The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-27 00:00:00

and that was the only one which, to a great extent, could
go on with success. Under other circumstances it was
always more difficult to provide against such occurrences
as the Noble Earl had adverted to. He held in his
hand the testimonials which had been presented by
Mr. Hammond on his appointment, which were of
such a description that he could not believe that the
information which the Noble Earl had received
was correct, and that it must refer to some
other person. When he applied in June last be was
seen by the official person whose duty it was to inves-
tigate the qualifications of the applicants, and was
told that his certificates were of too remote a date to be
perfectly satisfactory, and others of a more recent date
were required; and accordingly, on the 2d of July, he
produced others, as well as the necessary diplomas from
Apothecaries' Hall and the College cf Surgeons, where
he had been admitted a member on the 23d of July,
1820. The certificates of competency and character
which he produced were from Mr. Guthrie, of Berkeley -
stteet, in which he was described as late of Windsor.
Another was from Mr. Andrews, another from Doctor
Merryman, who testified to his moral character; also a
testimonial from Mr. John Rowley, assistant-surgeon of
the Scots Fasilier Guard., and finally, a certificate
from Dr. Cox, who described him as a married man and
the father of a family, and a person in whom every
confidence might be placed. It was impossible that any
gentleman could have higher testimonials. At the
same time, he agreed with the Noble Earl those who
signed such testimonials did so under great respon-
sibility, and in that view he would not object to the
production of these testimonals, that those who signed
might be made responsible. When the ship's arrival
would be reported, a report of the conduct of the sur-
geon would be transmitted to this country from the co-
lonial authorities, when further information would be
afforded with regard to these transactions.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said he did not be-
lieve he was at all mistaken in the information he had
received; and the fact that he was described in the tes-
timonial of Mr. Guthrie as late of Windsor went to con-
firm it, where he had resided thirty years, and where
his character must have been well known. He could re-
fer in corroboration of what he had stated to the Rev
Stirling Marshal of Eton College.
The motion was then agreed to.

Berl NELSON then brought in a Bill to regulate
the appointment of chaplains at the Foreign Consulates.
He said it was the same as that which bad been intro-
duced last session. He should move that it HOW be read
a first time, and ordered to be printed—Agreed to.
Their Lordships adjourned at a Quarter-past Seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that, in all cases
where notice had not been gi►en in the Pri►ate Bill Office
of the intention of parties to oppose the second reading
of a pri►ate Bill, the second reading of such Bill, if op-
posed, be postponed until the day on which the House
shall next sit.
CAMBRIDGE AND SHEPRETH JUNCTION
RAILWAY.

i Lord G. MANNERS moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Mr. LAW said that the feeling of the University of
Cambridge was decidedly opposed to this measure. He
should oppose the motion of the Noble Lord on this
ground, and also on the ground that there was
no want of this line, that it had very few share-
holders, that it ran parallel at an average
distance of one mile from another line which ran b-
tween the same termini. He should move that this Bill
be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. P. BENNE r supported the reading of the Bill.
Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR also supported the Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN said, if the House would give him
its attention for a short time, he would lay the facts of
the case before the House. The Bill was a Bill for a rail-
% ay, seven miles long only, between two points which
were already provided for by aline which bad been al-
ready sanctioned by the House, and which line would
be commenced almost immediately; and, besides
this, this very Bill had been rejected by the
House three times already. On grounds totally
independent of the University he opposed the
second reading of the Bill, because he con-
sidered they ought not to allow additional expense to be
incurred by sending the Bill to a Committee until they
knew whether the other line would or would not be
completed.
Mr. FITZROY said he had a petition, which was
most numerously signed by the inhabitants of New-
market, stating that it was of the greatest public im-
portance that the measure should he passed. The real
parties who opposed that Bill were the Eastern Counties
Company, and the petitioners stated that the New-
market line, which was in the possession of this com-
pany, did not afford the people of Newmarket that con-
venience and facility which Parliament intended it should
give them, and they thought that the present measure
would afford them the accommodation they wanted.
It was not strictly the fact that the Bill had been three
times before Parliament; and he could assure the House
that it was for the sake of promoting the public accom-
modation that this Bill was introduced. He therefore
protested against the attempt to atop the Bill in limine.
Mr. CAMPBELL supported the Bill.
Mr. WADDINGTON said it was all very well for
the inhabitants of Cambridge to say they wanted a
station independent of the Eastern Counties Com-
pany, but he should be glad to know how this
Bill could possibly accomplish that object. The
Eastern Counties Railway Company had a claim
upon the House. He called upon the House to pause
before it sanctioned the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON said the Committee were of opinion
that fur the purposes of the public business the line be-
tween Shepreth and Cambridge should be constructed,
and that the Eastern Counties Company should make
the link between Shepreth and Cambridge within a
certain time. which had not expired.
After a few words from Lord GEORGE MAN-
NERS, the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 98
Against it ... • ... 135
Majority --37

The Bill was consequently thrown out.
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were then read a second time and
ordered to be committed:-
1 Copper Miners' Company (England).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
Manchester Bonding.
Victoria (London) Dock.
Waterford and Kilkenny Railway.
MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.
A special report from the Committee of Public Peti-
tions was brought up by Mr. THORNELY, which was
read by the Clerk at the table.
It stated that a petition was presented on the 14th
of February by the Honourable Member for Ox-
fordshire, which was ordered to lie upon the
table. That petition was not seen or heard of for some
days afterwards, which had led to inquiries being insti-
tuted by the Committee, and the result was that the
Committee had discovered that the petition was taken
from the table, and kept for many days by Mr. Feargus
O'Connor the Member for Nottingham.
Mr. THORNLEY thought it right to state that this
report was agreed to yesterday morning, but its presenta-
tion had been delayed till this evening, because the Hon.
and Learned Member for Nottingham was not in his
place last night.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said it was entirely through
ignorance of the practice of the House that he had
taken the petition away. The reason for his taking the
petition from the table was to have it published
in his newspaper, but a few days afterwards the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton re-

minded him of his having taken it away, and he at once
directed his secretary to bring it down to the House. If,
however, ho had violated any rules or orders of the
House he now begged leave to apologise to the Speaker
for having done so. When he took the petition
away he was not aware that he was violating
any of the orders or rules of the House.
He hoped he had given a sufficient explanation to the
House, and he begged leave to express his regret that he
had violated any of its rules.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY rose to explain. He said the petition
came from a number of people in his (Mr. Henley's) own
county, and he conceived it was directed against the
scheme, and not against the Hon. Member (Mr. O'Con-
nor) personally. If he (Mr. Henley) had thought other-
wise, he should have adopted the usual course of giving
the Hon. Member notice.--(Hear, hear.)
The petition was then ordered t,) lie upon the table.
THE ALLIED PRINCES OF INDIA.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE gave notice of his intention

to postpone until this day fortnight his motion, which
etood fir this evening, to inquire into the rights of suc-
cession of the allied and dependent princes of India.
CASE OF CHRISNA RAO WITHUL.
Lord DUDLEY STUART postponed until this day
fortnight his motion for a Select Committee to inquire
into the claims of Chrisna Rao Withul, of Baroda.
WINDOW-TAX.

Lord DUNCAN postponed until this day fortnight
his motion on the paper for to-night—" That, whereas
the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting
taxes on air and light in England and Scotland inter-
feres most prejudicially with the health and sanitary
condition of the inhabitants of Great Britain, therefore it
is expedient that the window-tax should be repealed."
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

Mr. HUME fixed for this day week his motion re-
specting the removal of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

THE FRANCHISE.

On the motion of Sir 1)E LACY EVANS, returns
were ordered of appeals from the courts of the revising
barristers to the Court of Common Pleas, made, up for
the year ending the Ist day of March, 1849; also, the
judgment in the case of Palmer v. Allen, omitted in a
former return.

MORTALITY IN THE NAVY.
On the motion of Captiin HARRIS, returns were or-
dered of the mortality per cent. amongst the officers and
crows of her Majesty's ships employed on the coast of
Africa during each of the years from 1840 to 1848, both
inclusive: of all slave vessels, their names and tonnage,
captured from 1340 to 1848, both inclusive; specifying
the date of capture, the ;atitude and lon4itude, and whe-
ther with slaves on board or not: and of the number
of slaves captured during the same period in each year,
with the number of deaths between the date of capture
and adjudication, showing the annual per-centage of
mortality.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT IN ENGLAND.
lectihnagnatehle till
Sir D. NORREYS postponed the question which he
had intended to adi of the First Lord of the Treasury
rerissp
fuotfurseetdtia7.ent on this side of the