The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-01 00:00:00

TIRE SUN. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENll46;_tiftTNE.'l, 1855,

RAZLWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON AND SOUIII-WESTERN.

A special general meeting of the proprietors of this
railway was hell yesterday at the company's offices
in the Waterloo-bridge station, for the consideration of
a bill now pending in Parliament for authorising the
erection of works by the company for regulating their
capital and for other purposes ; and also for the election
of .a director, in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel George
Henflei son, deceased ; Mr. Chaplin in the chair.
The report of the directors published in The Sum of
Saturday having been read by the secretary) and the
heads of the bill and clauses by the solicitor,
The CHAIRMAN said that having on two recent occa-
sions met them and entered into the details and history
of these proceedings, and they had:having a copy of the
bill and the report, which gave them every information
up to the present time, he had but, little to bay to
them. After alluding to his presiding over a di-
videl proprietary which was not satisfactory to en-
sure success, and to some of the proprietors
publishing letters which tended to depreciate the value
of the property, otherwise than improve it, remarked
that so, far from the dividends of the company being
" confiscated," they bad only got so far as to their
being " suspended" only in the event of certain things
not being done in accordance with a pledge given
with the consent of certain of the proprietors.
He thought they were all agreed on the prin-
ciple of the bill, except the clauses which
affected the pledge, as being satisfactory and useful,
especially the alteration of voting on the preference
shares stock, the consolidation of it, and asking for fur-
ther time to complete the Salisbury and Basingstoke
Railway, in order to prevent the risk of stopping the
dividend
_in 1856. He regretted the recommendation
of the Directors, with reference to . the exten-
sion of the line to Exeter, had not met with
the approbation of the proprietors, which was the
only satisfactory mode of closing the business thrust on
them by the House of Commons, after two meetings of
the proprietary authorising thedirectors to do that which
was for the benefit of the company. (No, no.) He hoped
the company would sanction this proceeding, which
asto be justified as a commercial speculation, but taking
it on higher grounds, as a point of honour they were
bound to carry it on. Tho public jocularly said that
the directors must get purged of their pledge, because,
until that be done, they were unfit to continue in their
position. There was but one way it could be done. All
must admit that the pledge was duly authorised and
given—(" No, no," and " Yes, yes,")—and accepted
by the directors, and for which the company had
had a quid pro quo ; and, lastly, the directors ha l
declined to attend to that promise. That pro-
mise bad again, however, been renewed by
the House of Commons, and he acquitted the sharehold-
ers or any one connected with the company of being in-
strumental in having the clauses inserted in the bill,
which, however, would be the only means of extricating
themselvel from their difficulty. He called on them to
go boldly forward in this undertaking, which would be
beneficial to the shareholders, and moved the adoption
of the report.

Count EYRE seconded the motion.
Mr. HELPS, after relating what occurred in reference
to this pledge, contended that it was only obtained for
a single line, and not for a double line, as stated by Mr.
Scott, and that the pledge given was a totally different
one to that authorised by the proprietors, involving a
cost of 1,100,0001. instead of 700,0001., and had no bind-
ing force whatever on them. Mr. Scott before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons stated that the
proxies sent in against this pledge amounted to 252,
and the number who voted against it in the room

from eight to ten, representing 600,0001. of the com-

pany's stock, by no means an insignificant amount, and
whose opinion he (Mr. Helps) considered worthy of re-
spect. The Legislature had released them from this
pledge in having granted to a broad gauge company a
bill to construct a line from Maiden-Newton to Brid-
port, which would interfere with this contemplated ex-
tension ; and he contended if it were carried out it wool I
result in a losing speculation, which the Legislature had no
right to force on them. He moved "That the meeting called
in accordance with the standing orders of the House of
Lords, does not approve of the bill submitted to tho
proprietors."

Mr. DIcKENsoN seconded the amendment. He had
always been against Western extension, arid at the
former meetings he opposed it as strenuously as possible;
and one of his undertakings was to defeat this project,
for he cared nothing about the pledge, having bees no

party to it. He deprecated a committee of the Howie
of Commons having power to compel that company to
embark in what must be a lasing speculation. With
regard to the petitions that had been presented
"in favour of the extension, he found that Exeter
contained but 32,000 inhabitants, and already
bad a railway with which it ought to be satisfied, and

that the other towns on the line did not number much
more than 20,000 inhabitants. There was nothing in
the district to justify such an outlay, and he saw no
reason why they should make a railroad for the conve_
nience of landed proprietors. If they consented to the
construction of a single line, they would be called on
to make it a double one, and so far from the tratfio be-
low Exeter coming on it, they should recollect the South
Devon Railway was a broad gauge line.

Mr. ADDIBON said he was one who consented to the
pledge. There had been a total omission to the throwing
out of the Devon and Dorset Bill, which at the time it
was before Parliament was considered would be detri-
mental tto the company, and that something should be
done to get rid of it. It was in consequence of that the
pledge was given, and those who acquiesced in it at the
time were bound in equity now to carry it out.
Mr. PIINCHABD said there could be no doubt this
pledge was given from the impression that the Devon
and Dorset bill, if carried, would ultimately conduce to
their disadvantage, and it would be to their benefit it
should be thrown out, but Mr. Scott broke the pledge
by applying for a double line instead of a single one.
He was inclined to think this clause was introduced by
the ear-wigging of disappointed members of Parliament,
who, having t?ndered their resignation as directors,
much to their chagrin found them accepted.

Sir JOHN WALSH, M.P., said a prima facie case bad
been made out that this undertaking would not be a re-
munerative one, and that they ought not to be forced
to acquiesce in a project against which there were grave
reasons as respected the interests of the shareholder&
It was not a question of Parliament or the authority of
the House of Commons ; but the course the shareholders
should take with regard to this bill that had not bean
sanctioned by the House of Commons, and whether, in
point of honour, the shareholders by that pledge were
precluded from exercising their free judgment on this
occasion ? Under the circumstances, he thought it
would be better, not only for the line, but railway pro-
petty generally, that this bill should be withdrawn.

Mr, WELLS considered that if the pledge was not car-
ried out the commercial world would look upon it as
an act of repudiation.

Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE (director) denied that he or
those who were against the extension of the line were
repudiators. He had repeatedly suggested to the direc-
tors the withdrawal of the bill, but the solicitor always
opposed it by saying it could not be done, and the direc-
tors had acted on that opinion. He believed, if they
extended the line to Exeter they were sur-
rounded by men who would carry it on to Plymouth,
and then to the Scilly Islands, and beyond that if it
were possible. (Hear, and laughter.) He suggested
that, if the bill could not be withdrawn, to fight the
question in the House of Lords, under the Wharneliffe
order, and at the expense of the company.
Mr. BIROLIAM (the solicitor) denied he had ever said
the bill could not be withdrawn, but that it could only
be done with the leave of the house.

Mr. HUTCRINGS, M.P. (director), addressed the meet-
ing, defending the,conduct of the director and the soli-
citor, and added that Mr. Serjeant Gazelee consented
to withdraw his opposition to the bill if nothing was said
in it offensive to their breaking their pledges.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEZ said the last speaker was un-
a,
der
mistake in saying he had withdrawn his opposition
to the bin.

Mr. enatm addressed the meeting in support of the
motion, and said the resolutions adopted at Mr. Dicken-
son's meeting had been sent to the House of Commons
for distribution, accompanied with Mr. Pratt Barlow's
card, a director of the Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. DICKENSON said he was not influenced in doing
that by Great Western influence. He did it on his own
responsibility and expense, and Mr. Barlow was his son-
in-law.

Mr. LACEY (a director) confirmed Mr. Hutchings'
statement of Mr. Sergeant Gazelee's intention to with-
draw his opposition to the bill, and that the sooner the
line was constructed the better.
The CHAIRMAN said it appeared they all agreed is
the clauses of the bill without the extension clause.
(Yes.) If the amendment were carried, that part of
the bill which they approved and would be of advantage
to them would be lost, and he suggested a modification
of tlie amendment.
.25. re .RIILPS declined altering any part of it.
„fb eneirucaN then pub the amendment, which wag
was, and a poll demanded.
The original resolution was then put, the show of

hands being in its favour, on which a poll was al ,o de.

1113J(L(1.

The CHAIRMAN announced the poll would continue
open till Tuesday, at 12 o'clock, and the result be de-
clared on Wednesday, at two o'clock.
Charles Castleman, Esq., of St. Ives, Ringwood,
Hants, was elected a director in the room of the late
Lieutenant-Colonel G-. Henderson, the other candidates
having resigned. A poll was demanded an I granted.
The usual vote of thanks was given to the Chairman
and the meeting separated.

EAST KENT RAILWAY BILL.

ROUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY, MAY 22.

The pressure on our space at the time the discussion
took place on the East Kent Railway Bill prevented our
then giving more than a very brief notice of it.
As the decision at which the House of Commons arrived
abrogates the recommendation of Mr. Henley's commit-
tee of 1853, over which Mr. Cardwell subsequently pre•
sided, and also the standing order of the house requir-
ing a deposit of 10 per cent of the capital of projected
railways to be paid into the Court of Chancery, and to
remain there until half the capital has been paid up and
expended, by releasing, in the case of the East Kent
Railway the impounded 10 per cent. without the usual
condition having been fulfilled, we think the question of
sufficient importance to the railway interest to take the
first opportunity to publish the debate at length :
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR slid—Sir, I rise to move
that the third reading of,this bill be postponed until Mon-
day the 4th day of June next; that the minutes of the evi-
dence taken before the committee on the bill be laid before
this house ; and that the said evidence be printed at the
expense of the parties. If the hon. gentleman who has
brought forward the bill is willing that the third reading
should be postponed until the 4th of June, and that the
evidence should be printed, I shall not, of course, occupy
the time of the house by going into a statement at the pre-
sent moment. Well, sir, as he is not, I must proceed testate
the reasons which have induced me to propose the motion
which I have just submitted to the house. I have to state,

at the outset, that the report of the select committee on

the bill was not pnblirhecd at the time when the bill was
considered and ordered to be read a third time, or I should
then have called the attention of the house to the subject.
I took the usual steps to obtain a perusal of that report.
I went to the Private Bill Office, and to the office of the
right hon. gentleman the chairman of committees, and was
there informed that the report had gone to the printer,
and that copies of it would be circulated in the usual
manner. The report, however, was not circulated
until after the bill had been considered and ordered to
be read a third time. When it was circulated I found
that the select committee on the bill had mado a spe-
cial report to the house, recommending that " under
the peculiar circumstances of the case" the 136th standing
order should be repealed, so far as the East Kent Railway
Bill was concerned. The committee added that they had
been led to that decision, " by the conviction of the para-
mount necessity, in a national point of view, of continuous
railway communication between the metropolis, Deptford,
and Woolwich, and the dockyard and arsenals at Chat-
ham ;" and that they had restricted the application of the
money impounded under the standing order to the construc-
tion of a bridge over the :Medway, at Rochester. Sir, this

is not the first time that we have heard of the importance
of continuous railway communication between the metro-
polis and the dockyards and arsenals on the Thames and at
Chatham. The very able report on Kentish schemes of
railway, published by the Marquis of Dalhousie, in 1845,
set forth the importance of such a communication in un-
mistakeable terms. It showed to demonstration that it

would be highly conducive to the national interests if a
continuous line of railway were constructed between the
metropolis and the dockyards and arsenals on the
Thames and at Chatham ; but it recommended, at the
same time, that the working of the line should
be entrusted to the South-Eastern Company, which
in 1815 had already expended several millions of meney in
the constru, tion of railways in Kent. Sir, that company
proceeded bona fide to endeavour to obtain powers from
Parliament for that purpose. In 1846 their bill was thrown
out upon the standing orders, but in 1847 it passed this
house, and was reed the second time in the House of Lords.
At that stage, however, chiefly through the exertions of the
hon. member for Dover, backed by the great influence of
the late Duke of Wellington, the bill was referred to the
railway commissioners, and it remained so long in their
hands, and there was so evident a desire on the part of its
opponents to have the bill rejected, that the promoters
thought it necessary, in order not to be killed by time, to
take advantage of the standing orders and have the bill
suspended till the following year. Sir, in the following
year (1.848), the state of the money market was such
as to make it utterly impossible to proceed with
the scheme, and the same cause has since prevented
the company from going on with the works, but they
have never denied either their intention or will-
ingness to complete them. In the report published by the
Marquis of Dalhouse in 1845, it was stated that the South-
Eastern Company, besides completing the railway in North
Kent, would also, for the public interests and without the
prospect of remuneration, construct a line from Hastings to
Ashford, and complete the communication to Deal—the
very lines which, according to the Duke of Wellington,
were of so much importance with regard to the national
defences. Moreover, the company offered to pledge the
whole revenue of their existing line fer the completion of
all cross-lines undertaken by them within a reasonable
period. They did complete those railways, with the fact
before them that they would prove ueremunerative, and
fail to yield a dividend to the shareholders. But, sir, not
content with that, the impatience of the gentlemen of
Kent, in the face of difficulties, which had prevented a
great and wealthy company like the South-Eastern from
embarking in such an outlay as would have been requisite
for -the entire completion of the Kentish Railway
scheme, induced them in 1833 to apply for an act for the
construction of the railway now under consideration. They
precipitately undertook the formation of the company now
called the Lust Kent Railway company. I corresponded
on the subject with certain noble lords and right bon. gen-
tlemen connected with the county of Kent, indicated the
error into which they had fallen, and pointed out the diffi-
culties in which they qould place themselves ; but, not-

withstanding that warning, those noble lords,- righ hon-
ourable gentlemen, aldermen of the city of London, and
other dignified persons undertook the construction of
the East Kent line, and the result is now before the house.
It was obvions at the time that they commenced the pro-
ject with insufficient means, and that they could never hope
to accomplish what the South-Eastern Company, in conse-
quence of the state of the money-market, had been unable
to effect. What, sir, do we say now? Why, only two years
after the passing of their act, the East Kent Company con-
fess that they have not complied with one of its conditions,
and ask the house for the release of their deposit money and
other unheard-of privileges. Their bill is read a second time,
and referred to a select committee. That committee reports
in favour of the bill, and authorises the liberation of the
money deposited with the Court of Chancery and the con-
sequent abrogation of the standing order; which impounds
10 per cent. of the capital of a projected railway as a gua-
rantee for the bona fide" of the undertaking and of its pro-
moters. But it also appears that the Government itself
has lent its influence to obtain the infraction of the stand-
ing order. The Admiralty has made a report, expressing
a wish for the completion of the bridge over the Medway,
at Rochester, and recommending the house to realise the
50,5501. deposited with the Court of Chancery, and to al-
low it to be applied to the construction of the bridge in
question. Now, sir, what I maintain is this—that if it be
necessary for the Government to assist in the completion
of the East Kent Railway for national purposes, the proper
company for them to negotiate with is the South-Eastern
Railway Company, which has expended no less a sum than
12,000,0001. in the construction of nnremunerative lines
in the district. As an independent member of this
honse, no longer connected with the South-Eastern Com-
pany, having only the interests of the public in view, I
say that the conduct of the Government in dealing with a
company in such a state of embarrassment that it has not
been able to catnply with one condition of its act, is neither
wise nor politic; and I contend that in a matter of such
great national importance, if the Government is to negotiate
at all, it should negotiate with a compr..ny whose capital
and resources aro of such an extent as to afford the best
security for the performance of its engagements. Sir, I
do not wish to prejudge the case. All I want is, that the
third reading of the bill should be delayed until the 4th of
June, and that in the meantime the evidence taken before
the select committee should be printed for the information
of the house. I have no personal interest in the question.
My sole object is to discharge what I believe to be a public
duty, and having done that, I will leave the matter in the
hands of the house.

Mr. RICE—I can assure the hon. gentleman, who has re-
ferred to me as the member for Dover, that with regard to
the principle of this bill I am not prepared either to affirm
it or otherwise. I am in favour of the bill only in so far
as it promotes a direct railway communication between
London and Dover. The hon. gentleman has talked of the
impatience of the gentlemen of Kent inducing them to
come forward in 1853 with a line of their own. Now I
have not a single share in that line, nor am I in any way
connected with it. I have supported it as a step towards
a direct line from Ihe metropolis to Dover ; and, indeed,
I have repeatedly told the promoters that, in my opinion,
the line would be of no use unless it were carried on to
Dover. The hon. gentleman has also spoken of the bone
fide of the proceedings of the South-Eastern Company.
Now, I recollect perfectly well that in 1848 it was pro-
posed by an independent company to construct a line to
Dover, and I have always regarded the rejection of that bill
as a most unfortunate circumstance. It was thrown out at
the ineance of the South-E istern Company, who brought
forward a rival project, which I believe, however,
they never had the slightest intention to carry into
effect. Indeed. I have been told—but I cannot vouch for
the accuracy of tho story—that after they succeeded in de-
feating the bill to which I have referred, they put the plans
of their own scheme into the fire. I have uo hostility to
the South-Eastern Company. I wish them to afford every
accommodation they can to the coanty of Kent, and hav-
ing spent so mush money in the district—whether wisely
or not is another question—l think it would be desirable
to see the railway communication in their hands, provided
I they adopted a more direct line. I think they could con-
struct and manage it better than any other parties. Bat,
in the absence of any such scheme, I am prepared to sup-
port the East Kent lino on public grounds, with the under-
standing that it is to be carried on to Dover.
Mr. LUSHINGTON—As the member who has charge of
the East Kent bill in this house, and as one of the repre-
sentatives of Canterbury, I wish to say a few words on the
motion of the hon. member for Sandwich. The question
which the hoe. member has introduced is so full of details,
and has been so often brought before the house, that I do
not think it necessary to go into it at any length ;
and really if 1 were to enter minutely into the opposition
which the South-Eastern Company has on all occasions
given to schemes for the extension of railway communica-
tion in Sent, I should weary the house with details which
are now of little interest. I am glad to hear that the hon.
gentleman is no longer connected with the South-Eastern
Company, because I hope there will now be some chance
of his opposition ceasing, for so long as he was chairman of
that company he never lost an opportunity of opposing, by
every means in his power, any bill which had for its object
the extension of railway communication in Kent. When the
East Kent bill was carried through this house in 1853 the
hon.gentlernan,who was then chairman of theSouthEatern
Company, through his agents, raised no fewer than 1,000
objections on the question of the standing orders ; and as
the line was only 30 miles in length, there were upwards
esowfh3:einotbhjeechtioonn.s per mile, all of them of a technical, and
of
i)tgnkahantvetho n that he
venturemiceow,nl,nwlectiallponobwiii to say, of atrivialnature. Now,
l
gentleman comes down hereto say, that in
passing of this bill he had no other than a public
gthsdratoillwoaoyksaitnhKiseanntt.ecedents, and
plated extension,l believe it
and has uniformly opposed the contem-
Compan_ when he states that the South-East-
/ has Pledged itself to complete the railway

communication in Kent, and that the GoNernment ought
to have negotiated with that company, and not with the
i landowners of the district, I cannot help observing that
the South-Eastern Company has, on every occasion, eluded
its obligations in that respect. The Duke of Wellington
took up the subject very warmly in 1811. He said the
immense importance, in a national point of view, of the
establishment of a continuous railway communication
between the metropolis and the dockyards and arsenals
on the Thames and at Chatham, could not be qnes-
tioned, and he proposed that the scheme of the.
South-Eastern Company, which was then before Par-
liament, should be referred to the railway commis-
sioners. Well, the commissioners made their report,
and the Duke of Wellington was himself going down
to the House of Lords to move the insertion ofa clause
compelling the South-Eastern Company to complete the
railway communication in Kent, so as to secure the na-
tional objects which he had in view, when he discovered
that the hon. member for Sandwich and his friend, taking
advantage of Lord Brougham's resolutions, passed in the
preceding session, had suspended the bill till the following
year. It was understood at that time that the bill was to
be taken np at the same stage in the House,of Lords in the
session of 1848 ; but the hon. gentleman, from that day to
this has never re-introduced the measure. tinder these cir-
ctunstences the East Keut Company's bill was passed in
1853. That company has experienced great difficulties in
the carrying out of its project, and it now ciomes to Parlia-
ment to ask for the release of the money deposited in the
Court of Chancery, in order to enable it to complete the
construction of the bridge over the Medway at Rochester,
which it was compelled to make within a certain time.
The bill for that purpose was taken before the standing
orders committee. It passed that committee. It was then
referred to a select committee of this house, and that com-
mittee has reported as follows :—" That the committee,
having allowed a relaxation of the 136th Standing Order,
and permitted the money impounded under it to be applied
to the construction of a bridge over the Medway and the
approaches thereto, think it right to inform the house that
they have been led to that decision by the conviction of the
paramount necessity, in a national point of`, view, of conti-
nuous railway communication between the metropolis,
Deptford, and Woolwich and the dockyards and arsenals
at Chatham—an opinion in which the comfittee are satis-
fied, the Government entirely coincide. his continuous
communication, it appeared to the committee, could only
be obtained by the immediate completion of the bridge
and its approaches, and they have taken care to restrict
the application of the deposit released by the bill to that
specific purpose, the national importance o which in their
opinion would alone justify them in, senctioning any
departure from a standing order so well calculated to
protect sound and necessary railway schemes, and to dis-
courage reckless and unnecessary railway speculation. That
in the opinion of the committee, the completion of the
railway through its entire length will not be endangered
by the release of the deposit." Now, if the hon. gentle-
man had merely the public interest at heart he should, on
the select committee making their report on the 11th inst.,
have come forward and moved that the evidence be
printed ; but on the 16th the bill as amended by the com-
mittee, was considered in this house, without any opposi-
tion whatever. Now, however, the hon. gentleman who
at first intended merely to move, as appears from the
votes that the evidence taken before the select committee
should be printed, comes forward with an altered motion,
to the effect that the third reading of the bill should be
postponed till the 4th of June, which is, it; fact, till after
Whitsuntide. It is important that the house should
knew that there is another bill coming before the
standing orders committee this day for au extension from
Canterbury to Dover, and I have no doubt that the hon.
gentleman thinks, if he can get the East Kent bill post-
poned till after Whitsuntide, it will be of some use to him
in raising a further opposition to the Canterbury and Dover
bill, which, I may add, has the vigorous support of all the
Government departments—of the Ordnance and Admiralty
—and of those who have the greatest interest in the esta-
blishment of a direct railway communication with Dover.
I hope that the house, for the public reasons I have stated,
will reject the motion of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. H. ADAIR—As chairman of the select committee to
whom the East Kent Bill was referred, I must trouble the
house with a few observations. I think the motion of the
hon. member for Sandwich is a very judicious and prudent
one, because the house, before passing the bill, should have
an o eportunity of seeing the printed evidence. I ain of that
opinion, because the question now raised is every important
one, and it is a question, moreover, which I think the
house alone is able to decide. This is the first application
that his bean made to suspend this portion of the standing
orders of this house. The whole object of the bill is to
release a sum of money which the House of Commons has
judged it desirable should be held impounded to enforce
the completion of a certain railway, the plans of which
have been deposited in: Parliament. Now, I think that is
a question of such importance that the house ought to be
called upon to express an opinion as to the circumstances
under which such a deviation from the usual practice of
the house should be allowed. The reason alleged to the
committee why the bill should pass was that the East Kent
line was of national importance, and one in which the
Government had a great interest. Why, it seems to me
that this is an argument which many of the railway com-
panies may urge almost with the same effect as the East
Kent Company. But I wish to call the attention of the
house to another point. The object of the 136th standing
order, if I understand it rightly, is to ensure to the public
the completion of certain lines of railway. I have no
doubt that the Government are very anxious that the
bridge over the Medway at Rochester should be con-
structed. I have not the slightest doubt that they wish
their dockyards and arsenals to be brought into immediate
communication with the metropolis; but still it was not
shown to my satisfaction in the committee that the pro-
moters of this bill were unable to complete,the bridge at
Rochester without the assistance of the Governinent. They
have raised only an insignificant portion of the capital
which they are authorised to raise under the provisions of '
the act of 1853; they have laid out little or no money
upon the construction of the bridge at Rochester ; and I
think it is for us to consider whether, under the circum-
stances, we should agree to the proposed deviation from
the usual practice of this house, amounting, in fact, to the
abrogation of a standing order, which heretofore has been
found to work beneficially, and which I am quite sure has,
at all events, prevented the passing of many crude and ill-
devised schemes of railway extension. I think, moreover,
that the parties should not be called upon to pay for the print-
ing of the evidence, but that the expense should be borno by
Parliament, and that the house should at once deal with the
question, and for the guidance of its select committees,
should lay down under what circumstance, if any, the
135th standing order should be dispensed with. I have
thought it right to make these few observations, as many
members of the house are not quite award of the actual
facts of the case. I shall most undoubtedly support the
propo,ition of the hon. member for Sandwich, with the
view of bringing distinctly before the house the question
of whether the 136th standing order shall be made practi-
cally operative, or whether, under any circumstances, even
when a scheme may be called by its promoteri of great
national interest, any deviation is to be allowed.

Mr. DEEDES.—As a member of the standing orders
committee I think, after what has been said by the
chairman of the select committee,. I may be allowed to
state that this question of the infraction of a standing
order was brought under our notice; that we went
fully into all. th 3 circumstances connected with the cam ;
that there was a great deal of discussion ; and that we
thought, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, that
we should recommend the house to dispense with the
standing order. In consequence of that recommendation on
the part of the standing orders committee, the house agreed
to dispense with the 136th standing order in this instance.
Now I admit that the question of interfering with a stead-
big order of this house ought always to be approached with
considerable caution ; but, seeing that the present case has
been considered in all its bearings by the standing orders
committee, and that that committee have come to a decision
upon it, I think the house ought not to interfere at this
late stage of the bill. If the hon, member for Sandwich
had brought forward his motion upon the report of the
committe, then it would hai,e been right and proper for
the house to entertain it; but the question has greatly
been decided, and therefore I hope tho house will reject the
proposition of the hon. gentleman. Nor can I agree with
the hon. member in regard to the consideration which, he
says, ought to be shown to the South-Eastern Company.
I have no hostility to that company, but I think they are
bound to show that they are not to blame for the delay
which has taken place in the fulfilment of the pledies they
have given with regard to railway acc mmodation•

Mr. ADAIR—I riee merely for the purpose of di laiming
the slighteht irtention of treating the standing orders com-
mittee with any disrepect. What I meant to say was this,
that the question is one of such importance that the house
itself should deal with it, and so relieve the standing orders
committee from a responsibility which they ought not to
be called upon to incur.
Mr. Rica—l am anxious to make a few remaiks on the
subject before the house. It has been said that the hon.
member for San ,with ought to have brought forward his
motion on an earlier day. Now, it must be iecollected
that the report of the select committee was not circulated
until after the house had considered the bill anl ordered
it to be read a third time; and I presume it world hardly
have been competent to move that the evidence te printed
before the repot itself. Therefore, that objeo:ion falls
to the ground, I think the house will always ;sten with
great deference to any opinion expressed by the chairman
of a committee, who has had fall opportunity of hewing
the whole case. Well, the chairman of the committee on
the East Kent bill has described the evidence which was laid
before that committee, and has told you that 1 new rule
is to be adopted iu this case. lam sorry the right hon.
gentleman the member for Oxford is not in his (lace, for if
he were hero he would tell you that the object of the stand-
ing order which it is now proposed to repeal wits to secure
that those who broxig,ht forward railway schemes had the
requisite means for carrying out their projects and that
that object has been attained up to the preseul moment..
Now, however, certain par ties come forward adl ask Par-
liament to abrogate that rule, and to establish %that I may
venture to call a very bad and dangerous precei, nt. Why
are the promoters of the bill so anxious that tile evidence
taken before t'.e select committee should not b' printed ?
That evidence will show whether their railway scheme is
one to which the provisions of the standing order ought
or ought not to apply ; and I really do not see,
if their project be a good one, wby they shouldobject to
the motion of the hon. member for Sandwich. It they
had exerted themselves to carry out the objects I the act
of 1853—if they had exercised all due diligence to fulfil
their covenants—then, I think, they would have been en"
titled to ask the house to consider whether or not it should
relax the standing order with the view of enablindthem to
execute their engagements; but it is notorious that they
have not complied with the conditions of their act, and I
think it would not be fair or just to extend an unit ual in-
dulgence to a company placed in such circumstance,. We
have recently dealt a very different measure of jtetice to
another company. What are the covenants of the East
Kent Company ? They undertook to complete certain
arches over the river Medway by the 4th of August 1854,
and to complete certain abutments of the bridge by the
4th of January, 1855. I am now speaking on the ?,2d of.
May; 1855. The work that was to be finished on the 4th
of August, 1854, under the penalty of paying 101. a bay to
the Admiralty is not yet completed; while the work
that was to be. finished on the 4th of January, 185 i,
under a similar penalty, has not been conitneteed.
Here, then, are to o covenants plainly disregarded. But
the engineer of the railway, intim atoly connected with the
engineer of the Admiralty, supported by Government in-
fluence, obtains a relaxation of the penalties, by Ghat
means this house has yet to learn. Well, has any alert
been made by the company to fulfil its covenants ? Far
from it. The company got its bill in 1853. A call gas
made in September of the samoyear. That call was not very
cordially responded to, and legal proceedings were obliged
to be taken. The works, or at least a portion of them, wire
to be competed in 1854, and yet during the whole of Wit
year—from the month of September, 1853, till the month
of January, 1855--not one single call was made by t)e
company, nor was there the least effort to fulfil the coal-
nants which had been entered into with the Govert-
ment. Is that a state of things in which any core-
pany should should be allowed to come before this hone
and ask to have a standing order relaxed, which is
specially meant to enforce the fulfilment of contracts

The Admiralty relievei them from the penalties ; is this
house to go farther and release them from every obliga-
tion imposed by Parlament ? If the house will have a little
patience, and wait. until the evidence is printed, they will
find ample reason to suspect why no calls were made after
the month of September, 1853, and why the call made at
that time was not paid up. These have been what are called
" bubble schemes." When the evidence is printed lam
afraid the house will find it may have to apply to the East
Kent Railway an epithet which I will not now use. It will
find, for example, that of the whole capital to be raised by
the company, one individual in London is liable to the
amount of 100,0001. ; that a stock-broking firm is engaged
for the sum of 80,100/. ; and that the e mtractor who is to
make the railway is engaged by himself or his agents to the
amount of 72,00 /. But I will not detain the holm any
longer. I will merely say in two words that this company'
has notoriously failed to fulfil its engagements with the
Government, and that it is composed of shareholders whoare
not precisely persons of that character upon whom we could
depend as to the bona fide owners of Stock.. The chairman
of the select committee having declared his opinion that
the evidence should be printed before the house comes to a
decision, I think it would be an act of injustice to the
county of Kent, as well as to the other railway, companies
in the district, and a violation of its own duty, if the house
were to pass this bill without seeing the evidence upon
which the opinion of the chairman of the committee is
founded.
Sir EDWARD DERING—I think if we wore to adopt the
motion of the hon. member for Sandwich we would deal
rather unfairly by the standing orders committee, who have
carefully considered this question, and have recommended
the house to dispense with the standing order. Ido notknow
that I should have troubled the house by saying a word on
this subject had it not been for the observations which
have just fallen from the hon member for Richmond. I
think if he had read the terms of a pledge given in 1853 by
the company of which he is now the representative in
this house he -would not have sought to delay the progress
of this bill. In 1853 the South-Eastern.Company passed
the following resolution under their common seal :

" Whereas a bill is now i3eixii;l in Parliament for the
purpose of enabling the South-Eastern Railway Company
to make a railway from the North Kent Railway at Strood
to the town of Maidstone;
" And Whereas the committee of the House of Lords, to
whom the said bill was referred, have required, as a con-
dition of passing the said bill, that the following under-
taking should be given by the South-Eastern Railway
Company; therefore, the South-Eastern Railway Company
do nereby, under their common seal, undertake and pro-
mise that they will not, in any future session, offer any
opposition to the passing of any bill which may be intro-
duced into Parliament for the purpose of authorisine• the
construction of a line of railway from Canterbury to &ever.
•` Given under the common seal of the South-Eastern
Railway Company, this 6th day of July, 1853.
Mr. RICH—I do not oppose the construction of a line
between Canterbury and Dover.
Mr. DEEDES.—I beg to explain to the house an uninten-
tional error into which I have fallen with regard to the
standing orders committee. I stated to the house that the
question of the infraction of the 136th standing order was
brought before the standing orders committee • that a good
deal of discussion took place upon it; and that commit-
tee recommended the house to dispense with the standing
order. Upon referring, however, to the minutes of the
committee, I find that that question was not considered by
them. I can only explain my error by stating, that when-
ever these Kent bills came before the committee, .I pur-
posely abstained from taking any part in the proceedings.
Mr. FITZROY.—It appears to me that we will consume a
large portion of ounitime unnecessarily by going at length
into the merits of this bill. The question before the house
is a very simple one. Two propositions have been made by
the hon. member for Sandwich, both of which appear to
me to be rather novel in character, and certainly most ob-
jectionable in principle. The first is, that this house, in-
stead of referring private bills to a small body up stairs,
who would be able to take evidence and consider the matter
dispassionately, should itself deal with such concerns and
decide them according to the chance attendance of members
in this room Such would he the result if the house, after
exposing members to the inconvenience and labour of at-
tending a committee up-stairs, were to set aside their
'repOrt either against or in favour of a private bill as of no
value, and then proceed, as now proposed, to reverse their
decision altcgother. But the motion of the hon. member,
if it were carried would lead to no practical end. Who
among the gentlemen who now hear me would trouble
themselvesto read the evidence if it were printed? Yet, if
they did net do so they would necessarily come to the dis-
cussion on ;he 4th of June as ignorant of the details of the
question as they are at the present moment, and the conse-
quence would be that they would have to depend upon cer-
tain members better informed than them-elves. Surely,
then, it would be infinitely wiser to leave the decision of
such questions to .7a. more impartial and to a better con-'
strutted tribunal. On that ground I hope that he will sup-
port the decision of the committee. The other proposition
of the lion, gentleman is more startling in its, novelty. He
proposes that because a railway has expended a certain
sum of nioaey.either wisely or foolishly, the Government
must come to their assistance and aid them in their schemes
for competing with other railways. Islo not think that pro-
position was made seriously by the hon. gentleman, and
therefore will not detain the house by arguing it. Ido
hope, however, that the house will abide by the report of
the select comnittee, and to decline to take such matters
into its own lands-
Mr.'Srooszut—l quite agree with much that has fallen
from the right hon. gentleman, and in ordinary circum-
stances should have supported the decision of the commit-
tee ; but thechairenan of the committee has told us that
he thinks weought to have the evidence before us. He has
also stated that this is the first time the question has been
raised in thishouse, and the hon. member for East Kent
-has informed us that the point was not brought before the
standing orders committee. It is upon that ground that I
give my votd7or the motion of the hon. member for Sand-
wich. Ido rot deal with the merits of the proposed line.
I have no interest one way or other it is a matter of in-
difference to no whether the line is constructed or not ;
but 'I think ought' not Co be a matter of indifference to
any member )f this house that so important a standing
order should )e 'departed fi oln without the knowledge of
the houso, set without the fullest .and most careful deli-
beration.
Mr. GREEN—The report of the committee bases the
suspension of the standing order on the " national impart-
:lnce" of the tradertaking. It appears, therefore, that the
question was raised- before the select committee, and I
would ask the hoe. member for North -Warwickshire whe-
ther in all his experience he ever knew a large body like this
house go into the merits of a private bill ? Those who have
had any parllarnaptary experience must know that the
house itself never dealt with such questions, but left them
to the decision of private committees sitting up stairs. That
coune has been followed with reipact to thisbill; the commit-
tee have reported in favour of the measure; and I think the
house would take a wrong step, and would destroy all con-'
fidence on the part of the public, if it were to interfere
with the decision o: its select committee.
Sir FERGUSON DaTIE--It appears thereis an impression
on the part Of the house that the committee were unani-
mous h. their decision. Now, I do not imagine that the
opinion of do humble a member as myself will have any
weight; but still I am bound to state that, so far as I am
concerned; having sat upon the committee, my views were
entirely in accordance with those of the chairman. I
thought the preamble of the bill was not proved, and I
differed entirely from the Fpecial report made by the com-
mittee. Of course I considered it my duty to record my
vote against both._

Mr.FREWEN—I Understood the hon. member for East
Kent, correctingatf error into which he had fallen, to state
that this queStion had not been before the sta.uding orders
committee at all. The house, therefore, by agreeing to
the third reading of the bill will decide the 'question of,
the standing order without a communication from the com-
mittee. Upon that ground I shall support the motion of
the hon. member for Sandwich.
Mr. HENLEY—The house appears to be in a perplexity
about what took place before the standing orders commit-
tee. I suspect the question is not about a standing order,
but whether some clause in a former Act of Parliament
should be dealt with by the present bill, in which a stand-
ing order is vii tually abrogated. That, is, the state of the
case, and, therefore, the standing orders committee would
not necessarily be called upon to consider the matter, be-
cause the real question is not the relaxation of a standing
order, but the dealing with money impounded under a
former Act of Parliament. • I hope the house will not
disturb the decision of the select committee. The only
reason alle..ed for that course is, that the subject is im-
portant, and that the committee happen to differ in opinion
and by a decided majority. But I will venture to say that
if we once make it a rule that we are to decide a matter
simply because it is important, abd because the select
committee differ in opinion, we shall have to try over
every case of any importance that comes before Parliament.
In simple cases committees do not differ; it is only in
cases of importance that a difference of opinion takes place,
and they are just the very questions which this house ought
not to have brought before it. We might get on well
enough in easy cases ; but we would fail when required to
go into minute and complicated details affecting great and
important interests. I shall, therefore, vote against the
motion for The postponementof the bill.
Mr. BROCK-MAN.—I shall, have much pleasure in giving
my vote in favour of the motion of ato hon. member for
Sandwich ; indeed I would do anything, not only to delay
the passing of this bill, but to reject it altogether.
The house then divi,led, when there voted—
For Mr. Macgregor's m.,tion
Against it .......... . ........................ 99
Majority -78
The bill was accordingly read a third time and passed.

coGnrr EenpAoidEri ORTHERN RAIWAY. —Traffic return for the
week ending
Mawa ye
week
k 0 lastglB 1t year 5y5 year
ae. r 1;19,860 9 0
Corresponding ding week
17,027 0 7
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAlLWAY.—Traffic re-
turn fur the week ending May 27,1855 £20,180 15 3
19,335 15 3
• -

the'iNivesellK
CuTesponEecß A
limul p 4,752 14 9
4,648 9 5
gruDzwemflekoayLiaY2Bl7t7-yAleBDasrlsZAlLWAY.—Traffic return for

Increase
week 15t
in lB
a s 5
SCOTTISII CENTRAL RAlLWAY.—Traffic return for the
week ending May 27, 1855
Corresponding
year.

BANK RETURNS.

An Account, pursuant.to the Act seventh and eighth
Victoria, cap. 32, of the Average Amount of Bank
Notes of the several Banks of Issue in England and
Wales, in Circulation during the Week ending Satur-
day, the 19th day of May, 1855 Average
PRIVATE BANKS. Amount.
Andover Bank, Andover—Heath and Co.
Ashford Bank, Ashford—Jemmitt and Pomfret 11,520
Aylsham Bank, Aylsham—G. and T. Copeman 5,250
Aylesbury, Old Bank, Aylesbury—Z. D. Hunt 29,630
BalcloCk Bank and Baldock and Biggleswade
Bank, Baldock—Wells, Hogge, and Co
Barnstaple Bank, Barnstaple—Marshall and Co
Basingstoke. and Odiham Bank, Basingstoke—
Seymour, Lamb, and Co.
Bedford Bank, Bedford—T. Barnard and Sons
3ewdley Bank, Bewdley Nichols, Baker,
and Co
.Bicester and Oxfordshire Bank and Oxford
Bank, Bicester—.R. M. and G. Tubb
Birmingham Bank, Birmingham— -Attwoods,
Spooner, and Co
Birmingham awl Warwickshire Bank, Bir-
mingham—J. L. Moilliet and Sons
Blandford Bank, Blandford—Oak and Co.
Bostcin Bank, Boston—Garfit and Co
Boston Bank, Boston—H. and T. Gee and Co
Bridgwater Bank, Bridgwater—J. and J. L

Sealey
Bristol Bank, Bristol—Miles, Miles, and C 0...
Broseley and Bridgnorth and Bridgnorth and
Broseley Bank, Broseley—Pritchards, Boy-
cott, and Co.
Buckingham Bank, Buckingham—Bartlett, Par-
rott, and Co.
Bury and Suffolk Bank, Sudbury Bank, and
Stowmarket Bank, Bury St. Edmunds—
Oakes Bevan, and Co
•

Banbury. Bank, Banbury Gillet, Tawney,
and Co.
Banbury Old Bank, Banbury—Cobb and Son
Bath City Bank, Bath--G. Moger and Son
Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard Bank, Leighton
Buzzard—Bassett, Grant, and Co ,••
Birmingham Bank, Birmingham—Taylor and
Lloyds
Bradford Old Bank, Bradford, Yorkshire—H
A. and W. M. Harris and Co.
Brecon Old Bank, Brecon—Wilkins end Co
Brighton 'Union Bank, Brighton—Hall, West,
and Borrer
Burlington and Driffield Bank, Burlington—
Harding, Smith, and Co
Bury St. Edmunds Bank, Bury St. Edmunds—
J. Worlledge
Cambridge Bank, Cambridge—Mortlock & Co
Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Bank, Cam-
. bridge—,Messrs. Fosters
Canterbury Bank, Canterbury—Hammond and
Co

32,306
9,633

22,440
35,089

11,367

15,295

23,232

9,590
6,852
85,856
14,237

8,009
38,530

18,045

22,895

66,901

34,367
24,204

34,767

32,282

11,747
0,078

20,641

12,028

2,740
15,992

49,813

30,895

Carmarthen Bank, Carmarthen—David Morris
and Sons
Chertsey Bank, Chertsey—La Coste and Son
Colchester Bank, Colchester—Round & Green
Colchester and Essex Bank, and Witham and
Essex Bank, and Hadleigh, Suffolk, Bank,
Colchester—Mills,• Bawtree, and Co
Cornish Bank, Truro—Tweedy and Co
Coventry Bank, Coventry—Little & Woodcock
City Bank, Exeter—Milford and Co
Craven Bank, Settle—Alcocks, Birkbecks, and
Co '
Cardiff Bank, Cardiff—Towgood and Co
Chepstow Old Bank, Chepstow Bank, Mon-
mouth Old Bank, Monmouth Bank, Brecon
Dank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank,
Chepstow—Bromage ' Snead, and Co
Derby Bank, Derby—W. and S. Evans & Co.
Derby Bank, Derby—Samuel Smith and C 0...
Derby Old Bank and Scarsdale and High Peak
Bank, Derby—Crompton, Newton, and Co ..
Devizes and Wiltshire Bank, Devizes—Locke
and Co
Diss Bank, Diss—Oakes, Fincham, and Co
Doncaster Bank and Retford Bank, Doncaster
—Cooke and Co
Darlington Bank, Durham Bank, and Stockton
on-Tees Bank, Darlington—Backhouse & Co
Devonport Bank, Devonport—Hodge and Co
Dorchester Old Bank and Dorsetshire Bank,
Dorchester---R. and. H. Williams
East Cornwall Bank, Liskeard—Robins, Fos-
ter, and Co
East Ridiacr Bank, Beverley—Bower and Co
Essex Bank and Bishop's Stortford' Bank
Chelmsfordl—Sparrow, Round, and Co
Exeter Bank, Exeter—Sanders and Co
Fakenham Bank, Pakenham—Gurneys, Birk-
beck, and Co
Farringdou Bank and Bank of Wantage, Far-
ringdon—Barnes, Medley, and Co
Farnham Bank, Farnham Messrs Knight
Faversham Bank, Faversham—Hilton and Co
Godalming Bank, Godalming—Mellersh and
Keen
Guildford Bank, Guildford—Messrs. Haydon..
Grantham Bank, Grantham—Hardy and C 0...
Hastings Old Bank, Hastings—Smith, Hilder,
and Co.
Hereford City and Counily Bank, Hereford—
Matthews and Co.
Hertford and Ware Bank, Hertford--S. Adams,
and Co.
Hull Dank • and Kingston-upon-Hull Bank,
Hull, Smith, Brothers, and Co.
Huntingdon Town and County Bank, Hunting
don—Rust and Veaseys
Harwich Bank, Harwich—Cox, Cobbold, and
Co.
Heinel Hempstead Bank, Hemel Hempstead
—Smith and Whittingstall
Hertfordshire, Hitchin Bank, Hitchin
Shaiples, and Co.
gereord, Ross and Archenfield Bank, and
Ross and Archenfield Bank. Hereford—
Morgan and Co;
Ipswich Bank, Ipswich—Bacon and Co.
Ipswich and Needham Market Bank, Suffolk,
Hadleigh Bank, Manningtiee and Mistley
Bank, and Woodbridge Bank, Ipswich—
Alexanders and Co
Kentish Bank, Maidstone—Mercer, Randall,
and Co.
Kington and Radnorshire Bank, Kington—
Davies and Co.
Knighton Bank. Knighton=havies and Co
Knaresborough 'Old Bank and Ripon Old:Bank,
Knaresborough—Terry and Co.
Kendal Bank, Kendal—Wakefield, Crewdson,
and 'CO. -
Kettering Bank, Kettering—J. C. Gotch and
Sons
Lane End Staffordshire Bank, Lane End—C
Harvey and Son
Leeds Bank, Leeds--Beckett and Co
Leeds Union Bank, Leeds—LW. Williams,
Brown and Co.
Leicester Bank, Leicesterl—Pagets and Kirby,
Lewes Old Bank, Lewes—Molineux and Co
Lichfield Bank, Lichfield—Palmer and Greene
Lincoln Bank, Lincoln—Smith, Ellison, and Co.
Llandovery Bank, Lampeter Bank, and Llan-
• dilo Bank, Llandovery—D. Jones and Co
Loughborough Bank, Loughborough—Middle-
ton and Cradock
Lymington Bank, Lymington—St. Barbe and
Co.

21,479
:-;,545
15,425

32,925
47,065
6,400
20,153

76,262,
6,406

9,089
11,143
38,131

27,133

9,058
10,095

75,849

88,232
9,275

47,815

92,283
53,648

46,129
27,440

19,188

8,117
13,077
5,925

5,191
j 4,472
32,827

27,883

18,847

-19,792

18,770

52,84

5,175

24,210

38,279

21,545
20,080

63,950

... 13,424

9,475

21,970

41,652

9,376

4.764
53,955

37,402
31,674
28,383
9,320
97,112.

7,249

3,965

Lynn Regis and Lincolnshire Bank, Lynn
Regis-,Gurneys and Co.
Lynn Regis and Norfolk Bank, Lynn Regis--
Jarvis and Co
Macclesfield Bank, Macclesfield—Brocklehurst
and Co.
Manningtree Bank, Ma.nningtree--Nunn and
Co.
Marlborough Bank, Marlborough and Wilts
Old Bank, Marlborough Old . Bank, Marl-
borough Old Bank and Hungerford Bank,
and Hungerford Bank, Marlborough—Tan-
ner and Co
Merionethshire Bank, Dolgelly—Williams and
Son .• ••
Miners' Bank, Truro—Willyams and Co..
Monmouthshire Agricultural and Commercial
Bank, .A.bergavenny—Bailey and "Co
Vlonmouth Cld Bank, Monmouth Bank, Bre-
con Bank, Chepstow Bank, Chepstow Old
Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank,
Monmouth—Bromage, Snead, and Co
Newark Bank, Newark—Godfrey and Riddell
Newark and Sleaford Bank, and Sleaford and
Newark Bank, Sleaford—Handley, Peacock,
and Co
Newbury Bank, Newbury—Bunny & Slocock
[Newmark >t Bank, Newmarket—Eaton, Ham-
mond, and Co
Norwich Crown Bank and Norfolk and Suffolk
Bank, Norwich—Harveys and Hudsons,..
Norwich and Norfolk Bank, Norwich—Gur-
neys and Birkbeck
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Bank, Not-
tingham. Hart, Fellows, and Co
Nuneaton Bank, Nuneaton—Craddock and Co
Naval Bank, Plymouth, Plymouth—Harris
and Co.
New Sarum Bank, Sarum—Everett and Co
Nottingham Bank, Nottingham—Samuel Smith
and Co.
Oswestry Bank and Oswestry Old Bank, Os-
westry—Croxon and Co .
Oxford Old Bank, Oxford—Robinson, Parsons,
and Co.
Old Bank, Tonbridge, Tonbridge and Ton-
. bridge Wells Old Bank, Tonbridge and Ton-
bridge Wells and Sevenbaks Bank, Ton-
bridge—T. H. and S. Beeching
W.
Oxfordshire Witney Bank, Witney—J, W.
Clinch and Co.
Pease's Old Bank, Hull, the Hull Old Bank
and Beverley Bank, Hull—Pease and Co
Penzance Bank, Penzance—Batten and Co.
Peterborough Bank and Oundle Bank, Peter-
borough—D. Yorke and Co.
Pembrokeshire Bank, Haverfoilwest—J. and
. W. Walters......
Reading Bank, Reading—Simer ds . .
Reading Bank, Reading—Stephens, Blandy,
• and Co. ........................... ........... . .......
Richmond Bank, Richmond—Roper and Co.
Rochdale Bank, Rochdale—Clement, Rovds
and Co. ............................. '
..................
Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Bank, Roches-
ter—Day and Nicholson ................... ...... 7,676
Royston Bank, Royston—Fordham and gong 13,930
Rugby Bank, Rugby—A. Butlin and Son 10,009
ve dank, ke---'R,, G. Peet* and Co 13,40G

36,860

12;150

13,230

2,566

8,915
17,954

27,093

14,930
27,451

53,G97
21,440

X 10,474

47,613

72,219

10,628
8,901

26,555
12,376

33,298

11,739

33,982

8,615

10,800

46,320
10,300

10,050

10,664
80,476

29,382
6,876

5,105