The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-24 00:00:00

I 31PEitIAL PAIcLIAIII2.I4 T.

Liverpool, Maachaster, and a great number of places in the
north of England. That was the way in which
the people of the country were seduced to encourage
these schemes.—( Hear, her. 1 What was the case,
however, which was made out by the promoters? There were
vat ions principles on which the price of the purchase of land
might be e.ojested. There was the price which might be ar-
rived at by valuation, end they might take the charge to the
railway Company by a inuliple of tl:at valuation. Their Lora'.
ships were s ware that the railway companies were about to lay
before Parliament some returns of their probable revenue, and
whether the company was to take a hundred or a thousand
acres of land, the House would be enabled to calculate the pro-
portion or revenue derived from carriage over that land, and
thus estimate the value of the land to the company. In this
calculation he had not included sufferance. Their Lordships
were aware that en Act called the Railway Clauses Consolidation
Act had been passed t•luring the present session, which made a
great improvement in the Purchase of land. By that Act the
proprietors of the land
might go either before a jury or before
arbitrators. But in some cases, as in the line from Great
Yarmouth to Swansea,
which passed through eleven different
counties, the juries or the arbitrators on that line
might take eleven difTerent views of their duty, and he therefore
thought that some fixed principle should be adopted for the
valuation of land, whereby the rich man sliou'd not get more,
or the poor malt less, than was his due. He was aware that
there was a liability of bargains being made beforehand, but
knowing, as he did, that these bargains would always bear an
impress of the power of those with whom the bargains were
made to oppose ;the line, these two modes of valuation be-
forehand, and of valuation by persons employedby Government,
were well worthy of consideration, and he should, therefore,
move that a Committee be appointed to inquire as to how far
it was practicable to ascertain whether any, and what mode of
valuation could be adopted, and also to take the question of
severance,through whichbothaa narcyleciirtohpeosoet,vinieirriscosf,aasndtoreis,adsse.nts on pro-
pr ty .
Lord STANLEY was not opposed to the Committee which
his Noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) had proposed. His Noble
Friend proposed to go to a jury or a cc maiissicm before the line
came before Parliament. Why, that was precisely the course now
pursued. The other courso which his Noble Friend proposed
to take, was a certain multiple of an uncertain quantity, and
this was no better than before, but his Noble Friend had left
the question of severance altogether out of sight. Now, the
real grievance was that the owners of mansions were de-
prived of that which to them was above all price.
With respect to the principle proposed by the Noble
Earl it was equally unreasonable. The attempt to value land by
the revenue which was to be derived from it, was alto-
gether an untenable point, for the fact was, that the profits on
a railway were derived, not from the land, but from the ex-
tremes on either side, and, therefore, there was no principle
whatever on which compensation should be given. These were
the two principles which the Noble Earl had proposed, and he
thought that he had shown that there were no grounds on which
the Committee could proceed ; but if his Noble Friend would
bring any tangible measure before the House, in the shape of
a Bill or motion for a Commission, he should be happy to meet
it. He had no objection to the Committee, but he saw no
practical benefit likely to arise from the Committee; yet if
their Lordships should consider that it was advisable to appoint
such a Committee, he should offer no objection.
Lord BROUGHAM agreed in a great measure with what
had been so clearly and so forcibly said by the Noble Lard
(Lord Stanley ). He thought the House ought to accede to
the motion as, in his opinion, it would lead to important re-
sults to the public, the landowners, and the proprietors of
railways. lie knew from long experience of the decisions of
juries that they set the real value of property required for the
purposes of :a railway to the owner aside, and awarded only a
compensation suited to land used for the commonest purposes.
He should like to know what compensation that would be for
taking part of the lawn in front of his house? Yet he was of
opinion that it was in vain to think of laying down any general
rule for the negotiation of parties in relation to these matters,
as each transaction varied, and must depend upon the peculiar
circumstances connected with it. Among the many unfavour-
able doctrines which he held with respect to railways was this,
that he would much rather see a railway delayed for a certain
time, and then carried out on proper principles, and without
interfering with the sacred rights of property, which were of
more importance, than see it carried out in opposition to them,
aud with injury to their property. He had prepared a stand-
ing order, which he was desirous of submitting to the con-
sideration of the Committee proposed by his Noble Friend, to
the effect that a certain number of assents should be necessary
from each important district through which it was proposed to
carry a line, before the proposition could be entertained, for
what. opposition could a poor man, whose few acres might be
affected, offer to the scheme when it was before that House?
He must come to the House with his attorney and his witnesses,
and spend several hundred pounds, when he was not worth as
many shillings. He agreed with his Noble Friend, that every
village should have a railway.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM—No ; I said every market-town.
Lord BROUGHAM—WeII, every market-town. But they
ought to be, if possible, with the consent of the landed pro-
prietors over whose property they were intended to run. It
was only just and natural—nay, it was a most amiable and praise-
worthy principle—to be anxious to preserve their fa-
mily residences. But they must not step here, as
there was another thing very advantageous to see
—that overgrown estates should be a little more
equalized. His friends were frightened at the very idea oft his
—what he meant was, that the property of a man who had not
more than 701. a year, and who was starving, and another who
was in the possession of 70,000/. or 80,0001., should have equal
justice meted out to them, and that all the benefits should not
go to railway proprietors. He threw out these suggestions for
the consideration of the Committee, which, he hoped, would be
able to effect something for the benefit of proprietors—consult-
ing their interests, and the interests of the railway proprietors,
and, with this hope, he heartily wished that their Lordships
would be induced to give their sanction to the motion of his
Noble Friend

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 23.
The LoilD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at the usual hour.

MAYN 00TH.

The Earl of FITZHA HDINGE presented a great
number of petitions againit the grant to Maynooth,
from the Wesleyan Congregations of Gloucestershire
and Somrset.hire. lie could not conscientiously give
his support to this grant, if he thought that it was only
ealcula;ed to excite anxiety and displeasure in England,
without being calculated to give satisfaction to Catholic
Ireland.
THE CHURCH ACTS' AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a second time before the public
were admitted to the gallery.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that to his
astonishment an important Church Bill had !seen for-
warded a stage before he entered the House. He had
always understood that the hour for commencement
of public business was five o'clock. Ile had come
into the House at that time, and learned that
this Bill had passed its second reading, al-
though he had been in personal communication
with a Right Reverend Prelate's s, cretiry. This
Bill interfered with the rights of the Crovvn, and
he was, therefore, surprised that it should have been
read at so early a period of the evening. It was an in-
terference with the rights of the House.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the House would find
means for defending; its rights.
Lord CAMPBELL said that as the hour for public
business was five o'clock, any attempt to carry a Bill
before that time was a contravention of the standing
orders.

Lord BROUGHAM—Oh ! If it be only a coltr Iven-
tion of the standing orders the House could recover the

point
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The House is not in
that extreme state.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW COMMISSION.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he understood that a
report had been made by the Law Commissioners on the
10th of January, in which it was recommended that Li-
verpool should be added to the Northern Circuit. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Commissioners
have as yet made no report.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had certainly heard that
such was the case.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had bard so many
absurd things in the course of his life that he was no;,
surprised.

MAYNOOTEI.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented several peti-
tions against the grant to Maynooth.
The Earl of RODEN presented sixty-six petitions
from Protestant congregations in Ireland against the
grant to Maynooth, several from the Isle of Wight,
and three from Jersey, to the same effect. The
Noble Lord gave notice that when the Bill for the
endowment of Maynooth College came to be read a
second time, he would move for the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the doctrines taught in
that school, and that the Bill be referred to the Com-
mittee.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first read-
ing of the Maynooth Bill, and that it be printed. He
meant to give notice of the second reading of that Bill
on Monday, the 2d of June.
CONDEMNED SERMONS.

The Marquis of NOR MANBY inquired of Lord
Wharncliffe whether any inquiry had been made as to
the propriety of admitting the public to hear the sermons
preached at Newgate before the condemned criminals ?
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the matter had
been inquired into, but the repurt had not yet been
received.

SANATORY CONDITION OF TOWNS.

A NOBLE LORD gave notice of a petitiun which he had

intended to present to the House that night from the
working classes at Manchester, praying that an inquiry
be made into their sanatory condition, but he would post-
pone its presentation until Monday next.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the first reading of a Bill
entitled "An Act for securing the payment of small
debts."

Tile motion was acceded to.
MAYNOOTH.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE rose to present the peti-
tion of which he had given notice, from the late conference of
delegates held in London. The Noble Marquis read the peti-
tion, wh;ch expressed great dissatisfaction and alarm at the
proposed grant to Alaynooth, which the petitioners considered
to be strangely at variance with the Protestant religion, and
calculated to reduce religion generally to a mere political ma-
chine. The petitioners, proceeded the Noble Marquis, grounded
their opposition on a religious view of the question. As Pro-
testants they could not give their sanction to a measure which
they looked upon as opposed not only to the feeling of Pro-
testants, but to the feelings of the country generally. It was,
in his opinion, a most unwise and impolitic course which the
Government had adopted in bringing forward that measure.
The Right lion. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment had himself admitted that there was a strong opi-
nion in the country against it. There was never a measure
introduced into Parliament that went so far to subvert the
established religion of the country and bring into general ope-
ration the voluntary principles as the language held out was—
rather perish the Establishment than allow such a grant. With
these observations he would conclude by moving that the peti-
tion do lie upon the table.
Lord CH ARLEVILLE complained of the short time
allowed between the first and second readings of the Bill. He
might be told that the second reading of the Catholic Relief
Bib followed on a shorter period after the first reading, but it
would be recollected that on that occasion, that the reason
given was, that the subject had been fully debated before the
measure was brought before the House in the shape of a Bill.
Though many petitions had been presented on the subject of
endowments to Roman Catholics, it was a rule of the House

The Earl of WICKLOW was sorry the Noble Lord (Lord
Brougham) was in favour of the motion ; his statement and the
statement of the Noble Earl did not hold out any inducement
to Noble Lords to grant it. The objects for which they were
desirous to see it eppointeal differed. The Noble Lord o,ord
Brougham) was desirous that the Committee should consult a
certain standing order which was not on the table of the
House.

Lord BROUGHAM said they were on the table.
The Earl of WICKLOW said he was glad of that, and was
desirous that they should go before the Committee for its con-
siceration, in the event of their Lordships acceding to the mo-
tion. But whatever might be his intention as to the future
advtion of these standing orders, he trusted it was not his in-
tention to apply them to the railway propositions before
Parliament, for nothing could be more unjust.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord BRO UGH ANI said it was not.
The Earl of WICKLOW said he was glad the Noble Lord
had taken an opportunity of stating that that was not his in-
ention.

that no petitions could be received respecting any particular
measure till the Bill was before the House. Now there were
only four days allowed the people to present their peti-
tions—a period quite insufficient to give them an
opportunity of fully and freely expressing their sentiments.
In 1829 there were 922 petitions presented in favour of Ca-
tholio Emancipation, and there were 2,865 petitions against
it, and certainly if the number of the petitioners could be
taken as an indication of public opinion, this great majority
of three to one showed that the sense of the British public
was against Catholic emancipation. But against the May-
nooth grant there had been presented 8,753m petitions, which
were signed by 1,106,772 names, whereas but sixty-one pe-
titions had been presented in favour of the Bill. Under
these circumstances he besought the House to remember that
this Fill stood upon a different position from other Bills,
for it was a money Bill, and their Lordships could make no
alteration in it whatever. He therefore called upon her Ma-
jesty's Government to reconsider their determination, and to
allow the Protestant people of this United Empire one small
week more, to express their opinion.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said—The Noble Lord has
called upon me to postpone for,a " little week" the notice which
I have given but half an hour ago, that the Maynooth College
Bill shall be read a second time on the 2d of June. Now, my
Lords, the Noble Lord has forgotten the latitude which has
already been given to this Bill. This Bill, since its introduc-
tion in the other House, two months ago—or nearly two months
ago—upon the 3d of April last. My Lords, it will be two
months within a day when the proposition will be laid before
you for the second reading of the Bill ; and now there are
ten days given for the opportunity of presenting petitions,
which I think is as long as could be required for a Bill which
has already been a month under the consideration of Parliament.
There will be ample opportunity for presenting petitions not
only between this and the second reading, but in the succes-
sive stages of the Bill; and I feel it my duty to persevere in
bringing on the second reading of the Bill on the 2d of June.
The Earl of WINCHILSE A said that when their Lord-
ships considered there would be but two days of Parliamentary
business next week, it would not be too much to postpone the
second reading of this fatal measure for another weex. The
country had not yet had sufficient opportunity of considering
this Bill, and he hoped the second reading would be postponed.
He had several petitions which he had not yet had an oppor-
tunity of presenting.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE had also several petitions
to present.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Bill should be
read a second time on the 2d of June.

Lord BROUGHAM thought he had mentioned it. It
was his most clear intention not to apply the sanding order he
had specified to the schemes before Parliament. The House
must not take them by surprise. He had totally omitted a
suggestion which ought to come before the Committee—that
notice should be given that no Bill could be passed in this ses-
sion which did not come up on or before a certain day. The
best course would be, to give notice of the day, and that those
coming up after that must be deferred until next session. One
of his objects in proposing the standing orders was to save ex-
pense.

Lord HATHERTON hoped that some plan would be
adopted by which the poor man would have the means of re-
dress. 1 here were many instances of small freeholds being
entirely ru ned by railways, and inadequate compensation
awarded to their proprietors. They had been bandied about
from year to year in the hope of getting redress. He hoped
that the Committee would consider the necessity
of appointing
land-agents and other parties in various parts of the eGuntry to
constitute a tribunal to see and enforce the fulfilment of the
contracts of Railway Companies with persons who had not the
means of doing so themselves. Parties dissatisfied with arbi-
tration had a remely by a suit in equity, or by action at com-
mon law.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was glad the .Noble
Lord (Lord Stanley) had not offered any opposition to the
motion, as he believed it would give great satisfaction to the
landowners. The Bill which had been lately passed with
respect to railways was most objectionable in many points, and
he could cite many cases of hardship in connexion with it.
For instance a railway
might be carried for 100 miles through
mining property, which was in no degree valued except under
an arrangement by the railway directors, who sent their engi-
neer to make a valuation. Cold anything be more unjust than
a valuation by an interested party ?
compulsory clause ought
should
to have been put in the Bill to compel the parties to purchase
the mine under the railwa. It was necessary for the public
safety that a fair remuneration
be given to the indivi-
dual who owned the mine, which he was obliged to work for a
number of years by the terms of the lease. It was said that it
was not safe to work a mine under a railway. Then the com-
pany should be forced to buy it, otherwise the unfortunate pro-
prietors would be seriously injured,
1 hey ought to insert a
clause to that effect in the Bill. If the Committee were ap-
pointed, cases would come out which would render it necessary
that justice should be rendered.
Several motions were postponed till Monday, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.

The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented several petitions
against the grant.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from Banff,
and several other places, against the grant.
RAILWAYS.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from William Fox
Talbot, Esq., of Laycock Abbey, in Wilts. The petition stated
that the petitioner and his family had been in possession of the
estates ever since the Reformation—during three centuries.
The estate, which was very beautiful, was to be intersected by
the Wilts, Somerset, arid Weymouth railway, which would
entirely destroy the comfort and enjoyment of this estate. Not-
withstandinc, every effort, Mr. Talbot had been unable to ob-
tain any informationr as to the route the line was to take until
the very last day, when, according to the standing orders, no-
tice could be lodged. The number of proprietors in the parish
was 90, and out of those proprietors only nine were assen-
tients to the railway. Notwithstanding all this, the directors,
who seemed to think that they were in possession of unlimited
powers, paid not the slightest regard to the feelings of the
proprietors, because they felt assured that their Bill would pass
through Parliament. The proposed line was '22 miles long,
while a line was devised which would be no more than 10 miles
long. Laycock Abbey was one of the most magnificent
mansions in any part of this country. He could bear testimony
to this, for he had seen a representation of the mansion, not
taken by the common usage of draughtsmen, but by a means
which could not fail—he meant the photographic process.
This process was the discovery of the petitioner, who was not
only a man of extensive practical scientific attainment, but
also one of the most brilliant mathematicians at present existing
in this country.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mat, 23.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Air. P. HO WARD moved, " That it be an instruction
to the Committee on the Glasgow, Dumfries, and Car-
lisle Railway Bill, to consider the petition of the Car-
lisle Caral Company (presented 30th of April), notwith-
standing the same was not presented three clear days
b fore the day appointed for the first meeting of the
Committee.''
Some discussion arose, but the motion was ultimately
(as we understood) withdrawn.
The report of the Great North of England (Rich-
mond Branch), was brought up and laid on the table.
On the motion of Mr. LII)DELL, the report on the
Wiltshire, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Bill was
further considered, and ordered to be printed.
Sir G. GREY brought up the report of the Committee
on Irish Railways, which was t rdered to lie on the table.
The Inly's Island and Tacumshin Embankment Bill
was moved for a second reading.
It was opposed by Mr. REDINGTON and supported by
Mr. F. S. MURNIY.
The House then divided, when there appeared—

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that he presented himself, not as
the advocate of an individual, but of all those who were injured
by these projects. Yet, if their Lordships supposed that they
saw before them one who was opposed to railways, they greatly
erred. He would be delighted to see the whole country inter-
sected with railways. He desired to see every market town in
England approached by one. But if any of their Lordships did
not desire such extension, and represented any town
which was against it, he did not wish that town to be
included in the number. He did not wish that any place
where just objections could be urged against a railway, should
have one forced upon it ; and he considered that the place
from which the Noble Lord presented the petition was a place
of that kind. There were many others similarly circum-
stanced which had frequently come before the notice of their
Lordships. It was impossible to justify the conduct of the
projectors of many of those schemes ; and he thought it would
enable their Lordships to understand better how they managed
these things if he read them a few extracts from a newspaper
relative to a projected railway. He thought it would excite a
little curiosity and no little astonishment, and that it was cal-
culated to show the English to be a most gullible people.--
( The Noble Earl here read some extracts from a prospectus in
the Railway Times, which was headed " Great Eastern and
Western Railway," and which stated that a new line was to be
laid down, commenting at Great s, armouth, and ending at
Swansea.) In that prospectus, continued his Lordship, they
proposed to bring iron from Merthyr Tydvil, and other places,
and there was scarcely a place in England that was not named,
and which they alleged would receive benefit from this 1 ne.
They were to convey Welsh slates, which their Lordships knew
were peculiar to Caernarvon—they were to convey lime for agri-
cultural purposes—Droitwich salt, and the trade in woollens,
silks, and Welsh flannels was to be greatly extended among
the eastern counties, and, in fact, that every sort of produce
and manufacture was to find a ready outlet at Yarmouth and
Swansea. This was the way in which the promoters of these
schem. s gulled the country. Now, he held in his hand a re-
port of a Committee on the Ely and Huntingdon railway, and
in that report it was stated that there was not a single indi-
vidual in the whole district through which that line passed
who was connected with it. The shareholders all resided at

For the motion . ................... . 115
For the amendment .................. 17
Majority ......... —9B
The Bill was then read a second time.
Mr. WODEHOUSE },resented petitions against the
Eastern Union Rttilway
Mr. DEEDES presented a petition from the Earl of
Romney against the
ißochester branch of the South-
Eastern Railway. Aso a petition from the Earl of
Romney ag,tinst the Croydon, Railway Extension.
Colonel ROLLESI(?N presented a petition against
the Frew ash Valley Railway.
Mr. S. W()RTLEY rose to move a resolution, in con-
formity with that recommended by the First Report of
the Committee on Railways of last Session, viz.:—
" That the following clause be inserted in all railway
Bills passing throngh this House :—And be it further
enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
or construed to exempt the railway by this or the said
recited Acts authorised tobe made from the provisions
of
any
general Act relating to such Bids, or of any
general Act relating to railways, which may hereafter pass
during the resent or any future session of Parliament.
And that the said resolution be a Standing Order of
this House."
Lord HOWICK said he had already called the atten-
tion he would now
without defining the rate
that the House
should not pass those Bills
repeattion of fwtiihaet
eo House to
already t is subject,sad,
namely,
of charges. He did hope the House would interfere, for it
gxhilcei:l;lefor
the transit of lime and coals.
was ridiculous that the Committee should have this
in some of the Irish railways
illimitable power. In
at 4d.
cra,srestotnheyptefirxmedilet,heaimldaxiin-
at the extravagant charge of
tomsiche. mepr,ifraat
ttea(e): o‘i,pf,detcs.r,h
Again he w;ultl call upon the House not to let these
Bills pass the third reading without remedying this
defect.

111
1.44 y
1,40N-D-014) SATurtnAY MORNING,
1A48,,

Mr. GISBORNE contended that the Committees were
the proper tribunals before which to decide this question,
and it was only five weeks ago that this House had made
a resolution to that effect.

Mr. WATI BURTON said he concurred in the view a
of the Noble Lord (1-lowiclE), and would support
his proposition. They were bound to protect the public by
enacting that the rates should not exceed a certain standard.
He, therefore, entirely agreed with the Noble Lord.
Sir G. GREY said he considered the efforts of the Com-
mittee, as regarded the rate of charges, useless—in fact they
fixed them higher than the railways ordinarily charged.
Sir G. CLERK said the Committee had taken a great
deal of pains to ascertain the proper rates of toll. If the House
were to adopt the general regulations suggested by the Noble
Lord they would inflict a great injustice on the Railway Com-
panies. The resolution of the Noble Lord was inconsistent
with the Act of last session.
Mr. LABOUCHERE considered the amendment a very
important one, and thought the public would not excuse
them if they did not support it. The rates adopted upon Irish
railroads was 3id. a mile, and:the rate assigned for railways in
the manufacturing districts was equally high and exorbitant.
Railway Companies had a great influence in that House,
which was brought to bear by a system of canvassing, and,
therefore, they need he under no apprehension that in any ge-
neral measure they would injure railway schemers or railway
proprietors.—( Hear.) The House was very chary of the in-
terests of those proceedings. They should keep in their hands
the means, not of exacting unfair conditions from railway capi-
talists, but of benefiting the public at large. Some remedy
should be devised to deal with the extraordinary amount of
railway business. He would support the motion of his Noble
Friend the Member for Sunderland, but thought it should not
be made a standing but only a sessional order.
Lord GRAN VILLE SOMERSET said, the motion of the
Noble Lord was a most important one, but he thought too
general and extensive in its terms. He was of opinion that
the most erroneous notions bad been taken on the subject.
He thought that if there was a regulation made as to the
charges to be made on railways, the result would be that a
higher rate of charge would be made than took place now. He
did not think that the House was prepared for so great a pro-
position as that of the Noble Lord. He must certainly, there-
fore, vote against it.

Viseount-EBRINGTON thought he should best pursue his
duty by moving that the debate should be adjourned to Monday
next.

Mr. W. PATTEN seconded the motion. If the debate
were adjourned to Monday there would be time for duly con-
sidering this subject.
Mr. PARKER suggested that it would be better to with-
draw the motion and amendment, and bring them forward as a
substantive motion on Monday.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM inquired if it was intended that the
proposed revision would be prospective or would be retre-active
in its effect.
Lord HOWICK would make it apply to all existing com-
panies who came for fresh powers. The number of Railway
Bills which had been brought forward for the first time this
session was so great, and all more or less were competing hr.es
with existing companies, and he was perfectly satisfied that
this competition would compel the existing companies to re-
duce their rates of charge.
Mr. PAKINGTON thought the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. S.
Wortley) ought to be allowed to pass. The amendment should
then be brought forward as a substantive motion on Monday.
Captain BERKELEY said it appeared to him that the pro-
position of the Hon. Member for the West Riding of York-
shire would be a waste of time instead of a saving of it.
The debate was then adjourned to Monday.
Several petitions for and against Railway Bills were then
presented._ _

Air. BELLEW presented a petition in favour of the Dublin
and Belfast Junction Railway.
Sir V. BLAKE said he wished to make an explanation.—
(Cries of " Order.") He thought he was in order.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member could only give no-
tices of motion.

Sir V. BLAKE then said, he gave notice that he would, on
the 10th of June, move two resolutions. The first, -that it was
improper, and inconsistent with the usages of Parliament, that
the avowed enemies of her Majesty's Government should occupy
the Ministerial benches.—( Laughter.) Tilt second resolution
he would upon that day move was, that as Hon. Members were
in the habit of using language inconsistent with the usages of
civilised society, and had been guilty of the highest disrespect
to the Mouse, such Hon. Members should be in future, upon
using such language, be reprimanded by the Chair, and if
found incorrigible, ought to be forthwith expelled.
Lord JOHN MANNERS postponed his motion upon mort-
main law to the 3d of June.
Mr. HUME moved for the report of the last Pia Jury.
After a few words from Sir G. CLERK, the motion was
agleed to.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from an individual,
who complained that he had been convicted on a frivolous
charge of a seditious and revolutionary character. He had
already called the attentionof the Lord Advocate to the sub-
ject. The petition contained a long detail of grievances, into
which he would not enter at present. The petitioner's name
was Johnstone.

Mr. M. MILNES presented a petition from the New Zea-
land Society, signed by every member of it, and complaining
of the manner in which their claims had been dealt with by
Captain Fitzroy and by the Colonial-office. He begged to say
that the New Zealand Society was quite a distinct body from
the New Zealand Company.
Captain BERKELEY presented a petition against the Mer-
chant Seamen's Bill.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HUME said, as ho had understood from the Clerk
of the House that there was a sufficient number of Members to
attend the Railway Committees, and to attend those which
would be yet constituted, he would not press the matter further,
but let his motion drop. Such was the wish, he believed, of the
House generally, but if there had been any necessity for a
larger attendance of Members, in order to discharge the public
business, he would most certainly have pressed his motion.
Notwithstanding the backward state of public business, there
had been no House on the previous evening, though there was
a sufficient number of Members attending the Committees up
stairs to constitute a House. He thought that when that was
the case in future those Members should be summoned by the
Sergeant-at-Arms.

The SPEAKER was understood to say that the appearance
of the Sergeant •at-Arnis with his mace before a Committee
would not only terminate its sittings upon that day, but alto.
gether.—(Laughter. )
Mr. ESCOI'T gave notice that he would on Monday ask a
question relative to the dismissal of Lieut. Holies from the East
India Company's service._

ACADEMICAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Sir R. INGLIS requested of the Right Hon. Baronet to
postpone the second reading of this Bill. He made the request
at the instance of a great number of individuals, who felt
deeply interested in the measure.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as the Irish Members on both
sides of the House were desirous that some time should elapse
between the first and second reading, he would postpone ,the
second reading to Friday next.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
It was then moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn
until Monday next.

POOR .LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. HUME hoped the Government would postpone the
second reading of the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill,
in order that the people of Scotland might have time to ex-
press their opinions upon so important a subject.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he would postpone it to
Friday next.
Mr. HUME said that period was too near.
Sir R. PEEL said it could then be further postponed.
Mr. M. BELLEW put a question regarding the manage-
ment of the Dublin Scientific Societies, which was not audible.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said he had not been able sufficiently
to give his attention to the subject to be in a condition to give
an answer at present. He would inquire more particularly
into the matter.