The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-02 00:00:00

POOR- LAW IN IRELAND.

Mr. BELLEW presented petitions from several places
in the county of Louth against the unequal assessment
under the poor-law in Ireland.

MEDICAL PROFESSION.

Lord DUNCAN presented petitions in favour of some
provision for upholding the respectability of the medical
profession.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE, on the part of the Hon.
Member for Leicester (Sir John Easthope) gave notice
of the presentation of a petition from two persons con-
fined in the House of Correction at Leicester, com-
plaining of imprisonment for the non-payment of poor-
rates.

Lord LINCOLN gave notice that, on the 14th, he
should move for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the
drainage of lands.
Mr. WARD postponed his motion relative to the
burdens on land till that day fortnight.
Mr. HUME said he should bring for ward his motion
respecting Sir Henry Pottinger on that day fortnight.
Mr DODD gave notice that he should move, on
Thursday next, at the time of private business, that the
report of the Board of Trade respecting the extension of
the Croydon Railway to Ashford be referred back to
the Board of Trade. .

Sir
CHARLES NAPIER gave notice that, on going
into Committee of Supply, he should call the attention of
the House to our naval ports and arsenals, and harbours
of refuge.
MR. AGLIONBY AND THE " TIMES."

Mr. AGLIONBY, in allusion to an article which had
appeared in that day's Times, said it was not his
intention to found a motion upon it, inasmuch
as to do so, he would have to move that the publisher of
that paper should appear at the bar. The article in
question referred to a letter which had appeared, ad-
dressed by Mr. Carrington to Lord Howick, the Chair-
man of the Committee on New Zealand, in which
it was stated that he (Mr. Aglionby) between
the first and second days of the examination
of Mr. Carrington before that Committee had induced
that gentleman to modify his evidence. He only now
mentioned this subject, as he intended to take the earliest
opportunity of calling the attention of the House to it ;
but he would, at once, state that the assertion which
had been made had no foundation in truth.
QUARANTINE LAWS.
Dr. BOWRING wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite a question. It was in the recollection
of the House, that during last session it was resolved
that measures should be taken to modify the quarantine
system, and that such steps should be taken as would
lessen the grievances which the commercial world
laboured under both at home and abroad. Now, he
wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what had been
done to carry out the wish of the House on that subject ?
Sir GEORGE CLERK begged to state that her
Majesty's Government entered intoanegotiation with the
Governments of France and Austria, that the three Go-
vernments should agree to carry these measures into
practice. In France there was no objection, but the
Austrian Government wished to have a report from me-
dical officers of their own. He would inform the Hon.
Gentleman (Dr. Bowring) that no such report had as
yet been received, and that the matter now stood in pre-
cisely the same state as it did when brought before the
House in July last. Ile trusted, however, that they
would obtain information on that subject very soon.
NORTH KENT RAILWAY.
Lord HOWICK said that he observed in a news-
paper of Saturday last an advertisement respecting the
report of the promoters of the North Kent Railway; on
the last notice given it appeared that the Board of Trade
made their decision without that document. The
promoters sought an interview on a day when it was in-
convenient for the Board of Trade to receive them, and
on the day appointed it was inconvenient for the pro-
moters of the line to attend, and the decision was made
in their absence. He would wish to know whether that
was true, or whether the Board of Trade had published
that they gave their decision before they considered the
subject ?
Sir G. CLERK said the terms of the advertisement
to which the Noble Lord had referred did not contain a
correct account of the circumstances connected with this
railway. If any mistake had arisen with regard to the
announcement of the decision of the Board of Trade on
the subject of that particular railroad, it must have arisen
entirely on the part of the railway company. It was not
the practice of the Board of 'Trade to request personal
interviews with the promoters of railways, but be be-
lieved the system they pursued had been this:—They
required the parties to send in the fullest do-
cumentary evidence, detailing the advantages to
be derived from the scheme of which they were
the promoters. In a great many instances these
parties had requested to be allowed to have a per-
sonal conference with the Board of Trade, for
the purpose of elucidating many points which docu-
mentary evidence could not fully and clearly ex-
plain. The Board of Trade had always expressed them-
selves ready to receive all parties, and he believed
the promoters of this railway applied for a personal in-
terview on the 6th of January last. They were, how-
ever, informed that upon that particular day it was not
convenient for the Board of Trade to have a conference
with them, and they therefore named a subsequent day,
he believed the 22d January. On the 21st of that month
however, the solicitor for the promoters of this scheme
called at the Board of Trade, and stated that it was
impossible for the parties to attend on the 22d, but that
gentleman did not, at the time, make any request to
have any further day named, or the Board of Trade
would have been perfectly ready to receive the promoters.
The Board of Trade waited till the last moment before
giving their decision, but no application was made by
the promoters of this line ; and it would be remembered
that the Board of Trade had intimated to the House and
the public that they should be prepared to give their de-
cision upon the majority of railway schemes before them
by a particular day. The House would recollect that
the Beard of Trade had all the documentary evidence
which the promoters of this scheme considered
essential to their case before them, but it appeared
from the advertisement that they had some further
documentary evidence, which the solicitor had not pre.
seated to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, how-
ever, had had sufficient facts before them to enable them
to come to a decision upon the question before them,
and tile result of their decision they announced in
the Gaulle of last Friday. Subsequently the solicitor
called at the Board of Trade, and expressed his regret
and surprise that the Board had not had au opportunity
of considering certain documents. There wag no doubt