The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

C
ot-~ ~~~/

Z,~Tz,

=.

".-----''

- • •
, T! '!-
,
• • ei ie •
„.,.4
. _
• •,•, • . • - I
, • .
•
61:
tra,l 42X
7•4,1
P" -"‘ 'fV
;r
o I '4I:P °?'• jiaC
•
„ .
• ff • , • .1:*
• .
L. ••
Lloi
•
•
z -
ith.„ ,•• , . ••, • '••77,-,r,
,
•
—0,..--74-‘4 ' v•' ' ;vll-* .••;),c„,,, • •
_

PRICE sd.

THE SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE O'CLOCK, in Time for the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY; a SECOND EDITION (Evening Sun) is Published in Time for :the AFTERNOON TRAINS
and a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN O'CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARI and all other 'NEWS in LONDON up to that flour.

pe•
_pon the aggregate capital they had em-
barked in He did not deny that the powers given to
railway companies were extensive—very extensive ; but the
question was, were they excessive—were they unnecessary—
were they uncalled for; and, above all, were they badly used?
He had had some years' experience in the working of a
railway, and he would assert, most confidently, that these
confessedly large powers were not abused, and that their ex-
istence was indispensable to the safe and prosperous .conduct of
those undertakings. He cared nothing for the control of Go-
vernment—that might be a proper thing to vest in a Govern-
meat; but he protested against interference with the property
of railways—against anything, indeed, save supervision. The
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had alluded to the'
evidence of a friend of Ms (Captain Lawiss)' as to
the economy that would be exercised' in the
nagement of railways should' Government hereafter
become the purchasers of some of them. But the Right
Hon. Gentleman's argument was based upon -false 'pre
mites. For the witness alluded to had spoken of the economy
that might be introduced on the supposition that. Government
was to become the purchasers of all, and the managers
of all, the railways in the kingdom. Great stress was
laid upon the accommodation that ought to be pro-
vided for the poor man. But for his part he be.
lieved that those who clamoured so loudly about the poor
man were in fact but striving for themselves. Many and
many were the gentlemen he had seen travelling in the third
class carriages, and they, in his opiniun, were the parties
who were really agitating for this cheap and comfortable
transit, having these thoughts about themselves, though
their words were all about the poor and the hard-working.
It was improper, in his opinion, that Government, should have -
such a, power vested in them as would enable them to cripple
private capital and useful speculation. He would give his
most stedfast opposition to the Bill. They ought to allow time
for the railway public to speak for themselves. He would
move that the Bill be read a second time that day three Months.
The amendment having been seconded,
Colonel SIBTITORF complained of having been erro-
neously reported in the morning papers. It was represented
that he said on a late occasion—the Poor-law debate—that he
had no confidence in her Majesty's Ministers. That was
not true—he had the greatest confidence in them, and believed
the Bill they now brought forward would be productive of great
public advantage. The fault he found with the Bill was, that
it did not apply to existing railroads as well as to those whirls.
were to be still formed. He did not drive in railroads—be
hated the very name of railroads.—(Laughter.) Ile did not
think the present railroad speculations would be beneficial ; he
thought they were dangerous, delusive, and unsatisfactory, and
opposed to tke constitution of the country.—( Laughter.) With
.these feelings he would give his fearless and cordial assent to •
the Bill. He did not wish to have the measure postponed to
the next session of Parliament ; he would say beware of man-
traps and spring guns.—( Laughter.) The Bill ought to be at
once discussed.—(Hear, hear. )
-Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would trespass but a very
short time on the attention of the House. He did not agree
with Hon. Members who had spoken that night in condemning
railway directors and railway proprietors—he thought the spirit
of enterprise which they evinced, and the practical. manner in
which they carried it out, most creditable 'to themselves and
advantageous to the public.—( Hear, hear.) In point of fact,
the railway companies of the country possessed a vast mono-
poly. That monopoly the Government ought jealously to look
to, and he felt regret, therefore, that the present Bill had riot
been introduced before. The principle of this Bill was to un-
fetter the Legislature with respect to railway companies. This,
he thought, they ought to do with respect to those railways
which were still left in their power—he meant those compa-
nies who, in future sessions, should come to Parliament for
power to construct new railways. He must say, how-
ever, that he thought that a• very strong ground
ought to be shown before the Government took the
management of any railway in the country. He looked
upon the revision of fares as an experiment more likely to be
successful than that of the purchase of railways.—( Hear,
hear.) He must, however, confess that it was highly important
that the power of purchase should be maintained. He thought
that less injustice would be done to the railway interest by the
interference of the Government, than any other interest with'
respect to which the Government might attempt to legislate.
He was of opinion the principle of this Bill was one which the
House might safely adopt.
Lord. SANDON said, he had certainly, on the reading of
the Bill the first time, come to the conclusion that it was in-
tended to give the Government the absolute and unconditional
control over all the railways. He was glad, however, to hear
the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of
the Board of Trade, and after what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Gentleman, he should certainly feel justified in
supporting the principle of this Bill, and he should, therefore,
vote for the second reading.
Mr. M. PHILIPS could not feel himself justified in
voting for the second leading of this Bill. He thought it was
a Bill which interfered with private property, and was one
which was likely to embarrass commercial operations, and to
limit their extent. He fully participated in the opinions which
had been formed out of doors with respect to this Bill, 'al-
though he was not a railway proprietor, except to an small an
extent as to preclude the possibility of its influencing him in
giving a vote either for or against this Bill. He found him-
self therefore compelled to give his opposition to the Bill, as
nothing could evu r induce him to give the Government of a
great commercial country like this, a power in such a matter.
Ile could not see the policy, either prospectively or at present,
of the Government taking any power in the matter.
Mr. PARKER rose amidst loud.cries of " Divide, divide."
He objected to this commencement of a principle for giving the
Government a power to enter into railway affairs, in the cha-
racter of commercial speculators.
Mt. SHELL rose to ask whether the Dublin and Cashel
Railway would come under the operation of this Bill ?
Mr. GLADSTON E—Yes.
. Mr. SHEIL did not think it.was equitable it should. The
money was invested by the shareholders without c ognisance of
the intentions of the Board of Trade._ He contended that
money already invested, 'as in the Cashel Railway, was to be re- -
garded as a railway already in existence. Every railway in -
Ireland, with the single exception of the Dublin one, only five
miles in length, would fall within the operation of the Bill. In
England there were above 2.000 miles .r line excepted ; and .
in the sister island every railway, with the single exception he
had stated, would come under its operation. By the passing
of this Bill they would be covering the country with anomalies.
—(Great laughter.) The whole Bill' was a monstrous ano-
maly.—(Great laughter.) It was giving more power into the:
hands of Government. by founding a principle copied from con-
tinental countries. They could not in the commercial,
history of this country, show a single case of a similar charac-
ter to the present to the present time. Ile would therefore
oppose the second reading.
After some observations from Mr. CARDWELL and Mr. F.
T. BARING.'
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the debate.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment
Against it • 173
Majority
The debate was then resumed.
Mr. HINDLEY thought more time ought to be given to
consider this question.
Mr. BRIGHT then moved the adjournment of the debate.
After some discussion, the debate a•as adjourned to Thursday.
The Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Drainage of Lands Bill was read a second time.
The Canal Companies Bill passed through Committee, and
was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday week.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord ELIOT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to continue
for one year the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV. intitled an Act to
restrain, in certain cases, party processions in Ireland. The
Bill was only to extend to next June, aqd he haul hopes that
ultimately they weuld be enabled to do away with the Idill
altogether. •
Mr. M. .1. O'CONNELL expressed his satisfaction at the
Bill being limited in its operations to so short a period...
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill; and the House
adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

THE STATE TRIALS.
(FOURTH DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July S.

THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

At a quarter-past six o'clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR
(addressing the Attorney-General) said—That they
were ready to hear the arguments ,on behalf of the

Crown.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on behalf of the
Crown, it would not be necessary either for himself or
his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland,
to. occupy any great portion of the time of their Lord-
ships, because, although the argumentS for the plaintiffs
in error had lasted four days, yet the attention which he
had thought it his duty to pay to the arguments of hie
Leained Friends would enable him to present the ease
before their Lordships in a much narrower compass,
both as to the areaiments that had been used,
and the answers to there. He would not occupy their
Lordships' time by any preliminary observations, but
would at once consider the objections that had been
raised on the other side in the present case. lie would
begin with diet one which, though not of material con-
sequence in the present case, yet was of material im-
portanee to the administration of criminal justice. He
alluded to the entering up of the judgment, and of the re-
cord. It was quite impossible in his View of the
case, that his Learned Friends could succeedin their
arguments without calling upon the House to overturn
the established law of this country as far back as there
were any-traces of it. Ile would appeal to any- of their
Lordship whether, until this question was -mooted at
the bar, any lawyer in England had ever heard, or
would venture to say, that he knew of any case
whatever in which a judgment had been set up in
the mode in Which it was sought to be set up in
the present case. It' their Lordships were to alter the
law as it now stood, hundreds, nay thousands, would have
been suffering punishment improperly. There could be
no doubt that -the course which had been pursued in the
present case in Ireland, was the recognised principle and
practice of the courts. There was not a single instance of
judgment being entered up in the manner in which they
sought that it should be. They-asserted that the law
Was that on a motion for arrest of judgment, if one count
was bad the whole were bad, and that on a writ of
error the judgment must be reversed. That being their
doctrine it, became important to consider what were the
arguments, and what were the authorities upon which it
was put forward. They stated 'that by sinology with
civil eases if there was a general -verdict and one count
was bad the judgment was arrested, drid thex a writ of
venire de novo issues, but if there is error the judgment
is reversed. That was one ground on which the counsel
for the plaintiffs in error lied proceeded. Another was
this, that a party fund guilty of only One". Offence
charged in the indictment. conld not be punished for all—
such a thing would he a hardship-on the parties. That
•.he believed was the substance of the argument • on the
other side. Ile would net attempt •to enter at all into
the'prfinciple upon which the law decided. 'sills Learned
Friends had not stated a . single authority to call in
question the law of the country, but they rested them-
selves on civil cases, and the hardships to the
defendants. That being the ground put forward on the
other side, he weal state what he considered to be the
-principle. of the law. He lalieved it was this, that the
judgment should be warranted lie, the record and the
• verdict, of the jury, and then it was not an erroneous
judgment. •In civil ceses the judgment was, that the
plaintiff
had recovered against the defendant the damages
awarded by the jury, and therefore in these cases, to say
whether the judgment was right, they must look to the
record and the verdict ; and if they did not warrant it, it
was wrong. He would take a single civil case of two
counts—one a special agreement, and the other money
had and received. The jury found damages 5001. Sup-
pose it should turn out that the special count was defee•
tive, the jury would not assess the damages at 5001., be.

percentage indeed w