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

DISSENTERS' CIIAPELS BILL.

The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill; also petitions in favour of
the Bill. The Noble Lord took that opportunity of
complaining that copies of the evidence taken before the
Committee on Gaming had not been circulated generally.
The copies had only been circulated amongst the mem-
bers of the Committee.
Earl FITZIIARI)INGE presented a petition from
Gloucester against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition in favour of the
Bill. The Noble Lord took that opportunity of nlluding
to a rumour which had gained ground, that many Noble
Lords had changed their opinion on the subject of this
Bill.

The Earl of WICKLOW said he had been originally
opposed to the Bill, but as it had passed both Houses of
Parliament, he did not feel justified in attempting to
throw it out upon the amendments which had been
made by the Commons. A somewhat noisy conversation
then ensued upon the subject, during which several
Noble Peers attempted to speak at the same time. The
petition was ultimately laid on the table.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented several
petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from Man-
chester in favour of the Bill.
Lord FOLEY presented two petitions against the
Bill. The Noble Lord said he did not concur in the
prayer of the petitions.
Earl FORTESCUE presented similar petitions.
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR BILL.
Earl POWIS then rose, and said that it was his in-
tention to withdraw this Bill, in consequence of the report
of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject
being against him. He had also since the last discussion
upon this Bill, been in communication with the Noble
Duke near him (Wellington), as to whether it was likely
that her Majesty's consent would be obtained for the pass-
ing of this Bill. The answer of the Noble Duke was that
such consent would not be given ; and, under these cir-
cumstances, he (Earl Powis) felt constrained to adopt
the course which he had just intimated to their Lordships.
The Bishop of SALIBURY recommended her Ma-
jesty's Government to reconsider this question. He very
much regretted that the Noble Earl had been compelled
to withdraw this Bill, for he felt that if it bad been
passed it would have been found to be a very beneficial
measure. He trusted, however, that the Government
would in the next session of Parliament introduce a Bill
themselves upon this subject.
The Earl of MOUNTEDGECUMBE regretted that a
decision of a majority of that House had been put aside
in a manner by which the majority on the second reading
of this Bill had been rendered ineffectual. He felt that
it would not be more for the benefit of the country than
her Majesty's Government if they were to reconsider
this subject, and render it unnecessary for the Noble
Earl to bring in his Bill again in the next session of
Parliament.
The Duke of WELLINGTON defended the course
which had been taken by her Majesty's Government.
He contended that the repeal of the union of the sees
of St. Asaph and Bangor would cut away the foundation
of all those Acts which were passed in 6 and 7 Wm. IV.,
upon the recommendation contained in the report of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. By these Acts
certain powers were granted to her Majesty, and there-
fore the present Bill materially affected her Majesty's
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 having 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 to
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 was
the first instance in which the consent of the Croli n had--
been withheld for the purpose of preventing their Lord-
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 to
the other House, it would have been rather inconvenient
for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vote against it.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE repelled this imputation, and
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 Wharn-
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 that
the Noble Earl had been compelled to withdraw this
Bill.

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

O'DRISCOLL.
wiltioned his motion relative to
ET
ahrel RFD i
01
sr
twmTa
sst
sho4e
untalzv,
,Ql3t h.vg ds p
the dismissal of Mr: Unriseoll till Tuesday next.
PAUPER 'LUNATICS (IRELAND.)
Lord MONTEAGLE then rose tocall the attention
of the Honse-to thestat,,eof the pattper lunatics in Ire,
land.- was 'Ottiiiian p.r!ktice, he said, in that Coun-
try,;ta tatty:et' tant,leh to' priSbn in order to their
beingkelit safe. custody—A.4 thought it was the; duty
of the Governravnt,to ,central asylum for lu-
natics in Ireland, similar to `that which existed in this
country. Under the present system both criminal lu-
natics, and lunatics who were guiltless of any crime;were
all herded together, and the manner in which they Were
treated was anything but what it ought to be.: He
contended that it was in the power of the GoverMuent
to remedy the evils which had been so loudly Com-
plained of, and it was with this object that he
had taken the liberty of bringing the subject
under the consideration of their Lordships. Huma-
nity 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 of
a Committee which had been appointed to investigate
the subject. He could not conclude without exprgssing
the regret he felt for the loss of his lamented friend,
Lord Fitzgerald. Had Providence spared him tjo the
country, he (Lord Monteagle) would not have! been
under the necessity of bringing this subject under the
consideration of their Lordships. He trusted, ho ever,
that, out of respect to the memory of that Noble Lord,
his colleagues would now adopt the suggestion which
he (Lord Monteagle) was about to make, which was,
that an address be presented to her Majesty, piaying
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, initardgr ,
to carry out .the recommendation of the Noble Loki, an
Act of Parliament would be necessary. He however
would take an opportunity of consulting the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the subject, and he could asst re 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 in
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 di'vision.
The Bills on the table were then advanced a stivre , „ ,
and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, fay 11.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Lord CLIVE presented twenty petitions from South •
wark, Hereford, and other places, against the union of
the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
POST-OFFICE.
Lord SANDON moved that a message be sent; to the
Lords, requesting the attendance of Earl Forteseue on
the Committee on Postage.—Agreed to.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition frdm Mr.
Mazzini, stating that he had been informed that Certain
accusations were likely to be brought against himi before_
a Secret Committee of that House then sitting
tiOon the
subject of opening letters. He felt it due to himself to
state that he was prepared to repel any charge' whiCh
might be brought against him, and he hoped that if such
charges should be brought against him, that he would be-
allowed to be examined before the Committee.
Lord LINCOLN obtained leave to bring in a. Bill to
improve the drainage of the city of Westminster.
Mr. HATTER moved for returns of all moneys re-
ceived by or on account of the Society of Kink's Inns,
Dublin, in each year, from the Ist day of January
1794, to the Ist day of January, 1844 ; distinguishing
the amount respectively reamed from students, bar-
risters' apprentices, attorneys, and the portion of
stamp duty received on attorneys' indentures ; also,
distinguishing the amount received under or by virtue of
statute law from that only received by order of the
benchers of the Society of King's Inns. Of the expen-
diture, ordinary and extraordinary, on account of the
Society of King's Inns for each year during the same
period, distino6mishing—. Of the expenditure, on account
of the Society of Kinga's. Inns, cluripg the, sane period
attendant upon .the dinner system, including servants,
porters, &c. ; and distinguishing the expenditure
for wine and liquors from that of the culinary
department. Of the expenditure, on account of the So-
ciety of King's Inns on foot of their library daring the
same period; distinguishing respectively the amount ex-
pended for buildings, books, officers' salary, &e. 6 In
detail, of all expenditure, during the same period for or
on account of the Society of King's Inns in'the promotion
of legal, education in Ireland, exclusive of . any expense
in relation to the library, buildings, and culinary de-
partment of the said. Soeiet.Y.' 4s: the AuMbea of years
;duriukiwhioh allowance has been received by,9! _
on account of the Society of King's Inn in lieu of copy-
right, and the annual and gross amount of such receipts,

With ieturn of the manner and periods in which the same
has been expended. Of all moneys and other property of
which the Society of King's Inn is now possessed, or to
which it is now entitled, distinguishing how the same is
citcum-tanced, invested; or secured."—Ordered.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REGULATION
BILL—INSURANCE COMPANIES,
•
In answer to a question from Mr. DIVETT, ,
Mr. GLADSTONE-said that the present Bill was in-
tended to apply to all future insurance offices. Exist-
ing insurance offices would neither be obliged nor per-
mitted to place themselves under the regulations of the
Bill ; it was intended to require existing insurance com-
panies to furnish such particulars for registration as
should suffice to verify the fact of their existence at the
time of passing this Bill.
ASSESSED TAXES COMPOSITION.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Assessed Taxes
Composition Bill was read a third time.
In answer to a question from Captain PECIIELL,
Sir G. CLERK said the present measure was a mere
continuance Bill.

COLONIAL POSTAGE.
The Colonial Postage Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

DISSENTERS' DISABILITIES.
Mr. CHRISTIE said he had given notice of an amend-
ment to a Bill, not now before the House, for the purpose
of enabling Dissenters to practise as advocates in the
Courts of Doctors' Commons. The Bill had been dropped,
and the opportunity of putting the amendment was taken
away. Besides the disabilities to Dissenters practising
in the Courts of Doctors'-Commons, they also laboured
under further disabilities as to admission to the Inns of
Court, which had the privilege of calling to the bar,
shorter residence being demanded of graduates of the
Universities than of Dissenters. He quoted the opinion
of Sir R. Peel at Tamworth, in 1834, on this subject,
and asked whether the Government had taken any steps
towards exercising their influence with the authorities of
those Inns for the removal of the disabilities and disad-
vantages under which Dissenters laboured ?
Sir R. PEEL said his attention had not been called to
the question since the period the Hon. Member had
alluded to. He believed that the • difference as to resi-
dence, before being called to the bar, was
not applied as between Dissenters and the mem-
bers of the Church of England, but between those
who had taken degrees and those who had not.
His general opinions on this subject were in conformity
with those which ho had before expressed, but he thought
it would be for the benefit of all parties that whatever
was done should be done with the cordial consent of the
presiding authorities instead of attempting to force
compliance by legislation.
Mr. FERRAN D wished to know from the Right
Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether
he had any objection to lay on the table of the.
House the evidence taken before the coroner at Bolton
in relation to the loss of life from the bursting of a steam-
engine?
Bird'. GRAHAM said he was not aware that it was in
the power of any authority to compel the coroner
to produce the evidence taken in his court, but
he would make inquiries on the subject, and if the
Hon. Member would repeat the question; he would en-
deavour to reply to it.
Mr. WODEHOUSE wished to call the attention
of the Right 'Honourable Baronet (Sir James Gra-
ham) to the case which had occurred at the
last Spring Assizes in Norfolk. Two persons named
Knowles, after being tried • before Lord Abinger,
and sentenced to 15 years' transportation, had re-
ceived a complete pardon and returned home. He had
no right whatever to ask on what .ground the royal
mercy had been extended to these parties ; but the Lord
Lieutenant of Norfolk was placed in a situation of pecie
liar responsibility ; it was his bounden duty to maintain the
public peace, and if the Government wished it he was
sure the office would be placed in their hands without a
sigh. If the Lord-Lieutenant were' indeed to retain his
situation he wished to have an answer to his question
from the Right Hon. Baronet. They asked no more
than justice—they wished for uothine. vindictive.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was placed in a somewhat
embarrassing position, as the Hon. Gentleman had sat
down without asking him 'any question—(Hear, hear)—
although he had made a kind of attack upon himself for
the mode in which he had administered his office. With
respect to the cases under consideration, he had given
the advice which he had done because he felt satisfied
that the ends of justice imperatively demanded it.
He had received from the Noble Lord the Lord Lieu-
tenant of the county of Norfolk the greatest assistance,
and the Noble Lord and himself had discharged their
respective duties in the most harmonious manner.
THE RAILWAYS BILL.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate,upon
the Railways Bill being read,
Mr. BRIGHT said that he was one of the Members of
that House who, previous to the discussion of the Bill,
came to the conclusion that it was not a measure advan-
tageous to the public, and that it would give the GoVern-
meat powers dangerous to the country. He had listened
with,,,the greatest attention to the Itight Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Gladstone) speaking for two hours, and in
the whole of his speech he only disguised, in-
stead of explaining, the objects of the Bill. The
Bill consisted of forty-eight clauses. He would, for
the sake of making himself more clearly under-
stood, point the attention of the House to sonte of
the clauses where this power was
.given. Clause 7 had
already been alluded to, wherein the Lords of Commit-
tee are empowered to purchase any future rail way 'after
the expiration of fifteen years, and after giving one
month's notice. The Bth clause confirmed this power
Now he could not understand what was the mean-
lig of the words in these clauses, unless they—
went to sanction the purchase of railways. Fur-
ther on these powers were again confirmed
as in clauses nine, twelve, fourteen, and many others.
Ile wished to know how Acts of Parliament were 'to be
interpreted—whether they were to be construed by their
own words, or by the explanation a Minister might
choose to give of their intention ? The Right Honourr
thie Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had argued,: the
other evening, that the Executive could not of it-
self buy up railways, but that Parliament must
be appealed to on the subject, as Parliament
would have to find the money. They all knew Parlia-
ment would have to find the money, and they also knew
that if this Act were passed there would be very great
difficulty, at a future day, in dissuading Parliament from
finding the money to put into force the provisions of
an Act deliberately sanctioned by the Legislature.
Besides, let them look at the effect of this one
month's notice. Was it to be supposed • that
this one month's notice would furnish sufficient

time for the Parliament to inquire into the desirableness,
and confirm the policy of the purchase of a railway ?
Did it not rather read thus :—that the Executive was

to decide the question of purchase or no purchase ; that
having determined on the former, they gave the month's
notice, and then came to Parliament for the money, ex-
pecting that it would be voted as a matter of course ?
lie would maintain that this Bill, sanctioning the,prin-
ciple of purchasing railways, was erroneous. Whatever
the intention of the Government was, no man could read

t without coming to that conclusion, and that 'was
,he conclusion - the Railway Directors and! the
public • had come to. He did not believe ' that
the principle of purchasing these great works was
one that was deemed by the public to' be
advantageous. Private enterprise had done more for
this country than the Government or the Executive had
ever done. He thought these measures should be left
to individuals. If the great change proposed by the
Bill was to be made, he wished to know uponi what
principle it was to We made, and why? No case had been
made out hitherto for the adoption of the course proposed.
The Right-Hon. Gentleman- had spoken of high profits
and per tentage, but there was no proof of large inComes
having' been made. Those incomes had probably not
averaged more than 5 per cent. From a statement now
before the public, four only out of seventy railways
made 10 per cent., and all of them varied from 6 to 3 per
neut. There was nothing to show that railway proprietors
were grossly exacting from the public, or that the public
were suffering from high charges. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had spoken of third-class trains. Now, no
man more _ than himself wished that the working
classes should have every accommodation on rail-.
ways, and his opinion was, that to no class
had the railway companies given more fabilities
of travelling than the working classes. The !Right
lion. Gentleman in his speech had no less than four
times adverted to the monopoly by railways, he thought
that that statement came with a bad grace rom one who
had sanctioned monopolies of every description. Railway
companies had conferred a great benefit on the commu-
nity ; it gave them a cheaper and more safe mode of tra-
velling. There were no establishments in this country car-
ried on with such admirably ma.agcnicnt mai arrange-
ment as the railroads. There was nothing in the Govern-
ment establishments which could compare with them in the
nicety and admirable propriety of their managbrnent.
Government ships were not so well managed. No
person who went in Government packets I could
say but that the- conduct which he met with on board
those packets was inferior to what was to be
met with in packets under the management of public
companies. The management of the Post-office was not
such as would justify them in placing in the hands of
the Government the conveyance of passengers.—(Hear.)
.What_along time had passed by before a reduction in the
rate of postage was obtained. At that very moment
the mails from London to Manchester were sent by a'
round-about, circuitous way, instead of going by a way
which would convey them an hour earlier ; and all ,the
representations made by the Corporation and Chamber
of Commerce of Manchester were neglected. But there
were other considerations connected with this ques-
tion besides that of the economical one.—(Hear, hear.)
There was a consideration of much political consequence.
The London and Birmingham Railway alone employe.
from 1,500 to 2,000 persons, with salaries varying
from 701. to 1,0001, and they spent more than 200,0004
for wages, stores, tools, and a variety of other expendi-
ture. The Great Western Railway must pay
more than this, and if all this 'influence
fell into the hands of the Executive Government,
would it not affect the freedom of the constituencies of
those places through which the railroads passed ?
(Hear, hear.) The constituencies of those places would
be under the thumb of Government, and they would
possess the influence of the same description
which the Government of the day always had in
Devonport, Rochester, and Pembroke. ,• What happened
at Kendal, where a guard was taken from his duty that he
might vote for the Government candidate, whose opinions
he did not approve of, would happen at those places.
For the last two years he had travelled as much by
railways as any man, and for civility, propriety of con-
duct, and fairness in every respect, he, could say that
no institutions could stand a comparison with the railway
establishments of England. But even if there were some
evils, the remedy proposed by the Right Hon. President of
the Board of Trade was an inefficient one. rt was
well known that Government establishments were worse
managed than any others.. The' constitutionalprinciple
-Of ihe fill was a so a dangerous one, and he should op-
pose it. With respect to a revision of fares, he