The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-14 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Oswestry, Ellesmere, and Whilchroach Railway,
North-Eastern Railway (Castleton and Grosmont Branch),
and Thames Haven Dock bills were read a second time.

Nl'Mahon's Estates, Frosterley and Stanhope Railway,
Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway, Birmingham
Canal Navigation, Blyth and Tyne Railway, Limerick and
Foynes Railway, and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
LNew Lines) bills were read a third time.
WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

Lord LIFFORD said, in reference to this bill, suck un-
usual facts had come io light that he felt it his duty to
occupy their attention for a few minutes. In the year 1845
a commission had been established for the purpose of super-
intending the improvements in Westminster. The com-
missioners worked well for some time, but a change ulti-
mately took place, and a great many debts and liabilities
were incurred to an enormous amount. In the years, from
1552 to 1854, the law expenses alone amounted to £36,000.
The noble lord then alluded in detail to the proceedings of
the commissioners, to whose misconduct he attributed all
the want of success that had attended the subject of West-
minster improvements. When the property was sold off
for which the present bill was required, the sum estimated
to be realized would be just sufficient to pay off the mort-
gages, but not a farthing would be left for the bondholders.
He wished it to go forth that those gentlemen (as we un-
derstood) would be paid.
Lord REDESDALE said the Westminster Commission
was a most extraordinary transaction, and did require the
interference of the legislature to settle it. The present bill was
referred to a select committee, who had endeavoured to
remedy the difficulty as far as they could.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
ADMIRAL ELLIOTT.

The Earl of HARDWICKE called the attention
of their lordships to the allusions that had been
made to a debate is the other house to the visit of Admiral
Elliott to the French dockyards. He exonerated him
from the implied charge that he had wrongfully published
information relating to the French dockyards which hehad
obtained during his visit. He had told the noble duke at
the head of the Admiralty what he did see, and he had also
told Sir J. Pakington and other private friends, but there
the matter ended, as far as Admiral Elliott was concerned.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted that the noble
lord had not postponed bringing forward the subject until
the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty was in his place.
No charge had been made reflecting on the honour of the
gallant officer by his noble friend, he merely impugned his
discretion, but nothing further; as far as the statement
made by the noble earl that Admiral Elliott had not pub-
lished the results of his visit, he must say that though he
did not write a pamphlet about them he took the most
effectual way of providing they should be made the matter
of discussion in the other house.
After a few remarks from the Earl of BARDWICXE, the
subject dropped.
THE CHARGES AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE
MONAHAN.

Lord CHELMSFORD, referring to what had already
taken place in reference to this matter, said the Earl of
Leitrim had done him the honour to consult him in regard
to it, and he told him that no charge but one of the gravest
kind could be brought forward against one of the judges of
the land. He had since considered the subject, and under
all the circumstances of the case, the conclusion he came to
was that it was not desirable to have the question further
discussed. He would therefore request his noble friend to
withdraw his notice, as to proceed with it could not be at-
tended with any beneficial results.

The Earl of LEITRIM considered he had done no more
than his duty in stating what he had done with reference to
Chief Justice Monahan, but would willingly comply with the
request of his noble and learned friend, and withdraw the
motion.