The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-22 00:00:00

RAILWAY S.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a
nobleman in Ireland, which was prompted by a
tenant of his in consequence of the line entirely
destroying his farm. He also presented a petition from
the sister of a nobleman, who complained that the line of
the proposed railway would not only pass through the gar-
dens of the cottages in which she resided, but would also
cut off all the supplies of water from the whole of the
village. There were so many other instances of trespass
ing on private property, that he should feel it his duty,
to-morrow, to take the sense of the House upon several
claLses of the new Railway Bill, which in his opinion
went to systematise this encroachment on private pro-
perty. I
SHERIFFS' BILL (WALES).

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE this Bill
was read a second time.
CORONER OF THETFORD.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that as he was on his
legs he would state what had been the result of his in-
quiries at the Home Office with respect to the motion
of the Noble Earl (the Earl of Mountcashel) the other
night, respecting the refusal of a Coroner holding in
quests in Thetford to make any returns of the number
of inquests held by him on infants without being paid
for it. The result of his inquiries was that there was
no case on record obliging a Coroner to make such re-
turn ; but he would suggest to the Noble Earl to put
his motion into a shape, calling for the return without
stipulation, and he thought that if that were done, the
Home Office would require the return, and it would be
for the Coroner himself to consider where he should get
his recompense from.
The Earl of MOUNTCASIIEL said that he should
adopt the suggestion made to him ; and he accordingly
moved that the Coroner of Thetford do make a return
to the House of the number of inquests held by him
upon infants, of one year old and under, from the 10th
January, 1832, to the 10th January, 1842, distinguishing
those infants which had been recently born, and those
to whose deaths verdicts of murder had been returned
by the Juries.

Tha return was granted.
COMPENSATION FOR DEATHS BILL.

Lord LYTTELTON, in moving the second readiug of
the Compensation for Deaths Bill, said that the object
of this Bill was to give compensation in the case of
death occurring by accident, to the relatives of persons
killed, not only to the wife, but to the parents of the
deceased person. If a person were only injured by an
accident he obtained compensation, but if he were
killed, his family, who were great sufferers, obtained no-
thing to lessen the serious trial which they sustained.
The object of this Bill was to obviate what could aot
but be looked upon as a very great evil.
Lord CAML'BELL said that he perfectly agreed
with the Noble Lord on the necessity for a Bill of
this sort, but he thought that several details might be
amended in the Committee. This Bill provided for the
compensation to be given in cases of death, but nothing
in case of accident where life was not destroyed ;
as for instance, when the wife of a labouring
man, who was throwngrom a stage-coach, and was con-
fined for six weeks. In that case there was compensation
for the injury in the first case, but who was to pay for
the care, anxiety, and loss of time which were suffered
by the husband and the family. He (Lord Campbell)
had delayed his Deodand Bill till this Bill was before the
House, in order that the two Bills might go down to-
gether; and he should therefore wish to see the necessary
alterations made in this Bill to render it complete.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the ob-
servations of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Camp-
bell) well worthy of attention, and be would suggest that
his Noble Friend should suffer his Bill to be referred to a
Committee up stairs, in order to amend the details of
the Bill, and in anticipation that his suggestion would
be accepted he would vote for the second reading.
Lord LYTTELTON having assented to the proposi-
tion the Bill was read a second time.
MANCHESTE% MAGISTRATES' BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUCH this
Bill was read a second time, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 21.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW WRIT FOR DENBIGHSHIRE.
On the motion of Mr. YOUNG, a new writ was or-
dered for the county of Denbigh, in the room of Sir W.
W. Wynn, who had accepted the office of steward
of one of her Majesty's manorial courts in the said
county.

- NEW WRIT FOR PEEBLESHIRE.
On the motion of the same HoN. MEMBER, a new
writ was ordered for the county of Peebles, in the room
of W. Forbes Mackenzie, Esq., who had been appointed
one of the Lords of the Treasury.
The Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Bill was
read a second time.
The Chester and llolyhead Extension Railway Bill
was read a second time.
THE SOUTHAMPTON AND DORCHESTER

RAILWAY.
On the question being put for the second reading of
this Bill,
Mr. COMPTON moved that She Bill be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. MACKINNON opposed the amendment. The
Bill was to connect Southampton with Poole and Dor-
chester along_ the sea coast, and the railway was calcu-
lated materially to benefit the district through which it

would pass. The only objection to the Bill was that the
' railway would pass through the New Forest, which wits
undoubtedly public property, and should be given for
public purposes.
Captain HARRIS supportal the motion.
Mr. G. BANJOS regretted that the Board of Trade
had decided in favour of the worst of two lines proposed ;
but rather than have no railway at all he would not vote
against the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. F. BARING thought that the Chief Commis-
sioner cf Woods and Forests would not oppose a railway
which had been recommended by the Board of Trade if
there were not strong reasons for it.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord G. SOMERSET was understood to explain, in
the absence of his Noble Friend at the head of the
Woods and Forests, that unless owe alteration were
made in the Bill, it would be his (Loffl Lincoln's) duty
to oppose it, on account of the injury the railway would
occasion to the crown lands through which it would
pass. For himself, he (Lord G. Somerset) would not
vote against the second reading, in the hope that the
alteration would be made.
Mr. COMPTON said that after what had fallen from
01; Noble Lord, he would not press his amendment.
I amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill was
read asecond time.

TILE NEW COMMITTEES.
Lord I ALMERSTON reported from the Committee
on the raii,.ays in group B, that the Committee assem-
bled at twelve 'clock,
at which Thomas Wyse, Esq.,
and the llon. ~.~,Berkley were not present, and were
not present for .n hour after that time. They,
however, came wir.;„ half an hour after one
o'clock, but no inconvenient., ../ISQ from their tempo-
rary absence.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord G. SOMERSET said that as this .<is the first
occasion on which these Committees had ass,hied, he
did not intend to found any motion on the -.nort
which had been made. On a future occasion, howev,

if such a report were made, he should feel i
his duty to move that all absent Members be taken into
custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms ; and he trusted that
the House would support him in this.
Mr. WYSE was not aware of the necessity of such
close attention to the rules of the House, but as this was
the first time which he had made such an omission, he
trusted the House would excuse him.

Capt. FITZHARDINGE BERKELEY was equally
of opinion with the rule which had been adopted. He
was anxious to fulfil the duty which the House had im-
posed on him, but he thought that there was a defect in
the rule by which the House wished to proceed.
He was aware that sufficient time was no-
minally given, for there were fourteen days notice of
attendance on the Committee ; but he had been absent
from town for a fortnight, and it was not to be wondered
at that such a thing should escape his memory. He
would suggest that some notice should be given by the
clerk of the Committee, or by some other properly ap-
pointed person of the day of attendance.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET slid that as the
Chairman of the Committee had reported that no in-
convenience had resulted from the negligence of these
gentlemen he did not propose that the House should
take any proceedings respecting them, but he should ob-
serve that the notice of these Committees was
published in the votes on Saturday morning, yet he had
no objection to such a notice as the Hon. Gentleman
had suggested; and should any further negligence
occur, he should deem it his duty to take some notice
of the matter, and he trusted the House would support
him.
Mr. WYSE believed that the Committees ought to be
attended, and he did not wish at all to shirk the re-
sponsibility which fell upon him as a Member of that
Committee.
Colonel WOOD said that he had received two notices
of different significations, and for different purposes, and he
wished to know by which of the two he was to be guided?
Mr. BARNEBY, Chairman of the Committee of
group C railways, reported that Joseph Somes, Esq.
had not been present at the Committee until one hour
after it had commenced its proceedings, but that no in-
convenience had resulted therefrom.—(Laughter.)
Lord G. SOMERSET said that as the circumstances
were the same: the proceedings must be the same as in
the last case.

The pirattt-T then dropped.
NEW WRIT FOR LEOMINSTER.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE moved for a new writ for the
borough of Leominster, in the place of Mr. Greenaway.
THE DEVONPORT COKE AND GAS BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill being
made,
Mr. HUME moved as an amendment that this Bill
should be read a third time that day six months.
Dr. BOWRING supported the amendment.
Sir GEORGE GREY spoke in favour of the third
reading, stating that the question was already decided
by the Committee.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
The Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill was read a
third time and passed.
WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MANGLES, the West London
Railway Bill was read a first time.
NORTIIUM.BERLAND RAILWAY BILL.

The Northumberland Railway Bill was read a second
time. and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

BOSTON RAILWAY.
The Boston Railway Bill was read a first time.
BARNSLEY JUNCTION LINE.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition
against the Barnsley Junction Railway.
Mr DUNCAN presented a similar petition.
GLOUCESTER AND CARLISLE LINE.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition in reference to
this Bill, but whether for or against we could not hear.

SOUTH-EASTERN LINE.
Mr. AINSW 0 RTII asked for leave to bring in a Bill
for the formatir•n of a Maidstone and Rochdale branch
on the South-Eastern line.
GREAT W ESTERN RAILWAY EXTENSION.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petition from the heads
of the Oxford University, praying that the House would
sanction the Great Western Railway Extension from
Oxford to Rugby, in preference to the one proposed by
the Birmingham Company.
THE RAILWAY COMMITTEE OF THE ISDARD