The Sun. — London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

„roma by i r t - .CI), and” .cl, dprstood cred wito assistsnee ice, as it pOir he Irish r i rp ~rdimis, - Ices. 3eived. uw i s hed o r :e the he effec. " neat, the its cbi las% t but $13.11; 'ore no o'l in l y wets 11 no OS /le gi r ed °beep/ 4 t h a t ther e ' re . s hould t ° o f 22d elauslit the e 00 0 .ed to $h agree tO 60 )cOgb edL o 'T. llls6° o' the 1210',4", that the h j e, it .1. Gr su rr iei to be Id' , u ght to"el :Hans to sufficient Frc:, end disci:B°li; sus in of ion, the /I t IN )ferette e I to exerniioo ver coal oti o rdert ia bi here vioul4ol og thst ,n oleo to t rt is evident from comparin g the pr esen t p o p u l a ti on o f e tell principal towns in each. , In Great Britain. In France. tor°ll4lation, 1841 : Population, 1842 : unclog ............ ... 1,873,676 Paris i:!anchester ... ..... 296,183 Marseilles GZ er Pol .......... 286,487 Lyons 143,977 tinstgow .............. 274,533 Bourdeaux .. 99,512 90,580 Leed ll3 . g h loi ... .... 182,922 Rouen 76,965 t4inbur"-! ............. 152,054 Toulouse ri atc t . r gh• ..... 138,182 Nantes Ply m _ ......... 122,296 Lille 840 Mr d ........ 68,186Anaiens 76,870 63,063 61,150 44,405 3 474 57i , , th: ll leliscrepancy in the an th tti l: ".....nelpal English and Frei t-tdpg ex c l us i ve of stea mer ing. to the ten principal gush Ports in 1844. 1" n Vessels. Tonnage. ci r „ °l ! •-` ) ,792 573,522 I \ l4 rye ' '' '' ... - 1,287 342,142 eyeastle ......1,236 273,93 i: tlnclerland ... 813 165,69, -48 Zovr 393 96,610 11 I 4°4 . ... 447 86.617 i.......... 453 67,227 ttnheliaven .. 389 60.204 bh- uer . d een 352 51,550 maciee ......... 326 48.920 1,679,208 count of shipping belonging to 'eh ports is equallyretuarkable, Shipping exclusive of steamers belonging to the ten principal French Ports in 1844. Vessels. Tonnage. Havre 13(qirdeaux Nrintes Nfarseilles 630 54,896 St. Malo IDunkirk Granville Rouen Nouvelle Dieppe ...... ••• 174 10,837 -8,688 1,766,442 doijotal shipping belonging I 2,991 336,398 to ports in the United King- number of Vessels. Tonnage. .1 To tal 22,297 2,848,149 shipping belonging to ports in Franca:— . Vessels. Tonnage. ic r, 13,578 595,344 t6,'lle total tonnage of France being very little more than 111; of the sin g l e port of London." ti to °n• Memb er th en o b serve d t h at h e h a d not alluded t,,,44 ot her advantages whi c h wou ld b e d er i ve d i n t hi s It otfiti l 'Y from ad o pti ng th e F renc h system, b ecause they littt o . l° lti a proper subject of inquiry by the Corn kitte Red concluded by moving for a " Sp ec i a l Com ilks...to inquire whether, without discouraging legiti velle,'"erprise, conditions may not be embodied in ths o ; l tY Acts better fitted than those hitherto inserted in fe. promote and secure the interests of the public." h t wil a „,_ l ? question being put, snrin MANGLES thought that much as the Hon. „%li ti t al an had3spokee of the importance of railways, 4 st 'la a degree under-rated it. It appeared to him a,. th -‘th . e . Motion of the Hon. Gentleman possessed a at e , ' , ider scope than he was inclined to give it. The / 1 4 0,1 had hitherto been to allow the f u ll es t sco p e t o 41 , W o .l iil tt ,,s l enterprise in the construction of railways. N I .' s Ppear that the scope which the Hon. Gentle tio •eave to the present system involved erroneous e l le tep ee s, and that the system which was adopted in I litol at e ; and in other places on the continent, was es- N e - ZY, right. It would be found after all, that the N, t4 tzes in the railway lottery were very few. There 4 lie I to doubt, some railways in this country that had 1e,,, tt rit .`", a large profit, but looking at the whole system Ways, as far as ' he (Captain Mangles) could in 'le sot the matter, the average profit on the whole Ifil l ;" exceed fi ve an d a h a lf p er cen t. A great part Sendways in this country had not been p a id u p. ta,meanies had b e e n a bl e , by th e i r cre di t i n t h e k wes E ;;;' to borrow large sums of money at a low rate of N i ;•'' Ile believed that if the ca pit a l o f a ll th e rail tot : 11 . this c oun t ry were pa id up, t h e average would St7,eeed 3i or 4 per cent. It was mos t d es i ra bl e ;llt i onal enterprise in railways sh ou ld b e en - Nied , not s o muc h f or persona l pro fi t as for 10; co nvenience. Look at the Bl ac k we ll Rail 0007hich cost in the construction more than ,Illi im • Per mile, and the highest return it had ever Itir e ,lras li per cent. • but was it not a useful rail kikveLe found that in the year 1844, that railroad had itit t ; e 4 t l , no less than 3,400,000 passengers. By re- NZ:" chance of winning the large prizes, the in nakillt to invest capital in unpromising adventures t i t k lo p oi l.'e destroyed. It appeared to him the most mir age t l eY, because you saw a certain man realising a N I cre me by successful enterprise, to rush in upon N 44te rris de an put a stop to it. A large proportion itef,:tf.ertunes which had been realised by successful ,Ite.: 18 e still remained invested in the capital of the Zehillt railways which had prospered. He knew also .41 , Z i L d ltala who had made fortunes in successful Oa k , uo had been induced to invest further capital in %,,,‘ 4. 8 „„ f °, 1 ' Jamaica, iu Ireland, and other places. The I,iat,, -4 ‘lanian seemed to have forgotten all the inter- Oliete, Bt ePs which the French Government had taken v l -. 4 1) Ras e r ge the construction of railways. He seemed hell i° rgotten the law of 1842, under which the 1 5 ere, G.°Yernment offered to advance one-half of the 16.. red e t k e enstructing the railroads. But though they Val these large inducements, they did not Q l A n d persuading any parties to come for (to th e avail themselves of the ad vantage. 14 s ilwa t ,P 4 sent time there was a total of 5,981 miles ►il.etecul,,e,ither making or made, or about to be con. eli Was was owing to enterprise being unfettered, r e ,„,' What the Hon. Gentleman found fault with. 4, W as ill France, where the Government had inter h 'il that at the present time the total ameent of , ~,of Pare .it with the amount in England to 1844, length on Hon. Gentleman had dwelt at h it z tit ,_ the advantage derived from the cheap- L t he fares on French railroads ; but if we had Z04,,,t1 on the French system, not one tithe of the . t ;',.! Which were now in existence, and which owed , N i titi to private enterprise, would have been con ,A„_ We had open commun i cation with nearly ~ . ,,rt o f England —with Ex e t er , w i t h C ar li s l e, 0% is tighton, and with Norwich, and we shall soon i l k C l out line completed. Could the llon. Gate Gentl e the profit which had accrued to the mer - IN manufacturers connected with those places, Oli e Pare the result with the profits that had arisen i`te merchants and traders in Marseilles, and 1' r i , P i l l a ces in France, which were anprovided Qtat,h ; Ivay communication. It appeared to him "to O s 'ag the kid in its mother's milk." Our very 'iirld p W , I4 , urged against us as a reason why we 1 1‘, 1 14 , C,,,,,er the French system in conducting our lyre ° , -the French people had bought up the rail ad to the English capitalists, and they had been kie. Pay a very considerable sum as a premium to ,Illtior industry. The Hon. Gentleman disclaimed ' Alk -1 11 tabsa of paying the national debt by the course kt f ;;; 4 l s 4 Proposed, but he certainly argued that he t f e w, his views of paying that debt were very ki l t ° l3 a his He did believe that by wise mea hit, • yti, ' would lead to the increase of enterprise, 1 / 4 10 0h l ltil debt would be by their grand-children `a Cope 'with, and they would think no more of it ti l ltige k l ue `ii a d, at the present time,. of tho national debt ?I b l . *lii ell ` 4, When compared with that of the year It`Zio t tk iti lloUnted to 140,000,000l.—(Hear.) He was kt,7kl4"'“tt any attempt of the Government to inter as ~„. t'N'vent private enterprise, and he considered allko - "alPitnies would reduce their fares to a far Sto o , (kilt than any legislative enactment would com -4 cl; T he Birmingh a m C om p an y h a d, i n t h e Bill Z4 t , tilL Bought for their amalgation, vol u nt ar ily t t ,ltai: 4l glyes to carry first-class passengers for two ,Vo) ,s'e, second-class for three halfpence, and third a • 4 i) ,Pen ey. klt eemt ) SON wished to know whether they would ii,,,tai t , t i , --- (Laughter.) Vsy „„ 41- ANGLES—He was not able to say whe ,N, t ta),:° ll ld do so to Newcastle—(Hear, hear, and Vill l / 40 but h e did believe a great reduction would \Z t l l aei,, wi tliout any legislative interference, and to l, tae,r e of non-interference he h a d be e n always •• 1) A lio att r ib ute t h e prosper i ty of England. ZIO L IaZ I IER observed that he wish e d t o as k th e Srto e „ - ' whether they were prepared to plunge at ittiesiolVocreased expenditure, being pledged to a 1 , 4 tho already. When the session com . 1 400 1 ,1,;° Was a very general impression that some 31, - v ,'"` be taken by the House with reference to tINI'4 nothing had as yet been done. The 1 / 4;114 SN I 40.8..fAiember for Sunderland said that on the tZt, ember of Bills the deposits would not be paid, L. 'k,e op 's,, equently they would be thrown out on the iiiioa;".c,rst but what was the tact? Up to March the 1 1 0 * 4113 vay Bills had passed through that ordeal, 4 k4: l !loi o e te about appearing before it on petition, and N S bomber rejected since the opening of the &' Af , %Med to no more than eleven - in the t, %I of which they had reversed their , oiltk \litsi Goa "lad now he did not mean to cast any tit:l:11 the Committees. On the contrary, he be ii,,4841 acted most wisely, and not with any t„ tl ) %ti o - „ let aess ; but he did urge on the House the th, t ;• of the amount of money necessary to corn ' 0 lit shout ; he would recommend that ( 1 ; th, l lld be introduced putting back the execu- O. 0 1:,. schemes, some for six, others for twelve, 1 t f i tt Ni' f. ciglateen months, as it might seem mces r. ),Latl 4o ",e dissent he saw expressed by the Chancel tktilmhZ i t ' consider his proposition . would be adopted. tp t144 .:4, I ,„Na stated that fifty millions had been ad v4re-i.Way undertakings. During last year the tt il tstittuad been as much, but there were no IQ %tie e ver for supposing that they would be act kwith the interests of the public by Je tt I t Similar annual expenditure. That view fa i„ l vaa ably advocated by an authority which ~,,4„,,, ,i. that House would respect, except the l I L i SNe tli b . ) . 211 d those who surrounded him—he meant 4 S 11d ~.,Re would not, however, trespass longer It s t ,43',40; toe had no wish to throw any obstruction L im i th'lltild - •"" Propose any amendment to the motion, ti 41 ' p r inculcate in the Chancellor of the Exche kf'4N to hiuPriety of taking the observations he had Yslrit, ll o l l . l3o st serious attentive consideration ; and, lk leolll4 ter that deliberation to concur . syith . him,. k 04 4 4 4, a dopt such measures for the limitation of 91 4 t .4 1 P.! to t i t s might be considered necessary and ad -4t:14.4 uN o t Public interests.—(Hear, hear.) ,‘ f _itt ° o :cru ftl ' N did not think it necessary, as her Ma ''ki,4te,,,, to d r ; t.approved of the appointment of the ik r i is air ffo e Lain the House at any length. As the it t o Leh , Sheffield, however, had alluded to a 11 4 : 4 1: 111 31 e .7 l ich he had made on the subject, he . th ou eee Pl4t • 4 sa'd Rouse with a very few observations. kllethis t lth to 1 was, that there were 800 schemes L "'U hl bag e l Board of Trade, and from the state r P t t N 4 h Y the Hon. Member, it appeared that tl N L kl it tl l ) se ry 4,...4 the Standing Orders' Committee. .!I're', men k ' O T I he made was not as to the num tllll,takee to that to the amount of capital embarked. if j ,•, it to, .t kt I._ , Net ... 4 Wo u i,l"e stated that not more than a hun tlisgtoi'llatem. debt expended. Now, if he recollected ;V st it ibei o -1 ' L Posited in the Bank of England was I tt i ' tel l e die g t ao amount of deposit which was required tatitZtaestror.drs to guarantee the bond ,fide nature k' lll t tt le 4ted t i c 'ected ; and this proved that he had not 6,h iltb oa, k ' amount. He would now reply to 0 ;ti,. tlclit,. e alber for Sheffield stated in reference , eo -.4 oof tit ks 1 yp it Money, which wnlild to, "lace in t ills 'are l ''. Ile nit" • . ..,.... ~.... .„ e 0 ee, b u \ -r. t - ilas,a - ,, t.t,,Li,,-ex ~,, , I% m . e s dtate before, they should tne into h that expenditure. More than amount of advantages in other respects should be se cured to the puplic. He did ; therefore, trust that the result of the proposed regulations would be to prove as advantageous to the public as that would be which would be likely to result from that intended by the Bir mingham Grand Junction. Mr. HAYTER said that, year after year, Bills were moved for, which so continually had the effect of un doing what had been done before, that it was very dif ficult for Hon. Members to know what they were actually about. Now, he would ask what were the grounds upon which the Hon. Member for Inverness had founded his motion ? He said he conceived that the public were not yet sufficiently protected, and that those engaged in railway projects made enormous profits. A Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, and they made a report as to the results of their profits in the year 1832, and two or three following years. The Hon. Member then referred to the appendix of the report, by which he said it appeared that the owners of railways realised a dividend of nit more than 5 1-3 d per cent. There was another point upon which not one word had been said, namely, the taxes paid by railways to Government, which amounted to 5 per cent. upon the gross receipts of all railways, from which the public de rived a certain amount of benefit. What did that amount to in the aggregate ? lie would leave the House to judge, by instancing the case of one line of railway. In the year 1839, the tax of this description paid by the Great Western Railway Company amounted to 22,2291. In the years following, the sum was more in each year ; but, in the year 1845, the sum paid by that company alone as a tax to Government was 30,000/. ; and yet it bad been said that those companies conferred no benefit upon the public. Then there were the poor rates, and county rates, and other taxes of that descrip tion ; of those taxes the Great Western alone paid 60,0001. in one year, besides other taxes of a description which no other class of property paid. The Hon. Mem ber for Inverness appeared to be an advocate for the truck system. Well, in Belgium the railways paid nu taxes of any sort, and in France they were very nearly free from taxation, or, at least, a rail-road paid only the same amount of tax as any other road, and they paid no direct tax to the Government. Now, he would ask, which was the best system of the two ? In France, a line, after an existence of thirty-seven years, became the property of the Government. Now, taking the 30,0001. a-year paid by the Great Western Company to the Go vernment as a tax, that for thirty-seven years would amount to over 3,000,000/., and this was one of the ad• vantages derivable to the Government of this country from rail-roads, of which the French Government knew nothing. Then, with regard to branches. Many of them did not pay the company for their outlay, or at least the only chance the company had of their paying was by the traffic which the main line should bring upon them. On those grounds: then he would say that the present system was the best that could be devised, and, therefore, he would be sorry that a Committee should be granted to disturb it. Lord EBRINGTON said that the Hon. Member who had just sat down:omitted to state that the French Go vernment had the advantage of having their mails trans mitted gratuitously by the railways, which he (Lord Ebrington) thought gave a very fine set-off against the French companies not paying a tax to their Government. And as to what had been said about the amount of em ployment given by railways, although their labourers were paid high wages, their wages were squandered, while they bore no proportion to the low rate of wages paid to the neighbouring agricultural labourer. Mr. AGLIONBY said that the railway projectors deserved great thanks for the generous expenditure of money that they had engaged in ; but at the same time no person could doubt that they had not interested mo tives in such outlay. However, he should congratulate the public, and also the Hon. Gentleman, on the advan tages that were likely to accrue from the result of his motion. one-fifth of that amount went from the shareholders to the pockets of the landowners—it was a mere transfer from the capitalist to the landowner. He had carefully considered the subject himself, and he had consulted with some others, well able to form an opinion upon it, the result of which had been that he became more and more confirmed in the accuracy of those opinions. In one line of railway, where the expenditure had been 45,0001. per mile, the sum which went to the land owners was (as we understood) 29,0001. In the Midland Railway, where from 60,000/. to 70,0001. was expended, 6,000/. went from the shareholders. Another sum of 5,000,0001. would be paid for royalties, timber, &c. Then there might be a decrease of from two to three millions in the poor-rates, in consequence of the employ ment which the expenditure would give. Seven to nine millions more would be given to labourers, who would be profitably employed. There would thus be expended fifty millions, which would go directly into the labour market, or to those connected with the land through which the railways would pass. About twenty years ago from eighty to ninety millions were annually raised from the taxation of the country, and surely they were now in a better condition to bear a drain upon their re sources than they were then. The fourteen millions, which was the amount of the expenditure of 1844, had been expended ; the sum of fifty millions, the amount of the bills for 1845, was in process of expenditure ; and from two hundred to three hundred miles of those lines where he was director would be opened in August, or some time in autumn next. The whole of the capital would thus come into operation, and he felt satisfied that no embarrassment would bo felt as to the employ ment of any eaeital which would be expended, provided it was properly invested. That was the most important matter which they ought to consider, rather than the propriety of considering whether they should put a limit to the power, the wealth, or the enterprise of this country. He was quite satisfied that no alarm whatever would be felt as to this expenditure. When they looked at the income which was annually received from rail ways, ho considered that they would have less grounds for apprehension. That amount had been recently seve ral millions a year, or 140,0001. a week. The actual sum at present was 120,0001.; but he considered, from the increasing prosperity, they might safely calculate on the 20,0001. Then, as to the railways from which in come would be derivable during the present year, he calculated the sum from eight to nine millions as the gross receipts. All that he would impress upon them was to select suitable lines, and not expend money upon those which would not tend to the public good. Under all the circumstances, he would give a negative to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, for he did not see what possible good the Committ ee , appointed, could do. He contended that the House, from the information which it had before it, was in a position to legislate on all railway subjects; and he could not, therefore, see the propriety of appointing a Committee. Had the Hon. Mem ber brought forward a Bill upon the subject instead of proposing a Committee, he would have been prepared to state definitely his views upon the subject, but as he had not chosen to take that course he considered that the appointment of a Committee was mere waste of time, and could not tend to the public advantage. A Com mittee had formerly sat twenty-one days upon the subject, and, after an examination of twenty-six wit nesses, a Bill was brought forward and passed the House for the future regulation of railway business. lie de precated, however, this constant interference with rail ways. The Hon. Member for Inverness had stated nothing that they did not know well the last time they legislated upon the subject; and, as the subject was then settled by a compromise, ho thought that for the next seven years they would have had some security for their interests.—(Laughter.) According to a statement made in a railway paper, it appeared that the sum of 67,283,0001. had been already expended on railways. This was an immense amount of money to be embarked in any enterprise, and he protested against any Hon. Gentleman coming down to that House, after such an amount had been expended, and speculating— (Laughter)--upon its regulation. Now what was the amount of interest which many of these lines had paid? Nine of them paid less than 5 per cent., and four of them paid from 5 to 6 per cent. The Hon. Gentle. man surely would not think that sum too large. It did not, therefore, become the Hon. Member for Sheffield to make such vague statements with reference to this ex penditure. And 6 of them paid not more than 8 per cent., and the remaining 7 from 9 to 10 per cent. They might go on with these alarms, as there were some gentlemen who appeared to think that their property was never secure unless the House was sitting—(Laughter)—but if the Hon. Gentleman. instead of exciting these apprehensions. would leave legislative subjects to more able hands, he would consult his own ease and the interests of the pub lic for whom he expressed so much concern; at any rate he should not interfere with what had been granted to them by successive Acts of Parliament. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he would, in the first place, say a few words on the question proposed by the Hon. Member for Inverness. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be of opinion that no one was so competent to view the subject as one who had been extensively engaged in the railway system. He admitted that there were circumstances in the present system of railways which required the serious considera tion of the Legislature. Gentlemen had said that they ought not to interfere with the good old English prin ciple of allowing capital to take its own way. He ad mitted that that was a good principle, but was there nothing more than the employment of capital to be con sidered in this matter? They must take into their con sideration that the whole of the passengers and goods traffic of the country was not left in the hands of two or three companies. It was this that rendered the em ployment of capital in railways different from its em ployment in other ways. The Hon. Member for Sun derland had taunted his Hon. Friend (Mr. Morrison) with not having brought in a Bill, instead of proposing an inquiry. He (Mr, Labouchere) thought his Hon. Friend had exercised a sound discretion in taking the course which he had adopted. The Hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Iluds(m) had talked about a breach of faith, but be (Mr. Labouchere) denied that there would be any breach of faith in adopting the recommendations of his Hon. Friend. He should consider that any ad vantage to the country would be too dearly bought if purchased at the expense of the good faith of Parlia ment. To this motion he should give his most cordial support. Before he sat down, however, he could not help adverting to an incident which had occurred that evening, and which showed the value of Parliament in terfering in these matters. The Hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), who was a director of the London and Birmingham Company, had that evening stated that that Company intended very much to reduce their fares—in fact they intended to introduce a clause in their Bills of this session greatly reducing their present fares. This showed how important it was for Parlia ment not entirely to leave these companies to themselves. Mr. MANGLES explained he had stated that the fares were about to be reduced ; but that course was not Mr. ENTWISLE would merely content himself with making a suggestion that had long been before his mind. He could not deny that it was in consequence of the system of legislation pursued by that House that the present amount of speculation in railway projects ex isted ; and had a more judicious course been pursued, he ventured to state that not one-half those schemes would then be before them.—(Hear, hear.) His suggestion therefore was, that the present Committee should adopt some uniform description of decision on the subject, and then the same amount of wild speculation would not exist. With that view he thought there should be some preliminary tribunal established so as to put an end to such speculation. He did not of course mean that the House should give up its jurisdiction, but that some tribunal possessing an uniformity of decision should be established.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME felt bound to express his satisfaction that the Government should have consented to the ap pointment of the Committee moved for, as, however beneficial the lines of railway might have been hereto fore to the public, they certainly were much more ad vantageous to the shareholders. They had this evi dence from other countries, from France in particular, that by the system which they adopted, they were not alone enabled to pay a large per centage on the capital, but also to contribute materially to the discharge of the national debt. Now, in his opinion, if a proper system were adopted in this country, they could also be enabled to pay off a large portion of their national debt.—(Hear, hear.) Ho was of opinion that no harm could come of inquiry. He was as much opposed as any man to a breach of faith with the public, but he felt himself bound to give his support to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman for a Committee ; and lie hoped the inquiry would be conducted with all fairness, and with a desire to fur nish all information possible on the subject.—(Hear.) Mr.P. STEWART would admit that the House could not be too cautious in proceeding on the subject before it, but at the same time he felt bound to say that, in his opinion, the present motion should rather have emanated from the Government than from the Hon. Member for Inverness. Now what was the object of the Committee then moved, for ? Was the Committee to suggest the enactmentfif some measure to prevent all future specu lation in railway enterprise?—(Elear, hear.) He could now go 400 miles to his own house in one-third of the time, and at one-third of the expense, that he was for merly liable to. If the Hon. Member would apply the French system to luggage, and add to that the present payment of 10 per cent., he would be very glad to con tinue the present principle. He would take the London and Birmingham Railway as an instance. From London to Rugby the distance was 84 miles. In the first class the fare was 14s. 6d., in the second 10s., and the third class 6s. 10d. The distance from Paris to Rouen was 83 miles, and the fare in the Ist class was 16 francs. The fare in the second class was 10d. dearer than the second class from London to Rugby, and the third class amounted to Bs. 4d. against 6s. 10d. for English fare. The average of fares in France was more than in England. Were they prepared to to adopt the French system—it would be no doubt a great improvement if it could be done constitutionally ; but look at the vast sums of money spent by the English railway companies in fighting through the difficulties at tendant on their formation. Was he wrong in saying that the London and York Railway Company, not having got their Bill, had spent nearly half a million.—(Several Hon. Members, " No, a quarter.")—Well, it might be a quarter, but he still thought it was more. There was the West Yorkshire line, which he had before him in Committee last session; that company was now coming on for their Bill, having spent nearly 200,0001. without having obtained it. Under the French system, the bed where the line was to be planted was given over. The company went on to work the line for a certain number of years under a tariff, and it was then given back to them. The French were 16 years later in starting the railway system than the English, and the English had to use their capital to work their way. We could now ride over 3,000 miles of railway, while they could only go over 300. Let the English copy from them what was good, but reject all that was otherwise. With regard to his Hon. Friend's expose of the French system, his Hon. Friend did not seem to know how that system was framed. His Hon. Friend, in speaking of the London and Birmingham and the Great Western, mentions them slightingly. Was it proper to speak lightly with refer ence to two great bodies who had been of so much utility to the public? Neither did his Hon. Friend seem to be in favour of the principle of amalgamation ; but he (Mr. Patrick Stewart) knew that amalga mation had the effect of lowering the rates of charge— allowing of increased speed and increased accommodation to the public. In fact there was only one instance to the contrary, and the principle pursued in that instance would preclude the possibility of improvement. He did not think this discussion at all premature, because they had been constantly meddling with a great institution, and seeking in the dark for something which they knew would be better than the present system, without know ing where to find it. If the Government gave his Hon. Friend the Committee which he asked, they would have something like final legislation, a legislation that would last for years; but, unless they constructed the Commit tee in a superior way it would do more harm than good. There would be constant jealousy and interference, and the reason would be because each line would envy its neighbour—judging on the same reasons which Fulton said induced a man to envy his neighbour, namely, that he compared the inside of his own possessions with the outside of his neighbour's, which appeared to look better, as appearances were always fair. Lord WORSLET said that great attention would be given to this subject when the Committee was named, which should investigate it. Although he did not know the Hon. Member for Inverness, he knew that his obser vations had suggested some preliminary inquiry should take place outside the House, which inquiry would prevent the labour falling so heavily on Hon. Members. He could not help thinking that her Majesty's Govern ment could find some tribunal which would perform the duties now performed by Hon. Members. There were now forty-two Members on the Committees, and their duties were most arduous ; would it not be bet er to have some competent engineer to examine into the diffe rent features of the lines—such as gradients—previous to the sessions? That person should be one in whom a g aswent r oh e ooue a tnlhra t dceee c rss o bpa n tevoh fi ej a d anbt e tgl n emt c roe e ti could be r e p ose d. S uc h a procee di ng great ow t hht takeilcabhbeohusieunr submitted oma a si n ct d oat ennd t sx h i dot e Committees eoursta htt o e o them. There thel Tt hheev rawaertoitwoue various s . ahlieanierinywcdcoaoynmsnissh many mon q uiy u lt Id e t te n ene c xswo e attagh o sbgi f see the change which t ht that h iao e dn oothlf been Committees m h traffic e. sy llade sumnois in the railways. t r sir a enu t sge e s 11 : 7 rtnda t in statementsutnamely,nodbe b y had been made, but the persons objecting to the railway had every opportunity of exposing any such attempt on the part of the undertaking. It was true that although traffic was not to be inquired into, the principal towns on the line from which the: traffic was to be expected should be laid before the Committee. He did think that teo much importance was attached to this opinion, that too much money would be invested in railway spe culations from the state of the money-market. Dime tom in the event of their obteinincs their Bill, 'tav o la as a ka .asesseliate 4%11, aed '..absy dui wo“41 r.aL be exorbitant; he also thought that no company start ing with large capital could, if they were to order new efigines, get theth made for two or three years, for there was such a demand upon the engine makers, that unless it were to oblige some old established company they could not make any. Under the circumstances he cer tainly thought it was necessary that some improvements should be made in the manner of disposing of these railway Bills. Sir GEORGE GREY said, that in the course of the re marks that had fallen from his Lion. Friend (Mr. Stewart) he had observed that he spoke of amalgamation as not a beneficial practice. He believed that it was a most important question. His Hon. Friend, the Chairman of the ionsraittee of Classi fication, the other night, on the part of his Committee, called the attention of the Government to this subject, and put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, in order to ascertain what where the views of the Government on this point. Mr. P. STEWART said he did not say that amalgamation was not beneficial. Sir R. PEEL said that there was a point of considerable importance, which he had not heard referred to in this dis cussion. The Hon. Gentleman would take into Committee views which would be in conformity with the principles laid down in his pamphlet, which showed great research, and directed the attention of the public to many points of railway legislation to which no atten ion had previously been given. The Hon. Gentleman was under the impression that great errors had been committed in the railway legislation of this country. The Hon. Gentleman asked—might it not be de sirable to establish some tariff on all railways seeking the in tervention of Parliament ? an d sa id t h at i t was a question whether it would not be ch sirable to adopt a fresh system, so as to give to each company newly formed only a temporary interest in the possession of the railway. In order to illustrate these subjects, the Hon. Gentleman would lay before the Com mittee every information connected with foreign railways. Considerable time might elapse before the Committee gave any opinion, and what was to be done with regard to the railway Bills now i n progress ? I t appeare d t o him that this was a subject to which the Committee at once directed their attention. It was quite clear that Parliament had th e . right to correct an error, an d apply new pr i nc i p l es t o new rail way companies seeking the intervention of Parliament, and there was every opportunity of now trying the question. Where existing companies applied f or power to ama l gama t e with other companies, the house might have a right to impose some new restriction on that line, if it sought for any extended powers. The House could suspend its legislation in these cases until the report of the Committee was made, and could put into each Bill a clause subjecting the company to any regulation which Parliament might make in consequence of the report of the Committee, in order to affect the interest of the company in the railway. The Bills giving th ose compan i es a permanentin terest in these railways could have a clause in them, restricting their powers —a clause enabling Parliament to terminate the interest of the company in twenty years. There had been a legislation framed for these railways since, but a few years had changed the aspect of things. New alterations and new lights had came forth, and it was not to be wondered at, since two years ago no one ever contemplated the possibility of having s uc h a num b er o f rail ways as they had at the present time, and it should be for Par liament to institute new regulations to suit that increase. It is important to know the beat means of serving the public without interfering too far with the application of individual capital, and on this ground I have no' objection to the appoint ment of the Committee.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL, who, in his opening observations, was inaudible in the gallery from the noise that prevailed at the bar, said the Right Hon. Baronet, at the beginning of the session, had expressed great fear respecting the application of the large amount of capital subscribed for railway projects, lest it should damage seriously the commercial transactions of the country. Nevertheless it seemed the Government had re commended nothing to meet the evil apprehended. Nothing ap peared to have been done beyond the plan for conducting rail way business acted upon last session. The question before them was one of great importance, as it involved the application purposes in the present better if th e y h a d t a k en th e y encement of the session y subject r large twoocuolnds amounthi consideration capital t?ene na! mttohue c o mmencement w itmi a instead of leaving it for inquiry to a Select Committee.---( Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) had bee n l e d to b e li eve t h at the Right Hon. Baronet had in view, when h e ma d e hi s state ment on railways at the beginning of the session, some general plan as to what the Government intended respecting the large sum that was proposed to be expended in this way.—( Hear, hear.) As that had not yet been done, he hoped when the Commmittee was appointed, with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of tne Exchequer as one o f i ts mem b ers, that he would state his views with respect to r a il ways generally, as to the best course it was advisable to pursue.—( Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the question was of a twofold character. One had relation to the influence which the large amount of capital proposed to be ex• pended on railways would have on the m oney-market, and the other relating to competition between lines of ra il way an d t h e accommodation of the public. With respect to the first, the circumstances which had led to the fear s expresse d at t h e beginning of the session were now somewhat changed. Those fears arose from the l arge sums that were proposed to be expended in this way, amounting, according to the Bills before the public, to nearly 800 millions of money. 799 millions was, at the beginning of the session, the total amount, on which his Right Hon. Friend made his statement as supposed to be required for the various railway schem es pro jected. Certainly, if Billsinvolving that sum bad come before the railway Committees, there would have been a necessity for taking some extraordinary measures to prevent the evils to in dividuals and to the country that must have resulted from the too rapid application of capital to the purposes of these Bills. Since the period that he had referred to the Bills had been re duced to one-half of the whole, by the operation of the standing orders and other causes, and of this number many no doubt would not be brought into action. The case therefore was dif ferent now to what it was at the former period to which he re ferred, and induced the Government to forbear interfering with the capital of private undertakings. There no longer existed that necessity for the interference of the Parliament which was at one time apprehended, and it was thought best to leave to the discretion of the Select Committees the selection of those ines best calculated to serve the public accommodation. With regard to the question for the investigation of which the pre sent Committee was appointed, he would say that he was prepared to attend, and. to the boat of Ilia ability, oncicovour to develop facts for the information of the House. Resp ecting what was said about the superior advantages of th e French plan, he would not then given an opinion. He would not an ticipate the question, but go into the Committee with every disposition to adopt tke best plan to secure the end in view— to protect the _public against the effects of monopoly, and at the same time to act fairly towards those who had embarked capital in railways.--(Hear. ) Mr. BARING thought that something should be done to meet the evil complained of, and to facilitate railway business. He thought it would be of considerable advantage if it could be arranged for joint Committees of the two Houses to sit en Bills, instead of their passing through separate Committees, to the great loss of time. Mr. HORSMAN referred to the Committee that sat in 1844 on this question. They were told then that the fares would be regulated by what the coach fares had previously been, and that the regulation of railway tariffs should keep this point in view. This he disputed. An engine could do the work of two thousand horses, and a train taken from London to Birmingham would cost only 26/. It was, therefore, evident the rate of fares was extravagant. It was a fact that the in terests of the public and the railway companies are opposed. It is the interest of the public that passengers should be carried at a low rate, while it is the interest of the companies to car!) , few passengers at a high rate. It was then also given in evidence that th e e ff ec t o f amalgamation was i nvar i a bl y to raise prices. There was a case in point referred to, he be lieved, by the Hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) — the Midland, Birmingham, and Derby line—in which the di rectors said the object of the amalgamation was to raise the fares. When he (M r . Horsman) compared the lines of the south on the subject of fares with those of the north, he saw great difference. The Hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. P. Stewart) stated a fact respecting a line with which he was associated (the Glasgow and Greenock Railway), in which first-class passengers were carried for lid. a mile, second class at ld., and third-class at id., running the trains at the rate of 26 miles au hour, against the formidable competition of the river Clyde, and yet the secretary stated that they were doing well ; yet this line had cost 30,0001. As had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, in his unanswerable speech at the beginning of the session, it was to be hoped great attention would be taken to prevent their going beyond the resources of the country, and that no railway Bills would be passed but what were really required by the urgent necessities of the country, and of which there was some certainty of their being beneficially carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) But the ques tion now was—were they performing their duties to the public? It might happen that a railway once commenced would be left unfinished, and it would only be in such a case that they could conceive the great misfortune of passing Acts for the completion of which there was no money, nor other resources. Let them conceive an individual proprietor, through whose lands a railway passed —a railway that at first, perhaps, was viewed by him with great apprehension. That railway, once begun, was uncompleted ; and this, too, after gangs of la bourers had traversed hi s groun d s . U n d er such circumstances, they were sanctioning lines to the extent of two or three times the resources of th e coun t ry , not on l y th ere by , infli cting an In ber of it. jury on the country g enera ll y , b u t on e ach individual mem- about to be taken in consequence of the motion of the Hon. Member for Inverness, or in consequence of any proceedings in Parliament. Mr. LABOUC HERE continued. He wished to say a few words with respect to the subject which had been brought under consideration by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, which was, whether it was desirable to interfere in au extraordinary manner to check the application of capital to railway enterprises during the present session, to prevent any injurious re sult which such excess in the application of capital might produce in the public interests. That was a grave ques tion indeed. When the question was brought before the House some time ago, by the Right Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, he (Mr. Labouchere) ven tured at that time to express an opinion, that if any step of so unusual a character were taken, it should be upon the recommendation of her Majesty's Government, after they had duly weighed all the consequences of such a step. On the appointment of that Committee on rail ways of which he had the honour of being a member. the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), an the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, led him into the im pression that it was the intention of the Government to propose some limitation. It was true that the Govern ment laid before the Committee a classification of the railway Bills of the present session. After looking at that classification, he confessed that it would be most difficult to decide where the limitation should be placed. As to the question of limitation, the Committee came to the decision that it would not become them to consi- der it, unless it was brought before them by the Go vernment. After waiting for a month, the members of the Government, who were on the Committee, told them that they had no intention of raising the question in the Committee. He was still of opinion that a Commit tee, such as that suggested by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, would be useless. The whole matter was one which alone should be considered by the Government, and ought to be brought forward by them. Sir G. CLERIC said the Right Hon. Gentleman had given a correct description of the proceedings of the Committee. The Government had originally intended to adopt a plan nearly similar to that suggested by the Hon. Member for Sheffield ; but when they found that the number of plans deposited at the Board of Trade had been reduced before the meeting of Parlia ment by nearly -one-half, they did not think there was then sufficient cause for interference. The number originally was upwards of 800, but they had been re duced to about 440, and these included Bills for amal gamation, and several Bills were for the same scheme. The Classification Committee had comprised the whole of the railways in fifty-six groups. He should give support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Inverness. He did believe that the average amount of return did not realise more than from five and a quarter to five and a half per cent. upon the capital. But when this House considered that the moat easy modes of communica- tion in this country were likely to be carried to such an extent as to supersede all other modes of communication, it did become the duty of the Legislature to take the matter seriously into consideration, with a view to se curing the public every possible advantage.—(Hear, hear.) In the year 1844 a Committee was appointed for the purpose of making inquiries, into this subject, and, after a most laborious inquiry, a Bill was brought into this House for the purpose of limiting the powers of railway companies ; and after a great deal of opposition the Bill was earried. It would, however, be extremely desirable, when a great number of railways should be projected, that a strict inquiry should be made into the actual amount of advantage which they would be likely to confer upon the public. In speaking upon this mo tion, he (Sir G. Clerk) did not mean to say that he would support all the views of the Honourable Member for Inverness ; but be hoped he would have an oppor tunity of bringing the whole of the details of his motion before the House ; and he felt assured that every facility would be afforded him to do so by this House. But when they saw the many attempts that had been male by companies to aural gamate with other companies, and the determined opposition those companies had met with from rival companies ; and when they considered 1 /, l rq , - tke te , jul.-1 to &rive by the ketvialgamation of other IA order to bring a long line under one management, then the Government shcjuld take pare that a commensurate After a few word from Mr. WAWN, Mr. MORRISON replied. The giving an uniform scale to railways was a matter that required early and deep considera tion. What they had to complain of at present was a want of system, and it was with a view of remedying this evil that he moved for the present Committee. He had no idea of reply.. ing to all the remarks of Hon. Members during that evening, some but he could not help saying that it was rath er un f a i r f or the Hon. Member for Renfrewshire to comp are th e R ouen Rail way, the dearest line in France, with th e L on d on and Bir mingham, which was universally allowed t o b e t h e c h eapest. It was curious, too, to hear Gentlemen co nnecte d w i th rail ways complaining of interference. Why, th e i r very ex i stence depended on their interference with the right s o f ot h ers; and it was still more curious to hear the 11 on. Member for Sunder he himself, with landso many ssep schemes. ea it h a o k e es. r of s,thel brought rrightswouagshhtoi high before h c f to o time petehtthe Ho use ti that n ' w hen en fares should be established, for he had been assu re d, no l a t er than that a tha t t o d w a n y, o t n Hhatoaunrsaliolwway Heath, company for the bene f i t o f the to so in en a e n r y l system of amalgama tiona Windsor intended to f work ing classes of London, to which they might be conveyed for twopence, and back again at the same rate. This surely would be better than living in the purlieus of Whitechapel, and such like places, The Committee was then agreed to,aces, and perhaps walking three miles to their work INDIA PO ST- OFFICE. Mr. HUME moved for returns of the receipt and eipsndi tore of the post-of f ice at each of the Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, under separate heads, for each of the years 1842 and 1843; of the number of letters, packages, and newspapers, dispatched from and received by each of the post offices at Calcutta, Agra, Madras, and Bo m b ay, in each day, for the period of one month in 1846.—Agreed to. AFFAIRS OF MALTA. Mr. HUME moved for an address, that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to lay before the House a copy of the orders issued by Sir Patrick Stuart, the Gov ernor of Malta, and by Mr. Selby, officer of police in that island, interfering with the amusements of the people in that isla n d at t h e car nival, in February last; and, also, cop ies of any dispatches or reports that may exist concerning the riots that took place in Malta on the 22d of February last.—Agreed AFFAIRS OF THE COLONIES. Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the rules issued by the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, dated the 27th day of October, 1843, and sanctioned by the Secretary •f State for the Colonies, relating to the immigration of Chinese labou rers from the British settlements in the Straits of Malacca into the colonies of Guiana, Trinidad, and Jamaica. Copy of a dis patch addressed by Lord Stanley to the Governor of Jamaica, dated the 26th day of October, 1843 (so. 1 60), relating to contracts with labourers. Copy of any dispatch addressed to the governor of Trinidad, disallowing an ordinance passed by the Council of Government of that Colony, on the 29th day of January, 1845, for regulating the relative rights and duties of masters and servants.—Agreed to. BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. -•••- • The House then resolved itself into Committee en this Bill. Mr. HITAIE said this Bill was intended to abolish certain monopolies possessed by the Guilderies, and he thought it u;hit tl7s !ix.e tl crtiz h r i olts !„ .a i keen impo;eti. in eesissquenea of these monopolies. For in stance, certain trades were compelled at mirtain times of the year to act as guards to the magistrates. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1846. ' The LORD ADVOCATE said the origin of the burdens complained of was not known, and not connected with the ex clusive privileges. Mr. HUME did not know why the Lord Advocate could not abolish these burdens by the Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE said the Hon. Gentleman could introduce a Bill himself. Thi clauses were then agreed to, and the Bill was re ported. MUTINY BILL, The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT proposed the following clause And whereas certain soldiers, who have hitherto been duly enlisted, and who have voluntarily taken the oath of allegiance and fidelity, and are now receiving her Majesty's Pay, have been sworn and attested, but doubts have arisen whether the justices before whom the said soldiers have been so sworn and attested were duly qualified to administer to such soldiers the oaths prescribed by the several Attu passed for the punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters : be it enacted, that in every case where any such soldier, having been duly enlisted, shall have been so attested and sworn, and shall not have claimed to be discharged on or before the seven teenth day of March, 1846, he shall not be entitled to his dis charge by reason of such informality, but shall be liable to al the provisions of this Act, and of the Act passed during thel last session of Parliament, for the punishing mutiny and de sertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters, where in force, and shall be entitled to the full benefit of his past service, and to all pay and pension in respect thereof, to all intents and purposes, and in like manner as if he had been duly attested and sworn." After i few words from Mr. Huant and Capt. LAYARD, the Bill went through C.immittee, and the House ha v i ng resume d , the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. MARINE MUTINY BILL. On the question being put that the Speaker do leave the Chair for going into committee on this Bill, Sir C. NAPIER rose, and said he did not intend to oppose the Speaker leaving the Chair, but before going int o. com mittee, he wished to ask the Government whether there was any intention to revise the articles of war. Many of those articles were repugnant to his feelings as a naval officer, and while some of them rendered men liable to be punished without tke ordeal of a court-martial he thought they were highly objec tionable. For instance, a sailor who fell asleep on the watch was liable to the punishment of death, and he believed this article was framed upon the principle that a sentry on shore was under similar circumstances liable to the same punishment. There was, however, no comparison between the two cases, for a ship on the sea was not open to an immediate attack, like a military post on shore. The articles of war ought therefore to be revised, and he for one wished to see them more humanised than they were at present. Mr. CORRY was not aware that there was any intention on the part of Government to alter the articles of war, as they at they at present stood. Mr. HUME objected to the reply of the Hon. Member, and thought that the Government ought to hold out some hope that the articles of war would be at ne distant period so revised as to make them in accordance with humanity and com mon justice. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. On the first clause being proposed, Mr. HUME rose, and objected to their proceeding further unless a more favourable answer was given to the question of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Marylebone. The articles of war were certainly not in accordance with the spirit of the age, and as the punishment of death had almost been abolished in our criminal courts, it ought to be removed from the naval articles of war. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN said no difficulty of this sort had ever arisen before, nor had it ever been found impracticable to carry out the articles of war. The Hon. and Gallant Member complained that men were frequently punished without being subject to the ordeal of a court-martial ; but the Hon. Member forgot that it was competent for the man to demand being tried by such a tribunal. Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, in the whole course of his experience, he had never heard of a man who had been sen tenced to a punishment by a superior officer demanding to be tried before a court-martial previous to his sentence being carried into effect. Had a man done so, he believed it would have been deemed a presumptive act, and he would have ren dered himself liable to further punishment for it. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN having made a few further observations, being, in fact, similar to those which he had pre viously made, Sir CHARLES NAPIER gave notice that he intended bringing forward some measure to remove the grievances which he complained of. Captain LAYARD, having made a few observations as to the unnecessary severity of the present law, and the extra powers of punishment which were given to the captains of the ships, The subject dropped, and the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The Fever (Ireland) Bill was then read a third time, and passed. The House adjourned at Half-past Eleven. If OUSE OF LORDS, March 19. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool sack at Fire o'clock. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a Landed proprietor in Galway against the Midland Great Western Railway. He moved that the petition be re ferred to the Committee on the Bill. IRISH GREAT WESTERN. The NOBLE AND LEARNED LORD also presented a peti tion from the undertakers of the Grand Canal, Ireland, praying that they might be 'heard by counsel against the Great Western ; and a petition from Thomas Berry, a proprietor in the same Company. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord DACRE presented a petition against this Bill. DIRECT POIiTSMOUTII AND EPSOM, AND DORKING RAILWAYS. Lord CAMPBELL said he had two petitions to pre sent, in which he took a lively interest, against these railways. from a lady of the highest respectability—the widow of the late Under-Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Drummond. She stated that she was now the proprietrix of a beautiful estate, near Ledwell (as we understood), in the county of Surrey, which was formerly the property of Mr. Richmond Sbarp—(Hear, hear, from Lord Brougham)—who he believed was well known to his Hon. and Learned Friend. This estate commanded the most beautiful prospect in the world. Now, he was of opinion that her rights were by no means respected, because she was a widow, as the Direct Portsmouth and Epsom and Dorking Railways were projected to run through the very heart of her estate, which in that part was laid out in most beautiful plantations, upon an elevation of fifteen feet. This he conceived to be a very great hardship, and he tructed that such spoliation would not be permitted. It was a mere mockery to speak of compensation in such a case as this. If the late Mr. Drummond were alive no such aggression would be attempted, and therefore he (Lord Campbell) hoped that whatever Committee should have charge of the Bill they would take care of the rights of the petitioner. LAWS OF MORTMAIN. Lord BEAUMONT begged to correct a mistake that had been made in the public prints, in reference to a petition he presented to this House a few nights ago. That petition was from several extensive landed proprietors in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, praying that the powers of the Roman Catholic bishops, as defined in the Mort main Act, might he restricted. But the newspapers had made it appear that the petition was from the inhabitants of the city of Durham, and the consequence was, that a meeting was held in that town for the purpose of ascertaining who the parties were who had signed the petition. He, therefore, hoped that this explanation would go forth, in order to remedy the error. DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY begged to call the attention of the House to a matter of some import ance, with a view to ascertain whether the Government had any knowledge of it. As there was now before this House a Bill affecting Ireland, he did think it would be desirable to clear the matter up. It alluded to the pre sent state of Roscommon, and contained statements which could scarcely be believed. The Noble Marquis then read a statement from adocumenthe held in bis hand, from which it appeared that the system of eviction of tenantry was sadly on the increase i n I re l an d. I t was stated in a journal published in Roscommon a few days ago—although he did not believe the truth of the whole of that statement—that a certain lady had dispossessed no less than four hundred tenants a few weeks ago, and who were consequently plun g ed i n t o th e greatest distress, without the slightest means of shelter. That lady and her husband had, on the authority of the same journal, dispossessed upwards of 2,000 human beings within the last two years. Now, although he (the Marquis of Londonderry) could not for a moment believe that the statements were, on the whole, correct, although they were printed in very large letters, yet ho did think that if the Government had any power of preventing those most cruel evictions they ought to do something in this particular case. Public notice, in his opinion, ought to be taken of this matter. Every one must feel that no country could be properly carried on when such cruelties were per mitted. He therefore wished to know whether the Government had made any inquiry into the circum stances, and, if they had, whether they had any objec tion to lay the information before their Lordships ? Earl ST. GERMANS said that the Noble Mar quis had been kind enough to give him notice that morning of his intention to put that question. In re ply, he (the Earl of St. Germans) had to say that the Government had received no information whatever of the circumstances ; indeed, it would be very difficult to obtain any information, inasmuch as there were no names given. It appeared to him, however much they may deplore this extraordinary exercise of power, it was im possible for the Government to prevent it. But at the same time if they should obtain any information, he on the part of the Government, would be most happy to fur nish it. Earl CLANRICARDE said that the case appeared so horrible, that he thought it deserving of notice. It was quite possible to arrive at the particulars of the case, if the names of the parties could be obtained, because, if any parties had been ejected, there must have been some previous process at the Court of Quarter Sessions, or the Baronial Courts, in which case there would be a record, and after the particulars were obtained lie should be most happy to move that a Committee of that House be appointed to take into consideration the amendment of the present law of landlord and tenant.—(Hear.) The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that he had not the experience or abilility of the Noble Lord who had just spoken, and not being connected into the south of Ireland, he did not prosecute his inquiries the matter. He thought that in stating the case to the House, and in calling the attention of the Government to the subject, they would make necessary inquiries, and report to the House what measures they would adopt to put a stop in the time coming to similar proceedings. Earl CLXNRICARDE said that he might be mis taken in mentioning that information might he had from the Baronial Courts —certainly information might be re ceived from the Sheriff's office. The Earl ST. GERMANS said that the Government did not desire to conceal any of the facts. All he had said Was, that it was not in the power of Government, if these proceedings were legal, to put a stop to them. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that if the Noble Marquis who had hronght forward the threw:n ewton were in the habit of reading the Irish newspapers, he would be aware that they did not always confine themselves to the truth.—(Laughter.) Lord STOURTON postponed the motion for certain returns of which he had given notice, in order not to in terfere with the very important question on Ireland, which came on on Monday first. MINISTERS' MONEY. - - Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the magistrates and town council of Cork, praying for the abolition of Ministers' money. CHARITABLE TRUSTS. The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD also presented a petition from certain bookbinders against the Charitable Trusts Bill. MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the guardians of Lord Forbes (as we thought) and the 'Viscountess Forbes, against the above railway, which threatened to destroy the property of Castle Forbes. ALTERATIONS IN THE RAILWAY SYSTEM. Lord KINNAIRD said that he would propose, on Thursday next, that a Committee be appointed to take uto consideration the best means of introducing one uni form system in the management of railways, and of securin g th e fulfilment of the provisions given by the Act of Parliament under which the com panies have obtained their powers; and by which greater accommodation and safety may be secured to the public. Secondly, to take into consideration the best means of avoiding extravagant expense for obtaining Acts of Par liament by bona fide concerns, and of preventing the formation of schemes got up fur the purposes of spe culation. Thirdly, to consider what legislative measures can be framed for the protection of individuals from the injuries they may sustain by the laying down of lines through their property, without the ruinous expe nse o f opposing th em in Parliament. He knew cases where individuals had been so interfered with by railways, and their solicitors and agents had told them it would be better for them to submit to the injury than to go to the expense of obtaining redress in Parliament. POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.—REFUSAL OF PAPERS. Lord BROUGHAM said, that in the case of a Corn mittee formed to inquire into the opeiation of the Irish poor-law circumstances have occurred to which he felt it necessary to call the attention of the House. The Committee was obstructed in its proceedings by a wit ness refusing to produce papers and answer ques tions, being forbidden by the order of the Poor-law Commissioners to disclose to the Com mittee the contents of certain documents. It was so monstrous a thing, that he could hardly have believed it, had he not seen Mr. Gunston, the Poor law Commissioner, also the letter in which he asks per mission of the Poor-law Commissioners to produce to the Committee the correspondence. Mr. Gunston told him that he could not find the answer to the letter, but he assured him that the answer ex p ress ly forbid him to produce the papers. Lord CLANCARTY said the witness certainly did object to produce the papers before the Committee, and he thought it a fit subject for inquiry, and it had been his intention to bring the circumstances under the notice of the House, had he not been anticipated by his Noble Friend Lord Brougham. Mr. Gunston had refused to produce the papers, but had now not obtained per mission of the Poor-law Commissioners ; but he objected that the House should be dependent on the permission of any public body for the papers necessary to carry out the inquiries. He had thought that the Committee ought to have noticed the circumstance by some special report in their general report, as he looked with great jealousy on the manner in which the Poor-law Commissioners had interfered, as there was an Act of Parliament which laid down the manner in which the duties should be discharged. Lord BROUGHAM said, though the papers were pro duced to-morrow, an offence against their privileges had been committed, as those who had refused to produce them had prevented their inquiry from going on to-day. The Poor-law Commissioners should be told that it was at their peril that they refused to produce these papers. They had no right to refuse to produce them. Mr. Gunston said he had had their permission to do so ; but they had no permission to withhold them. If the Committee required these documents, they might report to the House, and obtain an order for their pro duction. He was anxious to keep their privileges in as small a compass as possible compatible with the proper carrying on of the business entrusted to them, and he would not consent to forego any privilege of an inquisi torial character which was necessary. The Earl ST. GERMANS inquired if the papers re ferred to were " private and confidential ?" The Earl of CLANCARTY said they were, but that nevertheless they contained the instructions of the Poor law Commissioners to Mr. Gunston. Lord MONTEAGLE also considered that no public body had any right to refuse the production of papers required by Parliament. The House was not only left without information, but by having only a portion of the information they required, was in a worse position than if they had none at all. Lord CLARE said be was a member of the Committee; that Mr. elrulston stated that he was forbidden to pro duce the papers by the Poor-law Commissioners. Lord CAMPBELL said he apprehended there must be some mistake in this matter, as Mr. Gunston would not have been so ridiculously absurd as to have re fused those papers.—(Hear, hear.) The Commissioners were bound to produce all papers that were necessary to facilitate this inquiry ; and it was for the Committee to decide what papers were and were not necessary, and not for the Commissioners. This was the most important public inquiry that had been instituted for some time, and therefore every facility should be afforded it. Lord BROUGHAM said that Mr. Gunston wrote a letter to the Poor-law Commissioners to know whether, if he should be called upon to produce certain papers, he should do so ; and the answer was, that the papers were private and confidential, and should not be produced. He would not have said so muoh upon this case but that he was already cognizant of a defi ciency of judgment by those Commissioners in refe rence to Mr. Parker's case. He had defended the Poor-law Commissioners when they deserved de fence ; and, therefore, he now warned them to attend more to the letter and the will of Parliament, and to do their duty without fear of the newspapers.—(Hear, hear.) That was the charge he made against them, for they had avowed their fear of the press.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of CLANCARTY presented a petition from the medical practitioners of the county of Clare, praying for the repeal of the present law affecting their pro fession. CORN-LAWS. The Duke of RICHMOND presented three petitions, from certain landed proprietors of the county of Devon, against the present measure. The same Noble Duke presented a numerously-signed petition from the yoemen of Norfolk, who complained that in the event of the present measure of the Government passing, they would be subjected to great injustice by the o Jeration of the present Act of commutation of tithes, which fixed the sum of money to be paid for tithes upon the septennial average of the price of corn, and the Government pro posed that at the end of three years all protection to the landed interest should cease. They therefore prayed that, in the event of the present measure becoming law, their Lordships would introduce an Act to authorise the taking of the average price of corn either yearly or half yearly, instead of septennially, as repaired by the present law. The petition was numerously and respectably signed; and if he might prophesy, he would say that if the un • fortunate measure of Government should receive the sanction of their Lordships' House, many thousands of petitioners would hold the same argument ; and he (the Duke of Richmond), for one, did not see how the argument could be got rid of. LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY. The Marquis of CLANRICARI4 E—My Lords, I have here two petitions to present, to which I beg to call your Lordships' attention. These petitions refer to the London and York Railway Bill, now in this House. The one petitioner prays for a revival of the Committee which sat upon the Bill last year, and the second petitioner prays for the appointment of another Corn mittee to inquire into the validity of the subscription deed of the Company , or rather into the admis sibility of the new subscription contract. My Lords, the points which these petitioners raise, are points of law rather than of fact, or indeed of anything else ; and under such circumstances, and considering the legal character of the points raised, I certainly think that your Lordships ought to appoint a Committee to hear the matter in these points argued by counsel. It appears from the petitioners themselves, that a considerable number—some hundreds of persons, who subscribed the last subscription contract, are not of the parties who have subscribed the new one; and, my Lords, I doubt very much that they are re - I eased ; I doubt very much that they . can be legally released from the engagements entered into when they signed the old deed. There is another point, also, to which I would wish your Lordships' attention, namely, that the parties signing the new contract claim to come before your Lordships as the proprietors of de posits paid by the former subscribers. Now. I think, that it will be a question whether any such transfer can be legal, or even received by your Lordships' H ouse as such, i nas much as it implies an evasion of the Stamp Act. These, my Lords,. I apprehend are p o i n t s w hi c h ought to be clearly seen into by your Lordships. 1, therefore, beg to give notice, that I shall tomorrow move for a Com mittee to inquire into the subject matter of these petitions. I shall fix on any day on which we cam have the attend ance of the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) whom I do not at present sea in his place, as I consider it highly essential that he, with other Noble and Learned Lords, should hear the matter argued. If not a technical objection, I think that the new subscriptaiocyinf ondearetemadeinsoluygbbhuoet not but to amended be admitted. by th e a d d T i t he i o n c o o n f t r a a c hot d uNelr e mr e bdmaemlarat large eg re. nameswhether y our t beo withdrawn, i will s a another n T um he l;e p r et . against the Lond on an d Y or k Bill, are James Tyler, Bill, and George Pryme, who prays to b e re l ease d f rom the engagements entered i n t o under the former sub scription contract. Lord BEAUMONT—What have we to do with the subscription co n t ract o f last year? We have only to do with the subscription deed now before your Lord ships' House. As for the transfer, there is nothing in that; there is no transfer. How can there be a transfer from that which does not exist? The subscription con. tract of last year is just so much waste paper. Tho Marquis of CLANRICARDE—PreciseIy so; and it is into the validity of the new Subscription deed that the petitioners pray that your Lordships shall appoint a Committee to inquire. The present promoters of the London and Fork Railway came be fore your Lordships as the very same parties who ac quired their Bill before the House of Commons last year, and thus they will in the ordinary course be re lieved from all preliminary proceedings. That, my Lords, is precisely the point I wish to hear argued by counsel, and the reason why I intend to move for the appoint ment of this Committee. Surely, my Lords, in a matter of this magnitude, the time necessary to hear two mode rately short speeches on either side will not be eonsidered thrown away. The question is, in my opinion, an important c and very necessary one for your Lordships‘to deirdtabe(- - , • fore proceeding further with this Bi4l. - Lord BEAUMONT—My Lordi, the_ promoters of,. this Bill for the Lo n d on an d Y or k R a il way were allowed, * by an order of your Lordships' Meuse, to resumoak, situation in which they were placed immediately be`• the prorogation of Parliament last seasione on condition. that they produced this session a neevacentract deed. - That was the understanding at the cldse of la'sf'sessiem:- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—My Lords, I pee - - fectly concur in the opinion which has been expressed by a Noble Lord opposite in the course of this discus sion. He considered, as I do, that it would be impost sible for the promoters of this Bill to come before your Lordships' House with the same contract deed as that which they had last year. There may have been deaths since then, and many sales of shares may have taken place by those who subscribed the original sub scription deed between the date of their signature and the present session of Parliament. But, independent of these circumstances, there is an end of the contract of last year. Earl GREY—My Lords, I do not think the present is a fitting occasion for the discussing this subject ; but I will stilt say that Ithink it • quite necessary that the pro moters should produce to your Lordships an entirely new contract deed. I consider the old one is perfectly invalid, and the stone person who signed the deed of last year could not he found to sign one of tlOie year. Many of those persons may he dead ; others may have removed ; anti others, egue, have in ail probability dis posed of their shores. I, therefore, think that it is quite necessary that a new deed should be produced. Lord MON FEAGLE —My Lords, I quite concur in what has fallen from my Noble Friend. There can be no doubt that the original contract deed must be in valid, in consequence of deaths, removals, and shares having been disposed of; the promoters therefore ought to be called upon to produce an entire new deed, and should not be allowed to adopt the old one in the present session. It will be in the recollection of many of your Lordships, that the contract deed of last year was challenged, in consequence of its having been stated that malpractices has been resorted to in getting up that deed. A Committee was, in consequence of this, appointed to examine into the subject, but the prorogation of Parlia ment, as your Lordships will remt mber, prevented that Committee from proceeding and making their report. The contract deed, which was introduced into Parlia- 4 ment by the promoters of this Bill, contains only two hundred and eighty names out of the whole number that originally signed it. The numbers who had signed the deed previously were twelve hundred. The present deed is a substitution of an entirely new instrument in the place of the old subscription contract. Your Lord ships will not fail to bear in mind what is intended by the standing orders of this House. The intention of those orders is this : they state " That whereas, by the lateness of the session, it is not pos sible for Parliament to perform its functions with reference to all the railways submitted to the consideration of the House ; and it therefore con sents to allow parties promoting Railway Bills to stand in as favourable a position as if the session had been protracted." In short, my Lords, that Bills only partially proceeded with last session should be taken up in the ensuing or the present session, at the point e here they were discontinued. By this it is evident that parties would obtain great advantages, because they would not be compelled to commence entirely anew in the next session or this, and because they would be saved from the additional expense that would thereby be incurred. But if, my Lords, patties are to be allowed to substitute a different intrument to the one partially proceeded with, thus protecting themselves from the charges which might be brought against them, whether true or false, and consequently putting them selves in a better condition to obtain the sanction of Parliament to their measures, it would be an injustice to the competing interests. You did not intend to do that. If such a proposition had been suggested, this House would not, I am sure, have acceded to it. It is true you might have said " We will not allow your Bill to stand over, unless your deed is produced in the same state as when discontinued in this session." But it is evident that upon the face of it, it was only allowed to stand over upon that understanding. The Duke of RICHMOND—My Lords, in my opinion the appointment of a Committee would be very useful, because I consider that the matter should be fully in vedigated. But suppose, my Lords, that the old deed had been altered—suppose that fresh parties had put their names to the subscription contract, your Lordships must bear in mind that those persons who originally signed the deed didso upon the understanding that theßill should be passed during the last session ; and as it was not passed, I think the parties who originally signed that deed might have withdrawn their names from the origi nal contract into which they had entered, upon the ground that the Bill did not pass during the period in which they expected it would have received the sanction of Parliament. They may possibly have lost money in railway transactions, or they may perhaps have found it inconvenient to fulfil the engagements into which they had entered. My Noble Friend (the Marquis of Clanri carde) must consider that if a man can be held liable for the payment of ten thousand pounds this session, which he only contracted to pay if a certain Bill received the sanction of Parliament during the last session, it would be an act of serious injustice if a man was to be held re sponsible by the law for the fulfilment. Such contract, although I do not think that the law courts would so decide, I should think a case of extreme hardship. As I never held a single share, I cannot be considered by your Lordships as speaking other than as a disinterested person on the subject. Besides, your Lordships should bear in mind, that owing to the great number of railway projects which have been brought forward since last session, some of the parties who originally signed the subscription deed might think proper to withdraw from the railway under consideration, and invest their money in some of the new projects which have been brought under the notice of Parliament this session. The Marquis of CLANgICARDE—I shall not detain your Lordships for any length of time, by enter ing into a discussion of the question raised by the Noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond.) It will be a question whether you can recognise these deposits, because it is not exactly clear whether they have been in a legal way, or whether they are those of transferees or as signees, because they cannot show your Lordships the proper stamped documents with respect to the transfer. This, therefore, is a point which will be argued hereafter, and I shall not detain your Lordships any further. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—When the contract comes to be considered by the Committee, they will have to ascertain the legality of the deposits. (Hear.) Lord REDESDALE—I must protest against the way in which matters were carried on during the last ses sion with regard to the different railway Bills which came before your Lordships—viz., the bringing before your Lordships railway Bills which were hung up from the previous session. Your Lordships will recollect that I stood alone last session to protest against that system of hanging up Bills as one that was highly unjust. It is utterly impossible to treat this petition fairly. This question was decided by the Standing ; Orders Committee last year, and in all probability this London and York Railway Bill would have been thrown out on account of the condition of the contract deed. That question has not been tried this year, and the parties stand now in a more favourable position than they did last year. Unquestionably it would be a great hardship for them not to have been permitted to have carried on their Bills last year, inasmuch as the session commenced late r than usual, and a considerable quantity of the time of the House was consumed in the consideration of the railway Bills. Ido hope, however, that the examp le which we have now before us will induce us to preven t other p arties as much as they possibleed to hang up their from entertaining willbeallowßills and nd hpe that p o roceed with them in their partly advanced state instead of pre ferrin g new Bills to the House. Lord KINNAIRD—This, Iconceive, is a most impor tant matter as regards a line of railway to be called " The Direct Northern Railway," the promoters of which, I trust, will be fortunate enough to meet with the favourable consideration of your Lordships. Now, it is well known, that but for the fact of a new contract deed being in existence, an amalgamation would have taken place between these two companies. The Direct Nor thern is a new company, and we should therefore extend to them some favour. If this new contract deed should be declared invalid, an amalgamation will, in all proba bility, be the result, and then you will have to consider two lines, the best of which can be adopted without in jury to either interest. There can be little doubt that the Direct Northern is the line best adapted for the wants of the country, for it is the most direct line from the metropolis to York, and can be executed at much less expense than the rival line. .1 hope, therefore, my Lords, that this petition will be fairly considered. Lord WHARNCLIFFE—Last session was occupied for the greater part with the consideration of railway Bills; and an enormous sum was spent in the prosecu tion of this project, and I believe that the result of an inquiry would be satisfactory to the Committee, and I think that it will be found that this matter has been con sidered in a manner highly creditable to the parties con cerned. That I believe my Lords, to be the result of an inquiry made by the other House of Parliament. Well now, my Lords, much delay having occurred in consequence of the opposition offered to this scheme, under such circumstances I cannot but think that it would have been a great injustice on the part of Parliament if it had refused to permit such proe t e . ings as would secure t o th e promo t ers o f th e pro t_: the same advantage and the same benefit as were eX-A tended to other projectors during the last session:: And, my Lords, I cannot therefore go the length f• of the Noble Lord on the cross benches (Lord Redei- • dale), when he holds out a hope that no such proceed ings as the promoters in question pray for will be per mitted. But, at the same time, lain quite ready to say, that where it can be avoided, Parliament should not sanction this mode of proceeding. It would, how ever, unquestionably be a most inconvenient course ; and I believe it to be a course very disadvantageous to the public interests if this Par li a ment sa y that the y will not entertain a scheme, mere l y bec a use it comes before them precisely in the form in which it left Parliament the preceding year. My Lords, I believe that there are scarcely any schemes of this description which are not capable of some alteration and improvement—(Hear, hear)—and I think it is not dealing fairly with the public interests if we resolve that no alteration, however desir able, shall take place for the better carrying out of the promoters' projects. —(Agar, hear.) I think it in not just for this House to say that, because an alteration or an improvement is made in a Bill in progress through Par liament, they shall therefore forfeit all the advantages to which they would be otherwise entitled. My Lords, I ave no doubt that similar cases to the present must • :rise—(llear)—and I only trust that Parliament will give their full and careful consideration to this matter— (Hear) --and that' if any course does present itself by which justice can be done to the parties, and at the same time to the public, I hope your Lordships will adopt it.—(Hear.) Lord BEAUMONT— I am certainly of opinion that if !your Lordship defer proceeding with this Bill for