The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-30 00:00:00

~~~•~~-

;•:',P it PER

. ..,
scheme ; and it was no less than fraudulent and dish°
...,,
nest for the company to turn rpund and repudiate it, e.g
now. He had blushed to hear the language that Mr.
Labouchere applied to this compay ; and every honest
man would feel the same. He believed that, with the i ..:4,'
)
co-operation of Parliament, they had an opportunity
now of carrying out this plan so as tolidound to the ..
pecuniary advantage, as well as to the honour itria cretlit '
of this company.
Mr. GASKELL moved as an amendment—" That the
bill be not in its present stage withdrawn ; but that the
directors be instructed to inform the committee that the
present shareholders are not willing to extend their line
from Dorchester to Exeter, under existing circum-
stances ; and that the directors be requested to call a
general meeting as soon as the committee have disposed
of the bill, for the purpose of taking the matter into
further consideration." He denied that the pledge
was one belonging to the company. He (Mr. Gaskell)
was unable, from family reasons, to be present himself
at the meeting in May, 1853, when Mr. Scott was au-
thorised to give it; and although, at the subsequent meet-
ing in August, be did give his vote for the introduction
of a bill to carry it out, he did so not because he
considered himself bound by any pledge, but because be
thoughtnow tehirecwmoursktawneoeus reldwbeefoarlttehreed. He didcompany's interest,nothe.
but
lieve the committee would commit the gross injustice of
coercing the company as bad been threatened.
Mr. WOOD likewise contended that the chairman (Mr.
F. Scott) never had any right to give such a pledge; and
urged that the threat of stopping the company's divi-
dends might be safely despised. He proposed another
amendment (there being no seconder for Mr. Gaskell's
amendment), and it was this :—" That any bill making
provision for the construction by the company of a rail-
! way to Exeter would be detrimental to the company's
interest, especially in time of war; and that the bill
which has been, without consulting the shareholders,
promoted this session by the directors, shall be with-
drawn."
Mr. PUNCHER seconded the amendment, declaring
hft
ehorlaieudt
ewrtr.
ihs
Kteht
or tildh.House
eospwEr
ihyvolfaitit Commons :hi:7ex
frymo.
property
y owere
f t h i
s company.
om behaving
p a ny
.most dis-
gracefully, and that the committee bad no right to inter-
of this scrape. The feelingledaagartnome.
get
ty athdveiseeodmtphane sybaronet-
s takeitf
tthheei company
tbwiulopl
;mrseeaecnnoedtfmCstioeemunEnldons ; and he believed
veryt
h the cos
withdrawn,tn;omnig thatiene twh
Parliament
außrl
Idoyi
au
()salon. companyh committee hadabekqupeeusnt.
uwa sl
der e now
was
itniona
mofopstubdliisctrmesosrinaglitp
now an unparalleled course, be on the former oc-
casion, they had placed such great confidence in this
company, and shown them such extraordinary favour,
in consenting to throw out the Great Western bill upon
the faith of the pledge which this company then gave,
to provide railway accommodation for the district.
Mr. Serjeant GABBLE= expressed his indignation at
the unconstitutional conduct of the committee of the
House of Commons, as if the members of that house
never broke their own political pledges. If the share-
holders of this company were repudiators, there were
members of that house, and of the other house—peers,
judges, and bishops of the land—amongst them. If the
House of Commons wished to deal fairly with the case,
they might have referred it to a select committee, to
examine witnesses, and hear counsel upon the circum-
stances in which the pledge was given. He did not
admit that the body of proprietors were pledged ; let
them be firm, and the House of Commons would not
persist against them.

Mr. tIRCHAM, the solicitor, denied the assertion of
the learned serjeant, that he (the solicitor) had used his
vote or influence to obtain the resolution in May, 1853,
instructing the chairman to give this pledge ; be did
vote afterwards, AI August, for authorising the bill to
fulfil it ; and he should have been ashamed to repudiate
that pledge.

HERAPATH would not, as an honest man, go
against the pledge, although he resented the tyranny of
the committee.

Mr. SNELL read seven heads of justiAcation, which,
in his judgment, warranted the company in refusing to
construct this line ; and did not see the absolute neces-
sity for proceeding with the present bill, which was to
consolidate the preference shares.
Mr. F. Scow, M.P., briefly narrated the history of
this affair. The committee of the House of Commons, in
July, 1853, showed the company extreme and unusual
favour, and trusted to its honourable intentions. They
went farther, and asked him (the chairman) whether he
was prepared to agree to certain conditions to bind the
company, one of which was that of a double. line. He
replied that, in the capacity of chairman, he could not
agree to it ; but that he fully believed the shareholders
would authorise it, because they bad, by a majority of
six to one, with only eight dissentient votes, instructed
him to use what measures he thought proper to carry
out the object then in view. In August the resolution
of the company was absolutely unanimous, without ore
dissentient voice, or word, or whisper ; and how could
any gentleman say now that it was not binding upon
him ? Some gentleman talked of appealing to public
opinion. Thank God, public opinion was still in this •
country allied with public morality. (Cheers.) When
persons tried to evade their engagements, if one ran
away, be was said to be " sharp ; ' if be remained at
home, and denied his promise, he was called " sharper ;"
let not such an epithet be applied to this company.
(Cheers.) In the critical position they were placed in,
the best course v}as to adopt Mr. Tite's resolution.
Mr. HELPS declaimed against the unjust interference
of the committee, and said the resolution in May was a
Nee, and that passed in August was without proper
notice:.

Mr. W. C. ROWE, on the other hand, contended that
the company were bound, in law and honour, to fulfil
their pledge, a!though he was a shareholder in the Bris-
tol and Exeter Railway-, which would suffer by the pro-
posed line.

After some further' discussion, the amendment of Mr.
Wood was put to the vote, when the chairnitin counted
36 hands in favour of it, and 57 against it. The original
resolution of Mr. Tite waq then put amid some con-
fusion, and there were 65 in its favour, 30 against it. A
poll was demanded, and, after some remonstrance, was
agreed to by the chairman ; it was to close at six
o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and the result was to be
declared on this day (Monday). There could be no
doubt, however, of Mr. Tite's resolution being carried
by a very large majority.

At the adjourned 'meeting held this day the scruti-
neers gave in the following report :
For Mr. Tite's For. Mr. Wood's
• Motion. Amendment.
70
2,340
£705,082 . £112,634
Majority for Mr. Tite's motion.
No. of Voters..
No. of votes
Capital..

No. of voters
Nu. of votes.
Capital

1,666
£592,448

TILE ATTACK ON MR. LAYARD.

(From the' Morning Advertiser of this day.)
Never did the country witness so striking a display
of the oligarchical and " family" spirit, in the House of
Commons. The speech of Mr. Layard at Liverpool, was
the occasion of this extraordinary explosion. The hon.
gentleman, in that bold and brilliant speech, entered
into some details illustrative of the injurious effects to
the public service, as well as to individuals, of that pre-
posterous system of routine, in conjunction with the pre-
valence of "family" influence in the various departments
of the State, which the entire nation, as with one voice,
condemns in the strongest terms. Not content with im-
pugning the accuracy of some of Mr. Layard's statements
—which may, as all public men are liable to be misinformed,
have been incorrect in some of the details, though substan-
tially in accordance with fact—the "family" influence,
and those who abet, because they profitby, routine, com-
bined to make a furious onslaught on the bon. gentleman.
The howl which his assailants got up was joined in by all
the lesser fry of the "family" interest, who, though un-
able to open their mouths in the shape of two or three
consecutive sentences, could acquit themselves to admi-
ration in the form of groans, growls, and other zoologi-
cal utterances. Never did the country witness so de-
cided a determination to hunt down a public man, and
never was there so signal a failure in the attempt. Mr-
Layard is not a man to be so easily crashed. He still
survives, and what is more, he will survive. The coun-
try is determined that be shall not be sacrificed toa
haughty oligarchy. It will throw its shield around him
—it will prevent his being even harmed.
and routine
had much to do in rendering the " family" .
That mo.
which
berme cr.anLabyearndobaddoubgtivethnatanthbeounrotoice tw.ofosteoftoioron
interests so very infuriated on ttheoo.occliagsxhi
cal system.
tion lays the axe at the root of b
They see in it a sentence
of death•
passed upon them.
selves. Mr. Layard,
arrogance, and misrule, and to
oligarchical cupidity,
of Downing-street, and those of
by proposing pass
put an end to
throw open the doors
wiiltyhi,clinttheere
capacity, without reference a
chord in the national bosom to
nexions—has struck
which
all the
h i c
hibrancheslwill
bi
i:,eafmeproore
toforoot hnope
prompt and
contemplates
anbdtol
ei
cordial
saiprnednlraiilati
,i
lfeceserw,
or
ahsrt
proafegotamn ai:ielryi
mdt
preciselyaToonnrhuodeoeft
demands. Everywhere the announcement
been hailed with acclamation. country
the
hon,
dimre
esfm:wb
e:b belonging nrigeoinn g ).,! thea
hishimchottibowenrehagw.
c a e except the privilege
reforms
ls ss
s
only as a patriot, and a man of ability ,wt,hFhoiascemh
and spirit, but as
precisely the man for the e
been brought. mergency into which we have
To him, more than to any
look. In his integrit other public man, the people
ye' kIB patriotism, his independence,
his talents, his moral
rage, they repose the most im-
plicit confidence. Suchcu
men as he are unfortunately
too rare to admit of
sacrificed to that powerful
oligarchical interest being
whichhe so boldly confronts, and
which he now so gallantly challenges to conflict in the
arena of -the House of Commons. The oligarchy will,
do übtleui, make a desperate struggle. They will fight
with deadly determination ; but they will do battle in
vain. Mr. Layard has right and justice on his side ;
and these are of themselves a tower of strength. But
he has more : he has the country. The nation will be
with him to a man ; and it certainly will be passing
strange if' the hon. gentleman and the country not only
do not prove more than a match for the "fa mily" fac-
tion, but do not put an extinguisher upon it.lt is high
time this were done, and Mr. Layard,
people, is just the man to do it. backed by the

DEPART= OF THE AMERICAN MAILS.---The British
and North American Royal Mail steam-ship Asia, Capt.
E. G. Lott, sailed from the Mersey on Saturday after-
noon, for Boston and Halifax, with the usual weekly
mails for the United States and British North American
provinces, 162 passengers, and a fvll cargo of valuable
merchandise on freight,