The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-12 00:00:00

session.

Colonel SIBTHORP, although not often agreeing
with the Noble Lord, did certainly agree with him on
this subject ; but asked how it was that the Noble
Lord had not made these suggestions on former occa-
sions? The Gallant Colonel then alluded to the ques-.
tion he had asked the other night, as to whether any
of the members of the Board of Trade Committee
were connected with railway schemes, and said that
he at least should be an impartial juror, for he never
had been, and never would be, connected with any
railway.
Mr. GISBORNE deprecated any interference with the
policy of the Act of last session, which contained
nothing authorising the Board of Trade to publish
their decisions in the Gazette. He attributed no
dishonour to the members of that Committee, but
there could be no doubt but that their decisions had
transpired before they were published, and those de-
cisions had created such distrust, that he thought it
advisable that some less objectionable tribunal should
be established.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY thought the Committee of the
Board of Trade ought not to have published their
decisions until they had communicated them to
Parliament.
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the plan of Lord
HORICK, as tending to divert capital from British to
foreign railroads. The remedy for the evils com-
plained of was to admit the fullest and fairest com-
petition, and to give every opportunity to new com-
panies to compete for new lines.
Mr. BANKES complained of the preference given by
the Board of Trade to the Great Western over the
•South—Western Company's line of railway, through
the part of the county with which he waS connected.
Sir ROBERT -PEEL hoped the House. would post-
pOne comiug tb :iny:decision on the subject. If it
could: be shown that the lloard.nf Trade had come ,to
itnpoiitid diciSion in rejecting any line, he felt
assured that the line would receive eier.)-rbensideration
and attention.- The --value of the decisions of the
Board would rest entirely upon the grounds which
,they could, give,. for their .decisions. Until those
grounds should be known, it would be utterly im-
possible-for the-House to deter Mine definitively what
course it should adopt. In the meantime, he hoped
that no interference would take place with-the present
practice of the House., ,
Mr. BANKES explained. •
After a few words from Mr. BANKES and Mr.

RUSSELL,
Mr. WAKLEY rose, aril commenced by reiterating
his complaints against the prolixity of lawyers before
Committees. The Right Hon. Gentleman then pro.
ceeded to draw the attention of Sir JAMES GRAHAM
to an article which had appeared in the Economist,
relative to the conduct of the Messrs. O'BRIEN, one
of whom had once held the -office of secretary to the
Right Hon. Baronet, but had since been appointed
one of the members of the Board of Trade, and called
on the Right Hon. Baronet for an explanation.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in allusion to the accusa-
tion which had been brought against Mr. O'BRIEN
of dabbling in railway shares, stated that that
Gentleman, on whom he passed a high eulogium,
had been his Secretary before his appointment to
the Board of Trade ; that on his appointment, he
had, as far back as October last, sold all the railway
shares which he possessed. That the gentleman
whose name was referred to in the Economist, was
the brother of Mr. O'BaIEN, that he was not con-
nected with the South-Eastern Railway, and that both
gentlemen had solemnly assured him, on their honour,
that neither directly or indirectly had they held any
communication with the person alluded to as having
taken advantage of information obtained from the
Board of Trade. If any su'picion attached to either
of those gentlemen let inquiry be made, and let them
stand or fall by that inquiry, but the character of
men of honour, who had served their country with
credit, ought not to be whispered away, when direct
charges might be made against them. The Right
Honourable Gentleman proceeded to vindicate the
character of the Board of Trade, and that of the Com-
mittees of the House from the attacks of Mr.

_
WAELEY.
After a few words from Mr. IVAKLEr, Mr.
BROTHERTON, and Mr. DARBY, the Motion was
withdrawn.
Mr. WAKLEY then moved for a return of the de-
scription of diplomas or licences admitted by the
Poor-law Commissioners as legal qualincations to
entitle medical practitioners to be appointed as medi-
cal officers to Poor-law Unions, which, after a few
words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM, was agreed to.
Captain
.PECHELL moved for certain returns re-
lating to the crushing of bones by paupers in work-
houses, and deprecated their being employed in such
labour.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM had requested the Commis-
sioners to issue orders to prevent it, but they could
not control boards of guardians in such matters.
Lord EBRINGTON defended the employment of
paupers in bone crushing. If the work was fit for
independent labourers, it was not too bad for paupers.
Captain PZCHELL and Mr. IVAKLEY both animad-
verted severely on Lord EBRINGTON'S Observations.
Mr. Roznucx taunted the Right Hon. Member
for Finsbury with his: former speeches against the
Poor-law Commissioners, who, after all, instead of
being pinch-paupers, were the defenders of the poor
a gasiinrs
C.
the inhumanity
L extAt:dere hdeodf thethe guardians.
employment of paupers
in this manner.
Mr. WARLEY replied to the taunts of the llon.
Member for Bath, and after a few words from Mr.
HENLEY and Mr. S. Caewroau, the motion--wes
agreed to.
Sir JAMES GIIAIIAI4I then rose to move for leave to