The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-23 00:00:00

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
Against it ..
Majority against the amendment —l9
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE making further objections to the
measure, especially clause 16, which gave no security for the
attendance of the Commissioners.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the great object the Bill had in
view was visitation by the Commissioners throughout the
county, which was of far more importance than their at-
tendance at the Board.
After some observations from Lord ASHLEY,
Mr. HUME complained of the salaries of the Commissioners
besng far toe high. He did not see why those Commissioners
should have 1,500/. a year for doing little, and a pension for
doing nothing, while the Lords of the Admiralty had only
1,0001. a year.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved that the 16th clause
should be omitted, but he would forego that motion if he was
assured.by the Noble Lord that the office of the Commision, in
Abingdon-street, should be always open, and the secretary
always in attendance.
Lord ASHLEY assured the Hon. Member that such would
be always the case.
Mr. DUNCOMBE then moved to add the following pro-
viso to the 25th clause:—" Provided always, that no person
shall receive any licence for the reception of lunatics in any
lunatic asylum who shall not reside on the premises for which
he is licensed."
Lord ASHLEY agreed in the importance of th p
eprovision
proposed, but thought that its immediate adoption would be
most injurious to many individuals who had more than one
asylum. He would, however, pledge himself to take the
matter into consideration.
After some observations from Sir G. STRICKLAND,
Mr. WAKLEY said that he considered the proposition
most admirable one, and reflected the greatest honour on his
Hon. Colleague ; for himself he had entirely forgotten it.
Sir J. GRAHAM suggested that the insertion of the words
" hereafter receive a license for the first time," would answer
all z 4 purposes of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. 1.;..4,K LEY could not assent to the suggestion.
Mr. T. Dt3;;TOKRE thought he could n get much more
than was now offeret.! by the :light Horipurablot e Baronet, and he
must, therefore, aezept
Mr. WAKLEY suggested the additfOrs of to.
:.he words " or
having only one establishment," which was agreen".
of ad-
The HoN. MEMBER then suggested the propriety
journing the proceedings, in mercy to :he Speaker—( Heso—
would have to sit from five o'clock until two or three us the
morning.
Sir J. GRAHAM assented, and the further' proceedings on
the measure were adjourned till twelve o'clOc,k to-morrow
(Wednesday).
The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House re-assembled at Five o'clock.
The Birmingham Bluecoat School Estate Bill was read a
second time.
The South-Eastern Railway (Branch to Deal and Extension
of the South-Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and Margate
Railway) Bill was reported and ordered to be engrossed.
The Lords' amendments to the Aberdare Railway Bill were
read and agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to the Bristol and Exeter Railway
Branches Bill were read and agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to the London and Norwich Rail-
way (Dins and Dereham) Branches Bill were agreed to.
Mr. I)ENNISTOUN presented a petition from Glasgow,
praying the House to take some steps relative to the affairs of
New Zealand.
Mr. F. SCOTT presented several petitions from settlers in
New Zealand, complaining that the revenues of the colony
were applied to other purposes than those for which they were
originally intended.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a similar petition from New
Zealand.

THE MOLYNEUX (FOLLETTS) BILL.
On the motion of Sir H. DOUGLAS the Molyneux (Fol-
Letts) Bill was read a second time.
BOLTON AND LEIGH RAILWAY.

Sir H. DOUGLAS brought up the report on the above
railway amalgamation.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought the principle of amalgamation be-
tween four railway companies, where they could command the
trade of an important district like Liverpool and Manchester,
a very per one, and ought to be discountenanced by the
House. In the Bill under consideration there was also a
clause which empowered the company to levy different degrees
of rate upon the &fluent railways, and this he considered
totally opposed to the opinions of the House, as expressed
shortly before that time. He trusted therefore that the House
would postpone its consideration until to-morrow, when the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade would be present.
Mr. WARBURTON opposed these amalgamations of great
lines. He saw no difference in making a general system of
amalgamation, and in amalgamating two or three great lines.
The House ought to view with great suspicion these schemes of
amalgamation, as he was sure they would operate most injuri-
ously to the public interest.
Mr. GREENE denied that the Grand Junction Lne and
the Manchester and Birmingham were opposing inteiests.
They were to a great extent identical. The Graod
Junction ran for a considerable way on the Man-
chester and Birmingham line, from the point
of junction near to Liverpool. He knew of iso public grounds
on which the amalgamation ought to be refused. He knew
from his own experience in Lancashire that the amalgamation
would prove beneficial; and he considered a prima facie case
had been made nut before the Committee.
Mr. BROTHERTON opposed the amalgamation of the
lines. Such a Bill would enable the Grand Junction Railway
to swamp the smaller lines. It would be able, by the
regulation of tolls, to impose light rates on one
portion of their line, and heavy ones on other
portions, so as to injure the smaller lines in tho district. Such
an amalgamation would, in his opinion, operate most injuriously
to the public.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the question of postponement
rested with the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
cashire. The question was not whether the principle in the
Bill was a good or a bad one—that had been already
decided. A petition had been presented, it was true, against
this amalgamation, and counsel opposed it, but the oppo-
sition was not of a substantial nature. No case had
been made out against this amalgamation.—Hear, hear.)
The Manchester and Liverpool, and the Grand Junction Rail-
way were almost under the same direction. The North Union
line was originally intended to be amalgamated with the Liver-
pool and Manchester. This would constitute a most formidable
combination. He thought it was most desirable that there
should be a uniformity of toll. The Hon. Member then read
an extract from the Act, to show that it gave powers to the
directors to alter and vary the tolls. If the House came to
different opinion from that of the Committe, he, as a member
of the Committee, would not feel at all hurt.
Mr. P. M. STEWART could not see what was to be
gained by the postponement of this question, as suggested by
the Board of Trade.—(Hear.) If anything was to be
gained, he thought it was the expression of a prompt opinion
by the House on this question.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he did
think that this was a line which should at once be sanctioned by
the House, fer it formed what might be considered a great
amalgamation of the different lines that were in opposition to
each other.
Mr. H. HINDE believed that the proposed amalgamation
would be beneficial to the public. It would tend greatly to
increase the safety of persons travelling on those lines which
were proposed to be amalgamated.
Mr. ALDAM said that if this amalgamation were granted,
the traffic on the Grand Junction line would be placed on more
advantageous terms than the traffic on the Manchester and
Leeds line to Liverpool. He thought this was a strong argu-
ment against the measure.
Mr. W. COLLETT was understood to oppose the amalga-
mation, on the ground that it would enable the Grand
Junction Company to carry the broad gauge up to
Liverpool, and he thought, therefore, that the question of the
amalgamation of these lines ought to be postponed until after
the report had been made by the Commission on the subject of
the gauges.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that the Committee differed from
the Board of Trade, as they did not deem it advisable to alter
the gauge. The Committee had rec.annsentied the amalgama-
tion of the lines. He should object to the motion for the post-
ponement.
Mr. COBDEN observed that the system of amalgamation -
alone furnished a sufficient ground of opposition. He saw no
reason why amalgamation should be allowed in this particular
instance, unless it were generalised on all the lines of
railway throughout the country. It was argued that
different lines in conjunction could not be properly managed
unless an amalgamation took place. He, however, thought that
railway companies, having different lines of railway, could
give quite as much accommodation to the public,
as trustees of turnpike reads holuir,g separate trusts could af-
ford. He wished that this amalgamation Bill might be post-
poned not only for a day, but until that day twelvemonths.
Lord SAN DON said the Committee had reported in favour
of the amalgamation, but the report of the Board of Trade had
been against it. The House had been very much inclined to
attach great importance to their reports, but he could not see
that in this matter the Board had any right to interfere.
He was averse to calling into question the opinion expressed by
the Committee, and seeing no benefit to be got from a postpone-
ment, he should oppose the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. M. GIBSON teplied. The opinion of the House
might be against him, but he felt it his duty to press the motion
to a division.
The Houss then divided—
For the report
Against it
.Majority
COLONIAL LANDS.

... 67
23
-44

Mr. DENISON Zht,dto ask a question relating to the
Coloninl Department. He wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Government to introduce, at this late period of
the session, a Bill which was now in preparation, and if it were
introduced, whether it was their intention to pass it through
the House
Mr. HOPE said that the Bill referred to was a Bill for re-
gulating the unsold waste lands in Australia. The reason of
their delaying the measure till this late period of the session
was occasioned by the desire to have personal communication
with the parties interested in that colony. As regarded the
intention of carrying the Bill this session, much depended
upon the feeling with which it would be received.
Mr. DENISON said it would be impossible to say what
course it would be best to pursue till the Bill was produced be-
fore the house, and they knew its nature. He put it to the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) whether it was right
that the Bill should be introduced under the circumstances
stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ?
'Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that each measure should
stand upon its own merits. He did not thmktefinrenrdsistent to
go on with the Bill, if it came from the House i
Mr. AGLIONB asked if it was a fact that the BillsY vested
the mines and minerals in the Crown, with the consent of the
proprietors of the colony ?.
Mr. HOPE said that it was not necessary so to state it in
the Bill, as those were already vested in the -Crown.
DUKE OF YORK'S CLAIMS IN NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. WARBURTON wished to ascertain if the returns of the
revenue from the mines and minerals in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. ceded by the Crown to the late Duke of York, could
be had.

Mr. HOPE replied that the returns filled a large mass of
paper, but if the Hon. Gentleman would state what he wanted
there would be no difficulty in supplying him with what he
wanted.

Mr. THE RAJA OF SATTARA.
111)8.1vJeilrI,Elyshaiiedilthhaet hi,eashamd,f,sotr a long time had a motion
atihoauts
heto brim,ouf
dbefore the
?L'Tn-sittisee, and he wt:uld promise them
:1, in his.
,anchiiin-clis:i toe them.address Thatbe
presentednition twasoh
ears vi‘feforaly:
Ma-
follows :—" That ... —,,,usly pleased to direct inquiry into
short nine:
jtehset yagehgaetdsh,
he
aw,
gi will
charges
be
againstg ra-j.
1,:-* Perta.ub Shean, late Raja of
's inch shed with a copy of
Sattara, and whether he has bec
on which he was de-
the charges and evidence against him,
i.up,-.ner at Benares,
posed from his Raj, and now lives a state
to cause strict
a,;;.4. that her Majesty will be pleased further-
inqulry ~,:' be made into the charges of bribery aoa orruptien
by Knusebnik;ee Sadusee Bhidley (as stated in t'..41 papers
before the House; against Colonel Ovine, whilst.' reEi.
dent at bat torah, and against Ball,,jee Penil lea; too,
who assisted Colonel Ovens at the Court of Smtara." It w:i
a subject whieit he was, at all times unwilling
ha to obtrude
on upon
so
1840 he d only de
the House ; and the fact that since
twice, dent evidence of the fact. But now he felt
himself compeik ad by a Knee of duty, to again re-introduce