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

TH.E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVEN IN G, JUNE 1, 1855

at Nottingham. Harris, official assignee, Nottingham ;
Stone and Paget, Leicester ; James, Birmingham.
Walter Brettell, printer, Little Marlborough-street,
Middlesex, June 8, at half-past eleven, and July 12, at
half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official
assignee, Coleman-street Buildings ; Laurance, Plews,
and Boyer, Old Jewry-chambers.
Robert Blacklock and Douglas Blacklock, drapers, New-
road, Whitechapel, June 8, at twelve, and July 12, at
one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assig-
nee, Basinghall•street ; Emmett and Son, Bloomsbury-
square ; Wavell, Philbrick, and Foster, Halifax; Rawson,
George, and Wade, Bradford.
John Leake, woollen manufacturer, Ramsden, Kirkbur-
ton, Yorkshire, June 15 and July 20, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee, Leeds;
Clough, Huddersfield ; Bond and Barwick, Leeds.
James Meadows and Richard Edwin Bibby, lime mer-
chants, Manchester, June 12 and July 3, at twelve, at the
Manchester District Court. Pott, official assignee, Man-
chester ; Trappes, Manchester.
Thomas Davies, currier, Narbeth, Pembrokeshire, June
12 and July 10 at eleven, at the Bristol District Court,
Acraman, official assignee, Bristol; Brooke, Smith, and
Vassal!, Bristol.

John Lupton, innkeeper,' Bradford, June 19, at one, and
July 23, at twelve, at the Leeds District Court. Hope,
official assignee, Leeds; Duckit, Bradford ; Bond and Bar-
wick, Leeds.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
Robert Jackson, wool merchant, Douglas street, Glas-
gow—Waverley Hotel, George-street, June 13.
David Alexander, victualler and lime merchant, Kirkin-
tilloch—Elephant Inn, Dumbarton, June 15.

BANK OF ENGLAND,
An Account pursuant to the Act 7th and sth Victoria, cap. 32, for
the Week ending on Saturday the 26th day of May, 1855.
ISSUE DEPAATMENT
Notes issued ........ 30,337,C85

Government debt.... 11,015,100
Other securities ...... 2,984,900
Gold coin and bullion 1:,337,685
Silver bullion..

£30,337,685

£30,337,685
K. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.

Dated the 31st day of May, 185;

BANKING DE
Proprietors' capital .. 14,553,000
Rest ................ 3,172,157
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-

:PARTMENT.

Government securities

(includg.Dead Weight
Annuity) .......... 12,110,721
Other securities.— 12,315,806
Notes • • .......... 10,720,370
Gold and silver coin 727,096

ing's Banks, and
Dividend Accounts) 5,196, V 1
Other deposits .. 11,932,316
Seven Day and other
Bills ........ . 1,020, 59

£35,873,993

) . £35,873,993
hi. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.

Dated the 31st day of May, 18,

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from the returns made in the week ending May 29,
1855, exclusive of the Duties of Customs paid or payable
thereon, on the importat4on thereof into Great Britain :
AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR
From the British Possessions in America 22s. 10d.
• Mauritius 2os. lOid.
East Indies 24s. 10d.
The average price of the three foregoing descriptions of
Sugar, computed as above, is 235. Id. per cwt.

COURSE OF EXCE
Am5terdam............ 11 0
Ditto, three months .. 11 0
Rotterdam •• •••••••• .• 12 0%
Antwerp .............. 25 45
Brussels ....•• 25 45
Hamburgh l3 8
Alto= •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
Pari5.......--,•••••••• 25 20
Ditto, three months .. 25 423¢
Marseilles ............. 25 45
Bourdeaux .•••••••••..
Frankfort-on Maine.... 118%
Berlin ••••••••••••••••
Vienna•••••••••••• •••• 12 34
Trieste.• •• •••••• •• .; .. 12 36
Petersburg ••••••••••••
Madrid ••••••••••••••• 49%
.. 49%
Barcelona

:ANGE.—Tms DAL

Gibraltar ...• ••••• • • • • •
Leghorn ..
Genoa ........ • • ...... 25 52%
Milan • ..• •• • • • • ••• . • •
Venice Venice................—
Naples ................444
Palermo .... .„. 131%
Messina ... • . • 131%
Lisbon ..
Oporto •••••••• . • . • •• • • 53%
Rio Janeiro...... • • ....
Buenos Ayres.... • • ....
New York, 60 days' sight
Philadelphia • ......... _

1 muds of euratort, PES OZ.
Foreign Gold in Bars £3.17 9
Portugal Gold Coin • • 0 0 0
Mexican Dollars .... 0 0 0
New Dollars 0 0 0
Silver in bars • .... 0 5 1%

COUNTRY MARK BT S.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN.

A special general meeting of the proprietors of this
railway was held 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
Henderson, deceased ; Mr. Chaplin in the chair.
The report of the directors published in The Sun 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 say to
them. After alluding to his presiding over a di- .
vided proprietary which was not satisfactory to en-
sure success, and to some of the proprietors
pabiishing 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 had 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
,aasto be justified as a commercial speculation, but taking
it on higher grounds, as a point of honour they were
bound to carry it on. The 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 had
declined to attend to that promise. That pro-
mise had 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
themselves 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 would
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 the
proprietors."

hands being in its favour, on which a poll was also de•
manded.

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 and 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. Card well 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 pet' 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 said—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 hou. 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 published at Vezi 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 made 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 construe •
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 1845 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
oppoaeuts 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 follo wing year. Sir, in the following
year (1848), 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 for 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 unremunerative, 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 1853 to apply for an act for the
construction of the railway now under consideration. They
precipitatelyundertook the formation of the company now
called the East Kent Railway company. I corresponded
on the subject with certain noble lords and right hon. 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 would 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 obvious 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 stanting order, which impounds
10 per cent. of the capital of a projected railway as a gua-
rantee for the bona fides 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 unremunerative lines
in the district. As an independent member of this
house, no longer connected with the South-Eastern Com-
pany, having only the interests of the public in view, I
-:ay that the conduct of the Government in dealing with a
company in such a state of embarrassment that it has not
been able to comply 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 c9mixlay whose capital
and resources are 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 thehill 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 he a roablic
duty, and having done that, I will leave the matter in the
hands of the Lease.

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 oriptherwise. lam 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 efs a step towards
a direct line from the 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 bona
fide of the proceedings of the South-Eastern Company.
Now, I recollect perfectly well that in 184.8 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 insfance of the South-Eastern 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 cnnot vouch for
the accuracy of the 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 no hostility to
the South-Eastern Company. I wish them to afford every
accommodation they can to the county of Kent, and hav-
ing spent so much 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
they adopted a more direct line. I think they could con-
struct and manage it better than any other parties. But,
in the absence of any such scheme, I am prepared to sup-
port the East Kent line on public grounds, with the under-
standing that it is to be carried on to Dover.
Mr. LIISHINGTON—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 hon. 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 Kent, I should weary the house with details which
are now of little interest. lam 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 be never lost an opportunity of opposing, by
every means in his power, any bill which had for its object
the extension of rail way communication in Kent. When the
East Kent bill was carried through this house in 1853 the
hon. gentlem an, who was then chairman of the South-Eastern
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 miledin length, there were upwards
of 33 objections per mile, all of them of a technical, and
some of them, I will venture to say, of a trivial nature. Now,
when the hen. gentleman comes down here to say, that in
opposing the passing of this bill he had no other than a public
()Wed in view, I am obliged to look at his antecedents, and
at his past connection with railways in Kent. I believe it
is well known that he has uniformly opposed the contem-
plated extension, and when he states that the South-East-
ern Company has pledged itself to complete the • railway