The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-03 00:00:00

FROM TEE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

OFFICE OF. ORDNANCE, MAY 31.

Ordnance Medical DepartMent.— Temporary Assistant-Sur-
geon H. Bri'eoe to be Assistant-Surgeon, May 27.
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.

THOMAS LONG, coal merchant, Beaufort-place, Cheltea.

BANKRUPTS.

PETER ANDERSON HEPBURN,• wine-merchant,
Powis-place, Hampstead-road, to surrender June 10, at two,
and July 15, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. I.ack-
ington, Colenaan•.street-buildings, official assignee; Frowd,
Essex-street, Strand.

THOMAS QUAIFE, THOMAS JONES TYRRELL,
and JAMES QUAIFE, brewers, North-end, Fulham, June
10, at one, and July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Johnson, Basinghall-street, official assignee ; Fyson, Curling,
and White, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry:
WILLIAM CHAPPELOW, bridle cutter, Long-acre,
June 17, and June 15, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-Street,;: Hornidge,
Bloomsbury-square.
CHARLES SAMUEL HEYWOOD and WILLIAM
HEYWOOD, warehousemen, Manchester, June 15 and July
15, at ten, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. Reed
and Shaw, Friday-street, Cheapside, London ; Sale and Worth-
ington, Manchester.

GEORGE WILLIAM LONGRIDGE; ironmonger, Sun-
derland, July 7 and 15, at-eleven, at the George Inn, Sunder-
land. Loveland, Symond's Inn, Chancery-lane, London;
Cooper, Sunderland. • -

WILLIAM HARPER, merchant, Cowper's•court, Corn-
hill, June 10, at two, and July 15, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Groom, offieial assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lom-
bard-street; Kirkman, King William-street, London•lridge.
GEORGE BOWER, woollen cloth manufacturer, Wooldale,
Yorkshiae, June 11, at ten, and July 15, at two, at the George
Hotel, Huddersfield. Cornthwaite, Dean's-court, Doctors'-
commons London ; Cornthwaite, Cable-street, Liverpool.
JOHN BAINBRIDGE, ironfounder, Richmond, York-
shire, June 24, at three, and July 15, at ten, at the Golden
Lion-inn, Northallerton. Addison, Mecklenburgh-square;
London; Hunton, Richmond, Yorkshire.
HENRY WILLIAM JACKSON, wine-merchat, Haver-
hill, Essex, June 17, at four, and July 12, at two, at the Rosa
and Crown Inn, saffron Walden. Holmes, Livetpoob:street,
London; Jardine, Stoke next Clare, Suffo'k._ _ _

EDAIUND 'ASHWORTH, innkeeper, Manchester, June
20 and July 15, at eleven, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Man-
chester. Adlington, Gregory, Faulkner, and Follett, Bed-
ford-row, London; and Chw, Manchester.
JOHN NOTTIN 011 A M, picture- C.ealer, Cheltenham,
June 15 and July 15, at eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Chelten-
ham. Roy, Blunt, Johnstone, and Walton, Lothbury, London;
Bubb, Lingwood, and Bubb, Cheltenham.
. JOHN' GOODER, fancy cloth manufacturer, Halifax,
Yorkshire, June 14, at eleven, and July 15, at twelve, at the
George Hotel, Huddersfield. Clarke. and Medcalf, Lincoln's
Inn-fields, London ; Whitehead and Robinson, Huilderifield.
WILLIAM WALKER, mercer and draper, Burton-upon-
Trent, St. ffordshire, June 17, and July 15, at twelve, at the
White Hart Inn,.Burton.-upon-Trent. Drewry, Burton-upon-
Trent ; Bicknell, Roberts, Finch, and Neate, Lincoln's Inn-
fields, London. . .

Earl STANHOPE'presented numerous petitions from
Oldham and other places, against the existing Poor-laws.
• LIVERPOOL COURTS.
A message from the Commons brought up the Bo-
roUgh Courts of Liverpool Bill.
INCOME. TAX.

The Earl of ROSEBERY presented petitions from
Market Deerham, Norfolk, against the Income-tax.
FACTORY BILL.

The.. Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
the clergymen of Leeds, .and troni'seienty other clergy-
men in various- parts- of Yorkeshire, Lancashire, &c.,
agai4i the employMent of children in -factories, and in
favour of ti "Ten 'flours' Bill. He concurred in
the - prayer of. the • petition, which he considered
was entitled to their Lordship.' -grave attention,
as it came from, perions who were alt6gether
tiro stid, and who had the hen opportunities of forming
a correct estimate of the effect of the present System:
The Law of- Evidence ImprOvement Bill, and the
Fines and Recovery (Wales and Chester) Bill, were
each read a third time and passed.
. Tlmi vAnstralia and New Zealand Land Bill went
Committee.thr

AFFAIRS .IN AFGHANISTAN.
I:Ord -BEAUMONT rose, pursuant' to notice, to pre-
sent: a petition .from. the Indini Committee of the Colonial
Society,• praying for the production of docuthents re-
lating. to the origin of the war .in Afghanistan.
The petitioners- expressed their deep regret, that the
boundary between the dominions of Russia, and the ter-
ritories -- of Great Britain in the East, had been
thrown- open ; when they had already seen Turkey
wade war - and left without assistance, until
she 'was completely broken down :beneath the
power of, Russia: --They saw • the Caspian swept of
the flag of Persia, anti- the influence of Russia so es-
. tablished us to be able to turn the attention of Persia
as a part of her hereditary territory, and to
cause- a second attack to .be made upon He •
rat, in spite of the, remonstrances of England.
If the papers which he had seen were correct, their in-
formation went to confirm the suppositirn' that there had
been a willingness on •the part of llost Mahommed to
form an alliance with the-British Gtwernment ; but that
the Russian Envoy arrived before communications could
be received, and the conSeqtience was, that Doit Ma-
hommed entered into communication with St. Peters-
burgh, and an alliance was. formed with Runjeet Sing,
who was to attack Shalt Soojah and commence the,
war its Affghanistan. The result of thus had been but
too disastrous: The production of .those papers would
prove whether the English had lost all their influence in
Affghanistun. He believed that the English had ample
means of repelling the attacks, and preventing the in-
juries which had occurred. But this part of the war he
would not dwell upon, it was to the commencement of the
war that the prayer of the petition referred. It prayed
for the production of documnts relative to Runjeet
Sing and Shah Soojah. It might be said that it was
not usual to produce to Parliament these documents, but
it Must he remembered that an immense power was de,
legated to the President of ?the
.Board of Con-
troul, and therefore the Parliament had a right to ask
some explanation of the line of conduct which
he had pursued. lie had the 'power of making peace or
declaring war in India, and therefore it was but right
that he• should be called upon to give an explanation
when it was required by Parliament. The war in
India was set forward'as a kind of gilding to the pill of
the Income-tax, and the_people of England had for this
reason also a right to an answer. He .thought he had
stated enough to justify the petition, but if it was found
inconvenient for any reasons to. give those despatches, he
would abstain from asking .for them, at the same time •
holding himself disengaged to renew the subject when
those reasons ceased. He should, thetefore, move that
the petition be laid On the table.
ORMSBY INCLOATRE BILL.

A conference was appointed'hy the House to meet the
conference of the House of gormapnss to discus's the
amendmentS on' ° _

Lord FITZGERALD said that he did not think their
their Lordships would wish, or the. Noble Lord himself'
expect, that he should folloW the . Noble Lord into the
various topics Which he introduced in the course
of. his speech, especially as t•he petition he had
presented only came from the-Secietary of a Society
of which their Lordships • had beam but little—(Hear,
hear)—and on which he did not propose to found
any motion. It would be unbecoming and unfair
in him (Lord F.), holding the position he did, were
he induced, in the present imperfect state of their in-
formation from India, and of the position of their army
there, to enter into a discussion so premature and ill-
timed. It was not for him (Lord F.)' to defend the
policy of the meire,ures the Noble .Lord complzined of.—
When that policy came under discussion, he would not
he would not hesitate to express his opinion of it,
but it would be enough for • him to defend the
policy, which the present Government would in future
recommend.—(Hear, hear.) Yet-he hardly thought the
Noble Lord did justice to thoSe who recommended
the course of policy he complained of, when he stated
that Parliament and the *country were ignorant of the
motives upon which the late • Government acted.
He -was not giving any opinion, but with the
volume he held in his band, he thought the
Noble Lord could hardly- make that statement
The Noble Lord had, in the course of his observations,
'aid too broad a foundation for the superstructure that
he had afterwards raised ; for in presenting. a petition
from a private society
.he hail not prep:arid a foun-
dation fOr tha discussion of a propos! th in relative
to the whole of the policy of England as connected
with Russian Turkey and Central Asia. IN Must say
that the feeling's which the Noble Lord had expressed
relative to the hostility of Russia to this. country were
feelings which her Majesty's. GoVerntrient did not
share with ;he Noble- Lord. There never was
a •period at which in the relation subsisting
between Russia and 6reat Britain. With respect to
Turkey and the East there existed more: confidence and
more amicable feeling, and there was no country in the
gpd • success titan iniAl
b‘se•oernldaientiwnigliey‘hittilliemdioprleoncionrttiiejaneynts of both eonntricS had
the agents of those conntries later' at the Court of 'Te-
heran. This much he • (Lord --Fitzgerald). thought it
necessary to say, for: the purpose •of allaying those ap- '
prehensiong, from - Whatever quarter they might

Mr. HAYTER brought up the Report of the Belfast
Committee. The Report stated that James Emerson
Tennent and William Johnson, Esqrs., were not duly
elected to serve as Members for the borough of Belfast,
and that the election was void.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would, on
Monday, move for the suspension of the writ, and for
an inquiry into the corrupt compromise by which gross
bribery, multiplied perjury and personation to a great ex-
tent were prevented from being investigated.
LEEDS I MPR VE ME N TBILL.
Mr. G. KNIGHT moved that the Committee on this
Bill have leave to make a special Report.
DEPTFORD PIER BILL.
Sir J. HANDIER brought up the Report on this Bill,
which was ordered to be engrossed: .
'On the motion of Captain WEMYSS, the Burntisland
and Granton Pier Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, the
Liverpool Borough Court Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
On the motion of Mr. MILES, the Lords amendments
to the Bristol and Gloucester Railway Billovere agreed to.
LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY (GRANGE
ROAD APPROACHES.)
The RepOrt on this Bill•was brought up, and ordered
to be engrossed.' H.. , •
Mr. CLIVE: moved the consideration of the Report on
the London and Croydon Railway Grange-road Ap-
proaches Bill. •
Sir E. KNATCHBULL opposed the bringing up of
the Report, and moved as an amendment that it should
be taken into further consideration that day three montM.
Lord MARSIIAM seconded the motion of the Right
Hon. Baronet. .
Mi. KEMBLE said he had heard a great deal about a
breach of faith on the part of the Croydon Com-
pany, and a variety of other charges against them,
but he .should not occupy the attention of the
House by alluding to them now, as the question to
be considered now was, whether the forms of the House
had been complied with. He thought that consistently
with the forms of the House, if the Bill had not passed
through the requisite forms, it could -not .now :be
in its present shape.—(Hear, :hear.) The facts were
those :—The
.Croydon Railway originally petitioned.
for leave to .bring . in, a Bill, fir the _purpose. .0t
forming a road. He. (Mr. Kemble) was. on that.Cort-
mittee, and the Committee. was of opinion that the
question they had to consider was, whether thiS was
to be a Common Road Bill or a-Railway Bill ; -if a Rail-
way Bill, then the forms of the House had not been com-
plied with ; and they considered, inasmuch as the word
depot had been introduced, it must be a railway. The
Croydon CoMpany appealed to the Committee of Stand-
ing Orders, when the former decision was confirmed.
He then brought in another Bill—that Bill had
been acceded to, and was now in the condition in
which it appeared before the House. • From a paper
which he held in his hand, it appeared that the Green-
wich Railway Company w ere of opinion that it was,
the intention, and within the power of this Com-
pany to use the land they required under the
Bill for a • railway or a depot, but as they said it was
only for a, road that they went before Committee, the
Greenwich Company did • not see any 'grounds for op-,
posing them there. He should like to know what
grounds they had now ? . It was the instruction
of his Hon. Friend on his right, at the third
reading of the. Bill, to introduce a clause • -to pre-
vent them making this road into a railway. They
had been told by eminent counsel that they could not
make. it into a railroad, and they had no intention of
doing so ; they had no objection, therefore, to the intro-
duction of a clause to let the House understand that-they
had no power or desire to make anything but a read.
Under these circumstances he shohld certainly oppose the
motion of the Right.. Hon. Gentikrian. He trusted. the
House would support the Bill, and, if a division took
place, that a large majority would appear-in its faronr.
Mr. STRUrr said, that as. Chairman of the Com.
mittee which recomtnemlud the house to grant:•per-
mission to the Committee to introduce their Bill,
he wished to say a l'ew•- words. ly the coin-
mittve had supposed that such claims as appeared
in the Bill were intended to have been introduced
they never would have recommended the house to grant
permission of the Bill being introduced. It was under-
stood that this was to be a mere Road Bill for the access
-of carriages and carts .to the terminus of the railway,
but as clauses were proposed to be introduced to erect
bridges, and otherwise level the roads that a railway
was contemplated. Had the Committee been aware of
this they certainly would not have made the recommen-
dation they did. If the House allowed this Bill
to pass, it would be setting - a .dangerous precedent
_in allowing clauses to •be produced in a Road Bill for the
construction of a railway. He must say that it appeared
to him that the'sesparties had not adhered to the original
Bill of which alone they received the indulgence Of the
House in being: allowed to introduce the Bill., Under
these circumstances, he felt it his duty to support the
motion of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. DARB•Y considered that the opposition to this-
Bill by the Greenwich Railway Company, was for the
purpose of establishing a monopoly on their own parts.
If the House rejected this Bill, it -would in fact be decid-
ing that no person should come to London by railway
from Dover, Tunbridge, Croydon, or Brighton, except
by the Greenwich line.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN would, on the third reading
of the Bill, move the insertion of a clause prohibiting
the Company from laying down rails on this line of road
without again applying to Parliament.
Mr. CHILDERS objected to the introduction of any
provisions into this Bill, enabling the Company to make
preparations fur turning it into a railroad at some future
period. If a westend terminus for the Croydon Rail-
way were desirable, let the Company bring in a Bill for
that purpose ; but the terminus of the proposed road
was quite as far from Westminster Bridge as the pre-
sent terminus.
WATERFORD ELECTION COMMITTEE.

It being now nearly five o'clock the names of the
Members chosen to serve on the Waterford • Election
Committee were called Over as follows :--J. Jervis, Esq.,
Captain Boldero, Admiral Deans Dundas, E. H. A'Court,
Esq., J. 11. Vivian, Esq., Viscount Somerton, J. W.
Hogg, Esq., chairman. •,„ •
When the Hon. Members came to the table to be
sworn, it was discovered that Viscount Somerton was
absent. The other Members then withdrew from the
table.

The following Members were then called to the table,
to be sworn in, to serve on the Athlone Election Com-
mittee :—the Hon. G. C. Forestsr, Sir B. Hall, B.
Bottield, Captain Vechell,• J. Hornby, Esq., Sir James
Duke, E. Divett, Esq., Chairman.
Sit James Duke not appearing to answer to his name,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMEIWET said, he under-
stood that Sir James Duke was. suffeAng from severe
indisposition, and that his medical .40itn t'eitaSitl attendance
to be examined. He therefore moved tha,t4e medical •
man be.called in.—Agreed to;
The motion having been agreed to, Mr. J. Bainbridge,
the medical gentleman in attendance on Sir J. Duke,
Was then called 1,11 anspn. ansWer to questions from the
SPEAKER, stated'thftt Sir J. Duke was at present very
ill, though not dangerot4 so;; that he thought it would
be dangerous for him to attend an Election Committee,
as he was suffering from a soro'throat, which he was ap-
prehensive might turn into.searlet fever.- He had gone
'out of doors yesterday, but he was not so well to day.
The witness was otdered to Withdraw, and
On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET;
the order fur the- Committee was discharged, to be re-
ferred back to the Committee of Selection, on their first
day of meeting (Monday next.)
WATERFORD COMMITTEE.
The Members composing the Waterford Committee
were again called tp the table, and Viscount Somerton
being still absent,

Lard G. SOMERSET moved, that the Sergeant-at-
Arms be ordered to take the Noble Viscount into
custody.—Agreed to. -
CROYDON RAILWAY BILL.
The debate on the Croydon Railway was • then re-
sumed.

Mr. ESCOTT complained that the Standing Orders
were not complied with in this case.
Mr. RICE said that the main object fur which the
House had to consult, was the convenience of the public.
That was an object 'much more important than the
squabbles of railroad companies.
• Mr. ATWOOD would vote for stopping the further
progress of the bill.
_ _

Mr. LABOUCHERE would vote against - the further
progress of the Bill, in consequence of the Standing
Orders of the House not being complied Avith.
Mr. GREENE opposed the Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared,-
- For the reception of the Report BB
For the amendment
Majority fier the amendment.— —6O
ORMSBY INCLOSURE BILL.
A conference was appointed to consult with, the Lords
respecting certain amendments introduced by their
-Lordships on the Ormsby Inclosure Bill. Mr. Hume,
who conducted the conference on the part of the Com-
mons, informed the House that the other House of Par-
liament insisted .on the amendments which they had
adopted,

SUNDERLAND ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re-
ceived a notice from the agent on behalf of the peti-
tioners against the return fur Sunderland, that it was not
their intention to proceed with the petition.