The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-12 00:00:00

fore the present Bill materially affected her Majesty 5
prerogative. Her Majesty had, therefore, not been ad-
vised to give her consent to this Bill. It was the
duty of the Ministers of the Crown to abstain from ad-
vising. her Majesty to give her consent to a measure
when they believed that that measure would not be
condusive to the public good.
The Bishop of SALISBURY baying explained,
Lord LYTTELTON said that the meaning of the
consent of the Crown, was the consent of her Majesty's
Government to the discussion of this Bill. He thought
it would only have been a matter of courtesy to his
Noble Friend, who had introduced this Bill, for the Go'
vernment, to have given the consent of the Crown to the
measure. He thought the Government were not justified
in the course they had taken.
Lord BROUGHAM defended the course which had
been adopted by the Government. There were certain_
Bills for Parliament to discuss, to which the consent of
the Crown, by a rule of Parliament, it was necessary t°
obtain. This Bill now under their Lordships' conside-
ration was one of those Bills, and therefore it was the
duty of the Government, if they thought fit, to interfere
when a discussion of the measure was brought forward,
and they could do this at any stage of the Bill.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that this wits
the first instance in which the consent of the Crown had
been withheld for the purpose of preventing their Low
ships passing a Bill. He said that the consent of the
Crown in this case had been refused, because the con-
stituents of the Chancellor of the. Exchequer were
favourable to this Bill, for if the Bill had gone down t°
the other House, it would-have been rather inconvenient
for the Chancellor of the txchequer to vote against it.,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE repelled this imputation, an
°
said that, if what the Noble Marquis had stated was
correct, then that Noble Marquis knew more about the
intentions of the Government than he (Lord Wham'
cliffe) did.
Lord MONTEAGLE was of opinion that the Go-
vernment were justified in the course they had taken.
The Bishop of BANGOR expressed his regret ills,'
the Noble Earl had been compelled to withdraw tbis
Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON briefly explained.
Lord CAMPBELL blamed the Government for
lowing the Bill to be read a second time before they ir
terfered, and withheld the consent of the Crown.
The Bill was then withdrawn.

DISMISSAL OF MR. O'DRISCOLL.
Earl FOItTESCUE postponed his motion relative 0
the dismissal of Mr. O'Driscoll till Tuesday next.
PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND.)
• Lord MONTEAGLE then rose to call the attention
of the House to the state of the pauper lunatics in Ire-
land. It was a common practice, he said, in that coal?:
try, to commit pauper lunatics to prison in order to their
being kept in safe custody. He thought it was the (Intl
of the Government to establish a central asylum for lu-
natics in Ireland, similar to that which exited in this
country. Under the present system both climinal
lu-
natics, and lunatics who were guiltless of any ceinie,were
all herded together, and the manner in which they wee
treated was anything but what it ought to he.
contended that it was in the power of the Goveinuaelly
to remedy the evils which had been so loudly CO'Y
plained of, and it was with this object that he
had taken the liberty of bringing the subject
under the consideration of their Lordships. Moly
pity called upon them to take this subject into
their serious consideration. He asked for nothing more
than was at present done in England; and in doing this+.
they would be only carrying out the recommendations or
a Committee which had been appointed to investigate
the subject. He could not conclude without expressing
the regret he felt for the loss of his lamented friend,
Lord Fitzgerald. Had Pr3vidence spared him to the
country, he (Lord Monteagle) would not have bees
under the necessity of bringing this subject tinder the
consideration of their Lordships. He trusted, however,
that, out of respect to the memory of that NobJe
his colleagues would now adopt the suggestion whien
he (Lord Monteagli) was about to make, whiclr. Ives'
that an address be presented to her Majesty, raying
that she would be pleased to give directions that steps
might be taken to ameliorate the condition of the pauper
lunatics in Ireland.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE apprehended that, in order
to carry out the recommendation of the Nobie Lord, an
Act of Parliament would be necessary. He however
would take an opportunity of consuNng the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the subject, and he could assure the
Noble Lord that everything which they could con'
sistently do would be done by the Government to meet
the Noble Lord's wishes.
Lord MONTEAGLE, in reply said, that everything
was provided for by the Acts which were already 0
existence, and the only thing that was now necessary,
was a disposition on the part of the Government to carry
out the provisions of the existing Acts.
The address was put, and negatived without a division-
The Bills on the table were then advanced a atege'
and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 11.
THE RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. COLQUHOUN (in continuation) proceeded to
say—What were the words of an enlightened Mau
who, in one of the journals, had made observations upo.n
tthioins,mmeuasstubree—suthpepoms'eodrds„.3olfiaavemwanatNcVhheod,
ftrhoemimhmisedPiciastel.
effects which it had produced ? Why, he said that there
could be no doubt but that the immediate effects of this 41-
tation had been to depreciate the value of shares in ire
market. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that an 1131-
pression had gone forth among the public, that this
measure would give to Parliament the right to purchase
any railway it pleased, and had complained that such an
impression was a very erroneous one, because the wee"
sure would not give to Parliament the power to purchase
railways, and therefore he had contended that the fears
of the railway companies were without foundation. But
he would ask, suppose, when the Poor-law Bill had bee!n
first proposed, in 1833, the Government of that day bad
proposed all the clauses of the Poor-law Bill, except that
clause which would bring the Bill into operation by co'
abling rates to be levied—suppose all the machinery for
bringing the Bill into immediate operation had been pre'
pared, and left in a state of abeyance, but that that
machinery, by a single vote in the estimates, could, at
any moment, be called into action; u ould not the opPo"
nents of the new poor-law have considered that as 91
great step in advance on the part of their adversaries ?
Or suppose in the case of the Factory Bill of last years
all the machinery had been prepared, except the funds,
which could at any time, by a single vote in a Committee
of Supply, have been procured, would not the opponenis
of the principle of that measure have considered it as e
serious advance towards a system of policy which
they all deprecated? - (Hear, hear.) The policy might
be right or it might be wrong, but if they passed this
measure, they would have advanced an important step
in their scheme of railway legislation.—(Hear, hear.)
If they passed this Bill, the Government might come,
down on any day when there was a Committee 01
Supply, propose an
.estimate for the purchase of a par'
ticular railway, with all the forces of the Government to
bear on that particular question—(Near, hear)—say. It
was a question on which they staked* their own exist:
ence—(lmmense Opposition cheers)—lus did net say thist
with reference to past events—(Reneweetcheering.)--b,,ua
any Government which possessed the tsonfidence of 12
large majority of that House would always have
such an advantage as no particular railway °Q
not all the railway interests united—could overcome;
The Bill gave great power and patronage to the Board
of Trade, and cousequently the Right Hon. Gentlemen:
the present and the late President of the Board of Trade,,.
supported the measure.--(Hear, This Bill was
founded on the third report of the ,fl,onamittee, but to:
Right Hon. Gentleman admitted tha t many important
suggestions in it were taken from th,e fifth report, °ed.
additional reason why the House shou'll not pr.oce,
with the Bill during the present session. He conjAlre",
the House to consider that nothirg coull be more dire,
gerous than hasty interference with such ire portant in,' „.
rests. He thought the provisions of the L 111 regardltt
third-class carriages, and indeed regarding- conveyance
generally, were judicious, and wt uld prove u. ;dui. It ws'
said that railway companies enjt fed a monopoly.
that was the case of all companies with very
large capital and very large investments. Stich was too
case with dock companies, water companies, L".11i1 for
companies.--(Hear, hear.) It was said that whe. vs (
panies had a monopoly, they would be extortiona
all companies, and railway companies among tiler st, I',„§
the dread of competition before their eyes, and ti pia7l,l
quite evident from what transpired before the sever g
Railway Committees ; the directors feared con ipetw,,ti
lines, and they knew that the public vvo uld de'
once raise their voice against extortion's to e.
wands. He could weary the House by a reply
tition of railways that kept down their fal .esa
the fear of competition and by ti:public opinion. He did not think the _
Bill of the G 16'
e wholesome dr cad
111
ment would be effectual in reducing i- ''''res* e rt.
conferred an inquisitive power into theafh.a!reofll
vete company hitherto unparalleled, and than wh'-'f,h ,as
thing could be more odious,. The seventh clause v ..°
still more objectionable than the third, and gave U.
Government a power of buying up railways when
profit exceeded ten per cent. after a certain time
formation. He did not believe that anything could
more unreasonable or unfair to private individuals, thy'`
,
the provisions of this clau:e. He considered the Bill
was an unjust interference with mercantile' indOwit
and mercantile enterprise. Such legislati:ou 115.;
always failed, and deserved to fail.—(Hear,,.
Take the example of the Royal Canal, which h. been-
in existence for about 30 years. In 1811 it hv id VT;
duced 16s. Bd. in one quarter, and from that ti. tI) ;0
the present hour the income had been nil. hat Ina
the number of tons of coals carried by this . cams '; s
1836? Eighteen tons.— (Laughter.) CaptrSn Lai "leis
had told them that railways might be conducted by t ed
Government at a saving of 25 per cent., and se-) deligbti wr
was the Right Hon. Baronet with this gentl ems.u.
he had resolved to have further information on thi s sit i
ject. Captain lme: proposed that the Geyer 003%,
should buy up the railways in this country, alleg sai" "•it'
the reason, the great saving of expense. He was . aff9
there were some parts of the country which, 0/. itt'°,lo
Government interference, would never be supp' a•ed a ale
railways, and this he said in the face of the -coal
of the Belgian railways.—(Hear, hear.) In tP,
country the Government confined the corn muniesti°2l,
to the great towns. He did not know whe
irtetdhlicrir';
might think of this proposal, but it appe:
ah
from comparison, the most unjust and
siii_belay,eigi
posal that could be made It ,vas impos
the railways of England and France, or
the same footing.. If the French exitG,9lrenkrnll 8 zr tev:s3l.ecl7
to have a particular railway, they hre."l Zlotlacne :09,0 but to carry out their object; there wa.s rto f 1.0
4
except that of construction.—(Hear, hear.) vi:,
P
country they would have to come into con . te, at Pits
powerful private interests. They had, by
rival A oil . I
covered 2,060 miles of this country withraili
they carried twenty-six millions of people -
railways, which originated in private ea J." ffr
(Cheers.) The Belgian Government h I terp
4 born