; coaches also ran between Oxford and Southampton.
Mr. J. Harris was the proprietor of a coach which ran for
twenty years between Cheltenham and Cirencester, but he
discontinued it shortly after the opening of the railway.
Gregory, police-constable at the Reading station, said, for
the week ending the Bth of May only sixteen persons came
from Gloucester to Reading with the intention of proceeding
to Basingstoke.
A policeman and porter at the Reading station of the
Great Western Railway stated that, for the week ending the
sth of May, the number of persons coming from Gloucester
and Reading to Basingstoke was 16, and vice versa 14.
Mr. Biddle, corn merchant at Stroud, complained that
some water meadows which he possessed on the route of the
line would be injured by it. The witness expressed much
disapprobation because the company had not made arrange-
ments to afford him fair compensation for the land which