The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice that he would move
to-morrow for a copy of the Commission appointing the Earl
of Gosford Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
SAVINGS' BANKS.

The Marquis of SALISBURY, after alluding to a recent
case in Hertfordshire, where the Trustees and Managers of a
Savings Bank had incurred a loss of 10,0001., and the deposi-
tors much more, from the loose state of the laws relating to
those institutions, said, the trustees received no remuneration,
and they ought not, therefore, to be liable to actions of all
kinds whenever any loss occurred—he wished to know whe-
ther the Government would bring in any measure to remedy
the defects of the present law.
Viscount MELBOURNE said he perfectly knew of the
case alluded to ; but yet he must say that he did not think
that one case was enough to justify. an alteration in the
present law.—( Hear.) He thought that a public discussion
of the matter would tend much to the benefit of the whole.
The Government would consider the subject, but he could not
pledge himself to the introduction of any specific measure.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it highly desirable that the
gentlemen who now acted as trustees should not be unjustly
alarmed. He would strongly press upon the Government to
take the subject, which was of great importance, into immediate
and serious consideration.
The Duke of RICHMOND alluded to an instance of the
same kind, of defalcation in Northampton, and was sure that if
some alteration of the law was made, many of the trustees in
whom the public had the most confidence, would immediately
withdraw their names.
The Marquis of L AND SDOWNE said a few words which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Lord DENMAN said the question was one of very great
importance, and therefore he trusted to be allowed to
make one observation. The trustees might withdraw their
names, but -he did not know that by so doing they
would purge themselves of their liability—the money was
paid in under the sanction of their names, and it would be a
very grave question whether they could be allowed to go out
by merely withdrawing their names.
The Marquis of SALISBURY explained, and the subject
dropped.
The Earl of WESTMORELAND presented a petition
from the county of Northimpton, praying their Lordships not
to agree to any measure by which Church property would be
alienated from its original purposes. The Noble Earl warmly
supported the prayer of the petition ; the petition was read
at length by the Clerk.
Lord BROUG HAM presented a petition from the three
denominations of Dissenters within twelve miles of
London against any new grant for the further endowment of
the Church of Scotland. Also one from Kendal, praying
for the repeal of the tax upon newspapers.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to know from the Secretary
of State of the Colonial Department, whether certain persons,
who had been taken prisoners for piracy, and who had been
sent to the Mauritius were taken proper care of, and whether
had been taken to procure their release.
any ste}3.
Viscount f% LBO URN E said that in the absence of the
Noble Secretary for the Colonies, he could not answer the
question .
BROUGHAM thought Noble Lord at the head
Lord
of the Colonial Department had been in his place.
CORN LAWS.
Earl FIT ZWILLI AM presented a petition froi: Auch-
termuchty, praying for an alteration in the Corn La:7.
The Noble Earl, in presenting the petition, stated
that he was convinced the mercantile interests of the country
could never be permanently maintained by the laws, as they
stood, upon the subject.
The Earl of MA LM E SB UR Y opposed the petition.
After some observations from Lord Brougham, the
Earl of Malmesbury in explanation, and the Earl of Fitzwil-
liam, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.
IRISH POOR LAWS.

Lord CARBER Y wished to know from the Noble Viscount
opposite when his Majesty's Government expected to be enabled
to lay the report of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners upon
the table of the House.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that the inquiry was one of
great importance, and had taken place in a country where
poor laws did not exist ; it, therefore, was to be expected that
it would take up some time. He had, however, reason to be -
lieve that the report would shortly be presented ; and as to the
measure founded upon it, most certainly that would be intro-
duced by the Government.
NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY.

SUNDAY TRAVELLING.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill,
The Bishop of HEREFORD rose to propose an amend-
ment, which was negatived in Committee by a majority of one,
but which it was considered ought to be again submitted to
the decision of their Lordships. The clause went to prevent
locomotive engines travelling by the railway on Sundays.
Much as he lamented the desecration of the Sabbath, it was
not on that ground that he proposed the amendment. He
knew that if he did, the answer would be that he was legislat-
ing partially, and not generally. The clause was founded on
a breach of an engagement which the Company had entered
into with a large number of the landholders, and which by this
Bill it was now sought to set aside. Some years back these
landholders opposed the formation of the railway, and that op-
position was given up only on the express undertaking that no
travelling should take place on the Sundays. Notwithstand-
ing, this arrangement, the Company attempted to use their en-
gines on Sundays, but on application being made to the Court
of Chancery, an injunction was issued against them. It was to
be observed that the engines were not used on Sundays for any
purpose of traffic, but for mere excursions of pleasure. When
the engagement was entered into Mr. Bacon Gray, one of
the proprietors, was anxious that the company should be bound
down not to convey, by the railway which ran through his
premises, either coals or other fuel of an offensive descrip-
tion, but this restriction he consented to withdraw, on the
Company contracting not to use their engines on Sundays.
The Proprietors who were influenced by a desire to see the
Sabbath properly observed, complained of a breach of con-
tract, and pressed for the introduction of a limitation clause
into the Bill then before the House. Many petitions had been
presented against it, and it was proved that during the three
Sundays when the locomotive engines were employed, the
greatest disturbance was created by the numerous parties
which hired them for excursions of pleasure. Mr. Bacon
Gray, among others, had signed an agreement which was
now interpreted against him, but he thought that that would
not weigh with their Lordships against the facts stated in evi-
dence, and the feelings expressed in the peation which had
been presented. The amendment which lie had to propose
.
was, that in the last line of the 13th page of the after
the words. " the same is thereby repealed," should be in-
serted " except so far as relates to the use thereof on the
Lord's day."
Lord WALLACE said that of sixty miles of this railway
fifty-nine miles belonged to those parties, who, instead of op-
posing, supported the railway, so that a breach of faith with
the landholders was entirely out of the question. As to Mr.
Gray's individual case, he agreed that the former Bill of 1829,
was pazsed upon the strength of an engagement between the
Company and certain proprietors; but Mr. Gray, for his part
of the agreement, obtained from the Company no less a sum
than 3,000/.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Gray had no ground, then,
for complaining of a breach of agreement. The contract with
him related to the general withdrawal of his opposition, and to
the conveyance of coals on the railway. Was he now at li-
berty to propose the introduction of this clause, and deny to
the Company the liberty of opposing it ?—(Hear). True it was
that at the end of the agreement it was stated, for the purpose
of preventing any future misconstruction, that Mr. Gray should
not be precluded, by the conditions he had entered into, from
proposing the insertion of a clause relating to Sunday tra-
velling, but that it was in the power of any other Gentleman,
and equally in the power of the Company, to oppose it.
Another Gentleman, Mr. Graham, was one of the supporters
of this clause, and also a shareholder in the Company, but he
did not see the consistency of these two characters, or bow
he could as one necessarily bound to promote the interests of
the Company, take those steps which could only injure those
interests. As the supporters of the clause and the Company
were on equal ground, the only question that remained for de-
cision was as to the expediency of making a partial enact-
ment in favour of the stricter observance of the Lord's day,
instead of viewing the subject broadly, and legislating upon it
generally. For his part he saw no objection to excursions
of pleasure on the Lord's day, especially when they were the
excursions of those who for the other six days had been liv-
ing in a smoky, unhealthy atmosphere. Let their Lordships
reflect on the life led by those who were condemned to an un-
wholesome trade, and, a confined residence in a dirty town,
and then say whether they would deny to those men a little
relaxation, were it only to recruit their injured health, upon
that day on which alone they could make use of any oppor-
tunity presented to them. —( Cheers.) The proposed clause
would, moreover, draw an invidious distinction between the
rich and the poor, and their Lordships well knew there was
no reason for aggravating the animosity which already ex-
isted on the part of the lower against the higher classes of
society.

The Earl of RODEN having presented a numerously-
signed petition from Newcastle, on the subject of the obser-
vance of the Lord's Day, begged to make a few remarks. Mr.
Bacon Gray's case he admitted had fallen to the ground, but
Mr. Graham, it was evident, only looked at the subject in that
general view which was taken of it by a very large class of
society, the religious party. Mr. Graham was anxious to
keep up the Sunday schools in his neighbourhood, and to pre-
vent a greater demoralization than already existed. In this
he was justified, and accordingly he (Earl Roden) should give
his vote for the amendment of the Right Reverend Prelate.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that Mr. Graham made
no opposition when the Bill war before the other House,
although due notice was then given to him. The clause
would prevent travelling by locomotive engines, but not tra-
velling by horses and carriages, and he begged to ask whether
the use of the former was a greater desecration of the Sabbath
than the use of the latter?—(Hear, hear.) As to the inha-
bitants flocking to the railways during the three Sundays was

not that the;
be infinitely bettel .
the railway than sit drip:::
Noble Lords prohibfitora•
effect of a very natural curiosity ? Would it not
ltahievulrizbourer to take an excursion by
ing in a public-house? And would
r travelling by the railway on
Sunday while they allowed him (-I'.lle Duke of Richmond) to
travel on the turnpike-road with four pos.-horses ? The pass-
ing this clause would not prevent Sunday travelling on the
railway, but only oblige the Company to employ more men to
take care of the horses and carriages which on the Sabbath
were substituted for locomotive engines.
Lord WH A RNCLIFFE opposed the introduction of the
clause, as he thought it would tend to prevent the town me-
chanics from enjoying on the Sabbath that innocent recreation
and relaxation which was so necessary to the preservation of
their health.
The Bishop of LONDON said that if their Lordships were
inclined to follow up the principle of the Noble Lord who had
just sat down, it would then become their duty, and the duty
of the country at large, to best-ow more pains and expense in
increasing the number of stage coaches than in providing for
the erection of additional churchei'. The principle on which
the House ought to act was, to enecurage the people in those
amusements that did not interfere wit;; their religious duties.
The purpose for which the Creator, in hi; mercy and wisdom,
had given the Sabbath to man certainly vsx not to deprive
the mechanic of that innocent recreation which was as neces-
sary to his bodily strength as that rest which ha‘2 been provi-
ded for the better part of the moral engine of whitzh it stood
so much in need after its daily exertions. No complafizt had as
yet come from the poorer classes of Newcastle and Carlisle of
any want of recreation on the Lord's-day. This rail•road
would pass through a quiet line of country, and witnesses Nati
proved that it was not necessary for any purposes of commerce 7,
but still, from its novelty, from the extraordinary velocity of the
engines to run on it, it would give a great impulse to the in-
habitants of the district, and cause large assemblages of peo-
ple at various points on that day, when they were unencum-
bered by the cares of business. This, he hoped, would be
considered before the House rejected the clause, which had
for its object to oppose obstacles in the way of any neglect of
the duties of the Sabbath. He had often stated his deep sense
of the example set by the rich travelling on the Lord's Day..
He lived on the road between London and Newmarket, and
he never should neglect to rise in his place to lift up his voice
at the awful profanation which took place on that road by the
traveling of the higher classes on the Lord's Day, and to
expose their culpability in thus setting such an example to
the poor.
The amendment having been put, the House divided, and
the numbers were—
__

Contents
Non-contents 4O
Majority —2l
The amendment was consequently lost.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
HIGF/WAYS BILL.

The Duke of RICHMOND, in moving the first reading of
the Highways Bill, gave notice that ho should, on Monday
next, move that it be read a second time, and that it be re-
ferred to a Select Committee.
The House then adjourned at twenty minutes past seven
o'clock.