The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-08 00:00:00

ELECTION PETITIONS.

Petitions vero presentcd. against the returns for the
boroughs of Aylesbury, Berwiekon-Tweed, and Gitat
Yarmouth.

RATES ,AND MUNICIPAL FIZANCHISE ACT,

Au address to the Upper House was agreed to askingfor
a copy of the report of the Select Committee of last year
upon this Act, together with the minutes of evidence.

- - ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
Mr. DILLWYN moved for and obtained leave to bring in
a hill upon this subject similar to that Which he brought
forward last session, and which was stopped in its progress
by the dissolution of Parliament.
• " CABUL AND AFFGHANISTAN.
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the return relating to East
India (Cabul and Affgharfistan) presented on the 24th of
March last, be printed. He warned the house that if the
papers were refused it would be supposed there was some-
thing in them which the Government wished to conceal.
Sir S.N 0 HC OTE did not oppose tb e printing the papers
on the part of the Government, but the expense would
be very great ; and on the part of the Printing. Committee
they were convinced they would be failing in their duty to
the house if they assented to the motion. There was no
desire whatever co conceal the contents of those papers ; on
the contrary, they were in the library, and available either
to be inspected or copied by any hon. member who wished to
do so. The papery were not now wanted for any practical
purpose, and as they were merely matters of historical
interest, he hoped the house would support the coarse
adopted by the Printing Committee.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he should support the
motion, because it had been repeatedly stated that certain
important despatches had been garbled and mutilated in
that return. l'hat accusation had never been refuted, and
it was a matter of great public importance that papers of
this ciescrintiou should not be tampered with. As the ex-
pense world only be about £l.lO to £l5O, he should vote for
the papers being printed.
Mr. KINNAIRD also supported the motion.
Mr. J. WILSON said he did not see how the Printing
Committee were to do their duty if their decisions were to
be interferectwith by resolutions of the hotrse.
- -1)17;:clOP thought it was a duty they owed to a
very lEatitig ufshed public servant (Sir Alex. Burns) that he
should no longer lie under accusations which had been
brought against him by reason of expressions in certain
despatches, which were stated not to have been faithfully
copied from the originals.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said he could not agree to the deci-
sion of the committee being reversed until the hen. mem-
ber had shown a stronger case for interference than he had
at present brought forward. If he did that of course there
would be no objection. _ _

Mr. BLACK supported the motion, on the ground that
the honour of the house, like Cmsars's wife, ought to be
above suspicion, whatever might be the expense.
Mr. W.EWART expressed himself in support of the
motion, which, after a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, was
agreed to.
JURY TRIAL (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr. DUNLOP obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
an act of the 17th and 18th years of her Majesty, for allow-
ing verdicts on trials by jury in civil causes in Scotland to
be received, although the jury may not be unanimous.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
In reply to Mr WILSON

Mr. A.ESTCOURT said he would make a statement
to-morrow as to the course the Government proposed to
adopt relative to adjourning the house on Friday over the
Whitsuntide holidays.
The house then adjourned at 20 minutes past one o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY,

(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Turner.)
APPEAL -MOTION FOR DECREE-JUDGMENT-LONDON,
BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY.

The Lord Chancellor said the question which the Court
has had to consider, and now to decide in this case, is
whether the appellants, the London, Brighton, and South.
Eastern Railway Company, has a right to restrain by in-
junction the London and South Western Railway Company
from carrying south from the Landport Station, which be-
longs to them and the Portsmouth Railway, any goods or
passengers on the joint line between Hilsea and Chester and
Portsmouth, or any part thereof, and from booking any
passengers or goods at the Portsca Station coming on the
Portsmouth line of Railway. His lordship considered that
the first branch of the case was already dis,posed of by arbi-
tration. With regard to the second branch of the case, viz.,
the three agreements entered into by the London and
South Western Railway Company and the Portsmouth
Railway Company, whereby they became bound to pay
£lB,OOO per annum for the use of their station for passengers
and traffic for 999 years. His lordship considered that these
agreements were altogether ultra tires of the company ;
that they were illegal, and not sanctioned by the Rail-
way Act ; that they were colourable and deceptive agree-
ments and not entered into in bona fides, and, therefore
null and void, and his lordship granted the injunc-
tion accordinglx. With respect to costs—as to the first
part of the bill, praying for an injunction restraining the
defendants from using the line between Hilsea and Ches-
ter, the plaintiffs were perfectly right, and they are entitled
to costs ; but we think also that the London and South-
Western Railway Company should pay tha costs o this
appeal. With regard to the Portsmouth Railway Com-
pany, who have come ire,o court under this discussion, they
eugtt net to pay'r.psta.
Lord Justice Turner concurred.
Appeal allowed with costs.

THIS DAr'S MARKL'TS.