The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-15 00:00:00

MAYNOOTII.

The Marquia of ANGLESEY presented several re-
titions against any further grant to Maynooth.
The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions,
from different parts of the country, against the sale of
spirituous liquors on the Lord's day. The Right Rev.
Prelate also presented petitions against any further
erant to Maynooth, and against the Irish Education Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a number of petitions
against any further grant to Maynooth. The Noble
Lord did not agree with the prayer of the petitioners.
Lord A RUNDELL presented several petitions to the
like effect, and also disclaimed any participation in the
prayer of the petitioners.
ENTAILED ESTATES.
Lord REDESDALE gave notice, on bi- half of the
Dake of Richmond, who was unavoidably absent, that on
Thursday next his Noble Friend eou'd move for a Select
Committee to inquire into the expedieucy of pass-
ing- a legislative enactment to empower the holders
of entail. d estates to raise money upon them for the
purpcwe of elf( sting permanent improvements on the land.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from several towns and congregations in Scotland
against the grant to Maynowli.
The Bishop of L!anduff also presented petitions against
the grant to Maynooth ; as did the Marquis of Nor-
manby and Lord Monteagle ; the last stating his
difference with the petitioners, and declaring that he
regretted that the grant had been so long withheld, and
that he should give the grant his most hearty support.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN SCOTLAND.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
Commissioners of the county of Fife, which com-
plained that there was no provision for the care
of criminal lunatics, and stated that there were no
means provided for their recovery. One criminal
was, from want of any other place of confinement, placed
in a solitary cell. He was a monomaniac, and on all
other subjects, except that on which he was deranged,
he was a most intelligent man. The Commissioners
had done their utmost to provide him with some other
place of confinement, but their efforts were ineffectual, and
he thought the Government should take the subject up.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE regretted that there was r.o
provision. Until the 39th Geo. 111. there was no enact-
ment on the subject ; but that was insufficient ; and he
promised that the subject should receive the best atten-
tion of the Government ; and in the meantime they
would make every inquiry so as to provide a remedy.
RAILWAYS.
Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should to-
morrow move for the adoption of certain standing orders
respecting railways, and that he should found a motion
on the subject for a future period.
GRANT TO MAYNOOTII.
'The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented a petition
against any further grant to Maynooth. The Right
Rev. Prelate wholly dissented from the prayer of the
petitioners, although he agreed the object of the peti-
tioners might be good.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented petitions from
Ludlow and other places against the grant to Maynooth
The Marquis CAMDEN presented a similar petition
but could not concur with its prayer.
Lord DENMAN presented similar petitions.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS also presented severe
petitions, but disagreed with the prayer of the petitioners.
IRISH RAILWAYS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the
Noble Lord opposite, the President of the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade, a question of
considerable importance relating to the projected
railways in Ireland. He wished to ask whether
the line recommended by the Board of Trade
was the best possible one which could be
marked out, or whether it was only the best of two
or three which might have been submitted to them?
He was induced to ask that question by the terms
of a report which was laid on their Lordships' table
on the 3d of April, and which referred to the lines pro-
jected in the particular part of Ireland with which be
was connected. Without entering into a discussion
of the. merits of the two lines reported on,
he might state that neither of these two lines
was the best which could be contemplated.
In dealing with railways in Ireland, Government was
placed in a very different position than when they were
legislating upon railways in England. He thought in
Ireland Government might more directly interfere in
procuring for the public the best line which could be
suggested, arid not co.•fine themselves to any two
or three which a number of private individuals might
mark out. He wished to ask a second question, namely,
as to how far the Board of Trade, in examining the
various schemes which came before them, inquired whether
the promoters which came before them had conformed
with the provisions of the Registration Act, so as to
enable the promoters or shareholders to call themselves
a company. The regulations of the Registration Act
were certainly very stringent, and if the Board of Trade
or Parliament agreed with him they ought to be altered.
Until, however, those alterations were made, the provisions
of the Act ought, in his opinion, to be strictly complied
with. He should move for a paper stating the names of all
pers,ns who were really and truly connected with the
several salt mt s; and he thought that the public ought
not to be misled by the imposition of certain names on
the lists, which might give a fake colour to
the concern to which they were attached. He
had lately seen the names of certain Noble
Friends of his attached to schemes with which they had
nothing to do, and he thought that this ought to be
obviated.
The Earl of DALIIOUSIE said that before he re-
plied to the question of the Noble Lord, he would beg to
make mention of the circumstance to which the Noble
Marquis had alluded. The fact that reports of the
Board of Trade appeared in the newspapers before
they were placed on the table of their Lordships arose from
their having been placed on the table of the House of
Commons, and the consequent report of them through
the press before they were submitted to the House of
Lords. With respect to the secoi.d question, whether
due deliberation had been used in carrying
theft- decisions, and especially with respect to
Irish railways, he would say that he was aware
that the Act of last session was very stringent, but with
regard to the compliance with the standing orders the
House of Commons were alone to
,judge. The business
of the Board of Trade was simply to report on the merits
of the scheme, but with respect to the registration the
Board had nothing to do.—(Hear.) He conceived
that the Board fur enforcing the Registration Act
had not been negligent of their duty. They had in
several instances issued notices to all parts of the country
to warn shareholders of the risk they ran. As to the
Stock Exchange their Lordships were aware that the
proceedings of that place were kept quite secret, and
though it was notorious that many of the transactions
of that place were notoriously at variance with the
law, yet it was quite impossible to punish the
parties to those transactions.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that the
terms of the Act were much less difficult than the Noble
Earl imagined. The Noble Marquis dun read the
clause which requires a deposit upon shares before they
are transferred. He thought that the projectors
had precisely adopted the line recommended by the
Railway Commissioners, and he thought the Govern-
ment ought to be very particular in recommending lines
for the adoption of the public.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that with regard to
the clause for the registration of shares, he took leave
to say that every care had been taken, and if it had not
been taken it was no part of the duties of the Board of
Trade to interfere with such registration, and further he
thought that every care had been taken to avoid any-
thing like disregard of public interest.
GLASS DUTIES BILL—CUSTOMS EXPORT
BILL—MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, these Bills
were read a second time.

LAND CLAUSEg CONSOLIDATION BILL.
The Earl of I)ALHOUSIE moved that the House
should go into Committee on the Land Clauses
Consolidation Bill, and in doing so he begged
to correct a misapprehension which had gone abroad
respecting this Bill, that it was a new measure,
when, in truth, this Bill was nothing more than the
consolidation of the several clauses which had
been previously passed in the several private Bills
which had obtained the sanction of their Lordships.
It was thought extremely desirable that in legislating
with railway and other Companies that they should con.
solidate in one Bill all the provisions that were appli-
cable to the whole, and having done so, it was found
advisable to proceed further, inasmuch as in some Bills
it would be necessary to introduce portions only of the
consolidated clauses. It was, therefore, determined to
bring forward a Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, to
meet the necessities on cases of canals and gas compa-
nies, &c. In conclusion, he moved the committal of
that Bill.

Lord BEAUMONT said the Bill was of great public im-
portance, and it was the duty of their Lordships to see that no
error crept into it. The Bill established several tribunals,
and made it compulsory on the part of a railway company to
apply to one of these in cases where they might happen to
have disputes with the owners of land. Now, in connexion
with this part of the Bill, there was a provision which inflicted
great injustice on the landholders. It related to
costs arising out of a dispute as to the value of land. In
cases where the sum awarded by the jury, or arbitrator, or ma-
gistrates, amounted to less than that previously offered by the
company, one-half of the costs fell upon the landholder, and if
the amount so awarded was less than the costs, the company had
power to distrain for the balance. Now, this was manifestly
unjust. Where a man borrowed money, the whole of
the expense fell upon the borrower—( Hear, hear)—and
was not a railway company that required land placed
in the same position as a borrower ? Well then, if that were so,
they ought to pay all the expenses. But it was difficult now
for a private individual to grapple with a railway company, for
a railway company, when they got the sanction of the Board of
Trade, treated any little landholder as they thought proper.
He should move that this Bill be referred to a Select Com-
mittee up stairs.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that it was thought ex-
tremely desirable by the House of Commons and the parties
concerned that the different clauses should be divided into
groups, and that was the reason why this Bill was di-
vided from the Companies Clauses Consolidation
Bill. With respect to the reference to the Committee up stairs,
he had to say that those Bills embodied the experience of fifteen
years ; indeed, during the whole of the period since the con-
struction of railways, and therefore he thought that that ex-
perience up stairs was quite out of the question. They had
been told that they had an arrear of business in railway Bills
which was quite unprecedented. There were now 248 Bills
before Parliament, and though this was now the middle of
April, there was not a single Committee sitting in either House
of Parliament upon them, and he trusted that no opposition
would be offered to the House going into Committee, especially
when they recollected that if the Committee did not now sit, a
great expense would be incurred by the parties concerned, and
a great impediment would be offered to the business of the
country.
The amendment of Lord Beaumont was then negatived, and
the House went into Committee.

On the reading of the 28(1 and 231 h clauaes an irnetthhtent
was adowed, the bject of which was to give to the proptie.
tors of land the option of referring either to arbitration or a
jury, for the value of their lands before the lands were entered
upon.

On the moving of the 26th clause, which empowered parties
to take lands for a railway,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH expressed his swpicton
of the justice of the arbitrations, and he thought that the Board
of Trade should have an ultimate power of electing the
umpires.
The Earl of DA LHOUSIE thought the Board of Trade
ought not to be made parties in all these instances.
Lord BEAUMONT thought that the proposal of the Earl
of Ellenborough ought to be adopted.
The Earl of DALIIOUSIE said, that he thought the Board
of Trade ought not to interfere to appoint umpires in every
instance ; but only in those instances in which the arbitrators
had neglected and refused to appoint umpires, and that the
clause had better stand as it was ; and he thought that it was
incumbent on the Legislature, and especially upon their Lord-
ships' House, to see fair play, and he conceived that it was but
just that the railway companies should bear the costs of the
award, if the sum awarded was more than they offered; but if
the sum was the same, the costs should be awarded equally be-
tween the two parties.
The Earl of DEVON moved an amendment to the 64th
clause, authorising the owners of entailed proverty to raise
and lay out money in the drainage and improvement of the
land they occupy, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor.
The amendment was opposed by the LORD CHANCELLOR
and the Earl of DALHOUSIE, and afterwards withdrawn.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House
resumed.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progies,., and their Lordships
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 14.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW WRIT.
Mr. J. YOUNG moved fur a new writ fur the elec-
tion of a Member to serve in the present Parliament fur
West Kent, in the room of Lord .olarsham, now Earl of
Romsey, who has been removed to the House of Peers
by the death of his father.
The Aberdeen Railway Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
The Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill, and the Yar-
mouth and Norwich Railway Bill, were also read a second
time and ordered to be committed.
Petitions were then presented against the Yarmouth
and Norwich Railway Bill.
SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY CANAL.
On the motion of Mr. B. DENISON, this Bill was
read a second time.
The Chelsea Improvements Bill was read a second
time.

CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY.
Mr. BERKELEY presented a petition from Thomas
Watts, surgeon, of Cheltenham, against the Cheltenham
and Great Western Railway Bill, and the petitioner
prayed to be heard by counsel against it.—Referred to
the Committee on Standing Orders.
BOARD OF TRADE•—RAILWAY DEPARTMENT
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to postpone his motion
relative to the Railway Department of the Board of
Trade until Thursday next.
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the North Union
and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway was read a
second time.
Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition against
the Wolverhamp ton Water orks.
THE MIDLAND RAILWAYS.
Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER brought up the report
of the Committee on this Bill, declaring that the
standing orders had not been complied with, a clause
having been introduced into the Bill without
any previous notice being given to the parties interested
of its nature or import.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the report showed a
gross violation of the standing orders, but the House
would observe that the Committee did not
state the circumstances under which the resolution was
made. He was, therefore, strongly impressed with the
belief that some further inquiry ought to be instituted,
n•lt with a view of inquiring further into the
fact of the irregularity, but to ascertain the
circumstance under which it had been fallen into. He
had been privately informed that the agtut was cogni-
sant of the introduction of this clause, and therefore the
agent had been guilty of a serious error. He moved
that the clause be referred back to the Committee, with
power to inquire and report specially to the House by
whom, and under what circumstances, the standing
orders had been violated.

Sir J. Y. BULLER said the reason why they did not
report how this clause got into the Bill, was because the
majority of the Committee thought it was only their pro-
vince to ascertain if the promoters of the Bill had complied
or not wi th the standing orders. lie agreed with the Noble
Lord, that the matter had better be referred back to the
Sub-Committee, giving them leave to report specially
to the House. He thought also that, in referring
the case back to the Committee, it should be an
instruction that the evidence given erroneously by Mr.
Burke should be written out for the consideration of the
Committee.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite clear a most
gross, flagrant, and dangerous breach of propriety
had been committed on the part of the agent for this
case, and it was equally necessary that the circumstance
under which that breach of propriety was made ought to
be inquired into. He, therefore, thought the House
would do well to adopt the course recommended by the
Noble Lord.
The clause was then ordered to be re-committed.
SECOND READINGS.
The Taw Vale and Dock Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

The Forth and Clyde Navigation and Canal Junction
Bill (No. 2) was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

The Ilungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot
Bridge Bill was alsu read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
The Southport and Euxton Junction Railway Bill
passed through the same stage.
The report upon the Forth and Clyde Navigation
Bill was further considered and received.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Colonel WYNDHAM and Mr. GORE presented petitions
against the new Law of Settlement Bill, but we were
unable to catch the designations of the petitions.
GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr. lIOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle,
against the proposed grant to Maynooth College ; the
petitioners expressing, at the same time, their opinion in
favour of a grant for the purpose of uniting the Irish
colleges into one university, and throwing the university
open to all denominations. The Hon. Member said that
although he did not concur in the prayer of the
petition, yet he had not objected to present it, because it
was not characterised by bigotry. lie was proceeding
to speak further on the petition, when he was called to
order by the Speaker.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the Bishop and
clergy of Down, against the present system of National
Education. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman pre-
sented petitions to the same effect, signed by 15,000 in-
habitants of the same diocese, of whom 5,000 did not
belong to the Established Church.
MAYNOOTII.
Mr. BRADLEY presented petitions from the East
Bitting of Yorkshire against the grant to Maynooth.
Colonel VERNER presented similar petitions from
the county of Donegal.
Sir J. Hamner, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Collier, and other
Hon. Members presented numerous petitions to the same
effect, but neither the names or places were distinctly
heard in the gallery.
Petitions against the grant to the College of May-
nooth were presented by Lord Heniker, from Essex ; Mr.
Dickinson, from Somersetshire; Mr. Christopher, Lord
Northland, Mr. W. Williams, from Nuneaton; Mr. Pen-
darves, Mr. Duncan, from Dundee; Mr. Lawson, from
Yorkshire; Mr. T. Duncombe, from Leicestershire; and
Mr. Cumming Bruce, from Elgin and other places in
Scotland.

JUSTICES' CLERKS BILL.
Petitions against the 12th clause of this Bill were pre-
sented by Lord C. Manners and Mr. Christopher.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr O. ;DUNCOMBE presented petitions from the
West Riding of York against any furthor grant to May-
nooth.
Mr. FERRAND presented petitions from the Wes-
leyan Methodists of Knaresborough, and from the Pro-
testant Association of Cork, against the proposed grant
to Maynooth.

Mr.BUSFEILD presented a petition against the ap-
propriation of any public money to the support of any
religious sect.

Several Hon. Members rose at once to present peti-
tions upon the same subject, when
The SPEAKER said that Hon. Members would have
an opportunity of presenting these petitions after the
orders of the day had been disposed of.
Mr. FERRAND said, that if the proposed grant
to Maynooth should reach the third reading,
he should be prepared to move the following
resolution and amendment:—•" That it is the opinion
of this House that the 7th and Bth of Victoria, com-
monly called the Catholic Bequests Act, was a *violation
of the Act of Settlement, and a contravention of the
oath of supremacy, and that the present grant to May-
nooth is calculated to subvert the Constitution as by law
established."

Ma}future
m stage of the grant to Ma., _
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORDneethB said,
inh that
e
wouldin move a fue
following resolution: " That the principle of endowment
cl igi
voeus sect or sects,
rents,from statea&e.
w hfeu
tnhde,r or
knownfrom
by aof
any religious
fromtithes,
fund
other
drre
name or denomination, is a violation of the
rights of conscience, detrimental to religion, and dan-
gerous to civil and religious liberty, and that all such
grants ought to be abolished."
Mr. FERRAND moved that the petition which he
had presented from the Dublin Protestant Operative As-
sociation be printed with the votes.
NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved, on behalf of Mr. C. Buller,
for copies of correspondence connected with New Zealand.
Sir R. PEEL moved the order of the day fur the
second reading of the College of Maynooth Bill.
PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENT.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to a question from an
Hon. Member, said he would postpone the introduction
of this Bill till Wednesday next.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gate notice that he
would upon that day move that the Parochial Settlement
Bill be read that day six months.
PORT NATAL,
Mr. HINDLEY asked if the Government had yet
appointed, or if they intended to appoint, a Governor
ever Port Natal ?
Mr. HOPE was understood to say that a Governor
was about being appointed over Port Natal.

MEDICAL REFORM.•
Mr. MACAULAY asked when it was intended
to bring forward the second reading of the Bill on
Medical Reform?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he hoped he would be
permitted to forward he 11 a stage that evening and