The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-25 00:00:00

filar in

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1845.

The Lords met at Five o'clock.
Earl BATHURST brought up the report of the Select
Committee on the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill,
They reported that the most systematic frauds had been
had recourse to, to procure the requisite number of signa-
tures to the subscription contract, and they had decided
not to inquire further into the Bill, without directions
from the House.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH then gave notice that he
should, to-morrow (this day), move that the Bill be no
further proceeded with.
Lord BROUGHAM then recurred to the question of pri-
vilege, to which he had adverted on Tuesday evening,
and said; that after the explanation of Mr. FRENCH+

the preceding evening, he had no desire to trouble their
Lordships further in the matter, reserving to himself the
right of proceeding criminally, if he thought fit, against
the Times and Morning Chronicle, which last paper had
published the offensive speech, and had also offensively
commented on his conduct.

After a few words from the Earl of WIcKLow, the
mutter dropped.
Lord CAMOYS brought up the report of the Committee
on the Runcorn Railway Bill, finding the preamble
not proved.
In answer to Lord MONTEAGLE,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that some measure
was in contemplation to alter the present mode of swear-
ing witnesses before Railway Committees.
Lord CAMPBELL suggested that Committees of the
House of Commons ought to have the power of examining
witnesses on oath.
Lord BROUGHAM moved a resolution that an address
be presented to her MAJESTY, praying that she would
be graciously pleased to give directions that the new
Houses of Parliament might be ready by the beginning
of next session.
The motion, which was supported by Lord CAMP-
BELL and the Earl of WICKLOW, and opposed by Lord
WHARNCLIJFE, the Duke of WELLINGTON, and Lord
SUDELEY, was lost, on a division, by a majority of 24,
there being—contents, 16—non-contents, 40.
Lord WHARNCLIFTE moved the second reading of the
Lunatic Asylum Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the motion, and pro,
posed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Com
mittee.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that a clause in the
Bill had passed through the House of Commons by mis-
take, and therefore it would be better not to proceed

*urther with the Bill.

A message from the Commons was here announced,
requesting their Lordships to expunge the clause in
question.

A long conversation followed as to the courts to be
pursued in such a case, and it was ultimately arranged
that the second reading should not be proceeded with,
but that a new Bill, identical with the present one, with
the exception of the clause in question, should be in-

troduced and read a first time. This was accordingly
done, and the second reading was fixed to-morrow (this
day.)
On the motion of Lord STANLEY, the Commons En-
closure Bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Monday.
The Colleges (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and
passed.

Several other Bills were forwarded a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.

The Commons met at twelve o'clock.
The Cpal Duty Bill was read a third time. On the
motion that the Bill do pass,

Sir JAmzs DUKE moved a clause authorizing the pay•
ment of a drawback on coal carried in bargea to the
west of Staines.

The clause was opposed by the Government, and lost
on a division, the numbers being for the clause 24
against it 37.
Mr. HtmsE proposed the omission of the clause im•
posing the penny duty. This motion was likewise lost
on a division, the numbers being, for the motion, 24 ;
against it 41.

The Bill was then passed, after an energetic protest
on the part of Mr. HUME, against the consideration of
measures such as this Bill at the morning sittings.
The Small Debts Bill (No. 3) was reported.
The Church Building Acts Amendment Bill passed
through Committee.
Mr. B. DENISON moved that it be an instruction to
the Committee upon Group X of Uailway Bills, that
they have power to divide the London and York Rail-
way Bill into two or more Bills, if they think fit.
Viscount COURTENAT explained the course which
had been adopted by the Committee, and which
had rendered this motion necessary.
Mr. P. M. STEWART remarked on the irregularity
of the proceedings of the Committee.
After a few words from the SPEAKER, also com-
menting on the irregularity of the proceedings of the
Committee, the motion was agreed to.

The Stock-in-Trade Bill was read a second time.
Upon the motion that the House should go into Com-
mittee on the Brazilian Slave Trade Bill,
Mr. M. GIBSON called upon the Government to hesi-
tate ere they passed a measure calculated to involve the
country in a war.
Sir R. PEEL defended the measure, and, after some
discussion, the House went into Committee on the Bill.

The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the
House resumed.

Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and the
other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

One of the strongest objections made to the Irish
Colleges Bill, by those friendly to its great principle
of united education, has been the absence of provision
for an University to confer degrees on the students of
the colleges. But there is at least this advantage in

leaving the question of the university unsettled, that the
door is not shut against an ultimate connexion of the
new Irish colleges with the existing University of
Dublin, and at the end of three years it may be easier
to effect this arrangement than it is now. We are glad

to infer, from some words attributed to Lord SrANLEY
in the Committee on ate Bill on Tuesday, that the
Government are not pledged against an affiliation of the
University of Dublin. Lord STANLNY is reported to
have said—" Perhaps the most satisfactory course, on
some accounts, would be to affiliate the new colleges with
Trinity College, Dublin ; but their Lordships would be
aware that there were difficulties in the way of such an
arrangement. Then came the question whether the new
colleges ought not to be associated as a separate Univer-
sity, the general meeting to be held either at a distinct
place, or alternately at one of the colleges. It would
obviously be highly desirable, upon this and other points,
that the opinions and wishes of the governing bodies,
and for this.and other reasons delay seemed not inex-
pedient."

The Government then have not made up their minds,
and it might be much worse. If the Irish Colleges Bill
had contained a provision for an University, we have no
doubt that it would have been a new university. On
every ground it ought to be the present University of
Dublin, of which, properly, Trinity College is only a
college, as Trinity College, at Cambridge, is a college
of the University of Cambridge ; or Trinity College
at Oxford, a college of the University of Oxford ;
though being, contrary to the original intention, the
only college, it has engrossed the government, and mo-
nopolised the privileges of the University of Dub!in.
Does Josil BULL, who has already been called on to
pay 100,000/. down, and 21,000 L a year for the three
new colleges, know that he has not yet got the whole Bill,
if there is hereafter to be a new university ? There
must be a staff of examiners, who must be paid
salaries, and who, though they will only be called upon
to examine twice or, at most, four times a year, while
the professors of the colleges will have to lecture during
the greater part of the year, will not receive salaries
less than those of the professors in proportion to their
lesser amount of work ; for it will be necessary to have
examiners of even higher calibre than the professors of
the colleges, and a higher scale of salary will be neces-
sary in order to get a good man. Then, too, there
must be prizes and exhibitions in connexion with the
examinations for degrees, as there are in the University
of London. Now the University of London costs the
public 4,500 L a year ; and a new separate Irish univer-
sity would not cost the public less.

The whole of this additional expense 'would be saved