The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-10 00:00:00

LABUAN.

Mr. HUME moved that copies of the orders of Rear.
Admiral Sir Francis Collier, naval commander-in-chief
on the East India and Chinese station, to Captain A.
F:irquhar, of her Majesty's sloop Albatross, noticed in
Captain Farquhar's dispatch of the 25th of August,
18-19. to Admiral Collier, when reporting the capture
and destruction of 90 vessels, and the loss of 500 of the
Borneons, by the naval force under his command, be
forthwith laid before this House, as ordered March
21, 1850.
Sir F. BARING said he had no means of furnishing
the documents in question.
The motion was then withdrawn.
SAVINGS BANKS—IRELAND.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER a Bill was brought in to continue the Act
for amending the law of savings banks in Ireland.
LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. HUME objected to the Bill, as it imposed a heavy
.ax upon the coat consumers of London. He moved that
the Chairman report progress.
Sir DE LACY EVANS supported the Bill. It pro-
p( lied to compensate poor persons who had boon de-
prived of their habitations in Westminster and other
places.
Mr. MOWATT stated that this was a plain proposi-
tion to rob one part of the community for the benefit of
the other. Coal was a prime necessary of life, and they
might as well tax corn fJr the benefit of the landlords
of London. Here they robbed the whole for the benefit
of a few; whereas, by the corn-law, the tax on food
went into the Exchequer for the benefit of the whole

community.
Sir B. HALL opposed this grant of public money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that the coal duties were by law to be continued
until 1862. The Bill was nothing more than carrying
out the intentions of Parliament when it granted these
coal duties for the improvement of the city of London.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY remarked that the fund for
these purposes did not consist alone of coal duties. There
were also wine duties.
The Committee divided on the motion that the Chair-
man leave the chair, when there appeared—
For the motion 20
Against it ... . . 59
Majority .. ... —39
The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
To be reported this day.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.
The Lords' reasons for disagreeing to one of the
amendments of the Commons were then considered.
Mr. CHAPLIN remarked that the amendment bad
been carried in the Commons by a division of 77 to 15.
He supported the amendment, which they had already
sanctioned by a large majority. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving that the Lords' amendments be con-
sidered that day three months.
Mr. LOCKE supported the amendment of the Hon.
Member. This Bill would place the railways at the
mercy of the landowners. The railway interest did not
ask for this Bill. The Government introduced the Bill
merely for the purpose of keeping the Railway Commis-
sion in its place. We owe nothing ti the railway inte-
rest that should induce us to pass a Bill for the purpose
of keeping it in its place. If this Bill passed in its pre-
sent state, he believed that no railway company would
avil itself of it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the pro-
viso alluded to as much as any one. He thought it most
objectionable, and he had before spoken against it. But
the question for them to consider was, whether they
would have this proviso or no Bill at all. Ho denied
that the object of the measure was to keep the Railway
Commission in its place. He did not think that there
was anything in the Bill that would induce a court of
equity to compel the performance of a contract which
they otherwise would not be compelled to carry out. He
hoped the House would not consent to the rejection of
the Bill altogether.
o company,in ion on the
he
Mr MULLINGS concurred in the amendment, He
wa
could
ne
givect a e d with
more
impartial
railwaya
question. If the railway companies did not want this
thereforea in
no
way
c
measure, he thought it was the fairest course to reject
this Bill altogether, and to leave the law in the same
state as it was heretofore.
Mr. P. WOOD supported the Bill as it stood, as he did
not think it deserved the charges that were made against
it as being arbitrary and unjust. Why, the objects and
provisions of the Bill were to protect vested rights. He
viewed the Bill as one brought forward on public
grounds, and nut to serve one particular railway company
or another.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was opposed to the provisio re.
ferred to, and voted for its rejection. The House of
Lords, however, inserted this proviso again, and, having
done so, the alternative left this House now was, either
to accept the proviso or reject the Bill altogether. -He
would be extremely sorry that a measure calculated to
confer such important advantages upon the public should
now he rejected. As far as the railway interest was
concerned, the measure was perfectly optional, and
therefore there was nothing to be apprehended by that
interest from its effects.
Mr. MOWATT supportedthe
rejection of the Bill.
Mr. TURNER, said that the proviso complained of
was simply one that declared that nothing in this Act
shall release railway companies from any liabilities they
might have incurred for the purchase
of land. He could
not understand, therefore,
why
such objections should be
made against it.

Mr. SCULLI thought that this Bill was of too much
importance to bo rejected on account of this proviso.
It was a most valuable measure, and he would regret its
being thrown out on account of a proviso which after all
could not inflict injustice upon any party.
The House divided, wheu the numbers were—