The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-14 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES:

The Bishep of EXETER presented petitions from Chor.
ley, and other places in Devon, against the abolition of
Church-rates, and in support of the Protestant Church.
The Right Rev. Prelate was proud to say that every labourer
in the parish of Chorley had joined with the clergyman of
the parish in imploring their Lordships not to interfere witk
their sacred rights.
WILLS BILL.

LORD LANGDALE brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Wills Bill ; and gave notice that he should
move the third reading on Monday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table two bills,
one to amend the law relating to trial by jury in Scotland,
and the other to authorise the Lord Chancellor to take affi-
davits in Ireland and Scotland.

MUNICIPAL REFORM (ENGLAND.)
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from tile Cor-
poration of Leeds, praying the House to make certain alto.
rations in the English Municipal Refcrm Bill.
Mr. Crowther presented papers to m the Court of Exche-
quer in Ireland.
Mr. Payne presented the Report of the Committee of the
Milbank Pen2tentiary.
Gardiner's Divorce Bill went through a Committee, and
was reported.
_ _

The other Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and the
House adjourned till Thursday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

Mr. BAIL LIE appeared at the bar and presented the an-
nual Report of the Committee of Management of the Peniten-
tiary, Millbank._

CARDIFF IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. PALMER brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Cardiff Improvement Bill, which was read a first time.

GLASOONV AND AYR RAILWAY.

Mr. DUNLOP presented a petition from Kilmarnock
against the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill. Referred to the
Committee.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS.

Lord G. LENNOX bad been desired by the Brighton
Railway Committee to state to the House that the Chair-
man had been instructed to call the attention of the House to a
resolution of the 26th of March, 1830, which prohibited a Mem-
ber of that House being in partnership with an agent, and
begged to give notice that he should to-morrow call the at-
tention of the House to the subject.
LONDON AND DOVER RAILWAY.

Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Rochester
against the London and Dover Railway Bill.
SOUTH UNION RAILWAY.
Mr. WILKS presented a petition from Manchester South
Union Railway.
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY.
. _

Mr. GASKELL presented a petition against the Man-
chester and Leeds Railway.
WESTMINSTER AND DEPTFORD• RAILWAY.

Alderman WOOD presented a petition from the Directors
of the Westminster Bridge and Deptford Railway, denying the
allegations brought forward against them in a petition presented
last week by the Member for Finsbury. He hoped the House
would allow this petition to be printed and circulated with the
votes.

After a few words from Sir S. WHALLEY the petition
was ordered to be brought up and printed.
Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from the Borough
of Walsal against the Manchester South Union Railway Bill.
Mr. WALLACE presented two petitions in favour of the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Bill ; also two petitions
against the same Railway passing through Ayr, and a petition
against the Edinburgh and Newhaven Harbour Bill.
Mr. HALL presented a petition from the Cheltenham and
Gloucester Railway Company against the Trine: line.
WINFORT.H AND WOOL INCLOSURE.

On the motion of Mr. 11. HUGHES, this Bill teas read
a third time and passed.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. MORRISON moved the seccnd reading of this Bill.

Mr. WAR.BURTON said, that though gerierally friendly
to Railways, he felt that there was a strong objection to this
Bill, and an objection up n grounds the validity of which had
already been distinctly acceded to by the house. ne House
had refused to pass the second reading of a Bill for a

branch Railroad proceeding from the Southampton Rail-
road to Portsmouth. The 'present was an application for a
branch or communication Railroad, leading from the South-
ampton Railroad to one proceeding westward from Northamp-
ton. In the former instance of the Portsmouth and South-
ampton Railway, of the two termini, one was distinct, namely
that of Portsmouth ; but as the Railroad was not yet com-
pleted, and as the other terminus was yet undefined,
the House refused to agree to the second reading of
the Bill. The same objection applied also to this Railway.
He thought until the terminus was defined, it would be most
unjust to proceed further with the Bill • he should therefore
move that the second reading should take place that day six
months.

Mr. C. PE L HAM thought that those who opposed the
Bill ought to allow it to go into Committee.
Mr. POULTER thought that the argument that had been
urged, that the Bill ought not to proceed further until the
terminus was ascertained was extremely fallacious, inasmuch as
such an objection would necessarily apply to the case of every
Railway. The Southampton Railroad was certainly not yet com-
pleted, but any body that was aware of the large sum that had
been paid for compensation, and the works that were com-
pleted and the works that were going on upon the most ex-
tensive scale down to the latest moment, could have no hesi-
tation in saying that line would be completed. There could
be no reasonable doubt of that fact; and therefore it. might
safely be considered as one of the termini.—( Hear.) The
Exeter and Bristol Railroad was in the same situation ;
and the objection which arose to the line by that Bill was,
that the distance from Exeter to London would be 20 miles
shorter than by the Great Western Railway. He hoped the
House would not consider the present like the Portsmouth
Junction Railway Bill, and would not allow it to be defeated
in this stage.

Sir ROBERT ING LIS said that on entering the House
a paper was put into his hand the contents of which he
would take the liberty of stating to the House—it con-
tained , this allegation :—" The Bill to which the motion
refers is a Bill, in respect of which, out of a line of 87 miles, the
assents are only three, and the dissentients 6, making a propor-
tion of I in 20." Therefore he would contend that private interests
ought not to be sacrificed. But he would go farther and say, that
unless a strong prima facie case were made out, the capital of
the nation ought not to be sacrificed in the way proposed. It
would be time enough to make this application when the ter-
mini were completed, and he should give his vote in support
of the motion of the Hon. Member for Bridport.—( Hear. )
Mr. SANDFORD said ha had a petition to present signed
by 250 owners and occupiers of land; all of whom were dissen-
tients from the Bill. He thought the objection of the Mem-
ber for Shaftesbury did not apply. That Hon. Gentleman had
stated the case as an application to extend a line of railway,
whereas the present was a new operation, and neither of the
termini was as yet completed. He trusted the Bristol and
Exeter Railroad would be completed, but as yet there was not
more than ten or twelve miles of it even commenced, and
when he was aware of the great amount of damage to the pro- •
prietors of land to be done by the Railway then under con-
sideration, he thought it unfair to drive a large body of pro-
prietors to the ex pence and annoyance of going before a
Committee to defend their interests.

Mr. BE NETT thought the present railroad was one of
great public importance, indeed none towards the south-western
counties was of so much public benefit. The Southampton Rail-
way would shortly be in operation as far as Basingstoke, and this
would connect with London the vast district beyond Southamp-
ton. The line would be of the greatest advantage to the agricul-
tural districts of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, &c., and he had the
authority of that eminent engineer, Mr. Stevenson, for saying
that it was the best line of railway he had ever been on.
Now it had been asserted that there was no probability of
the Southampton line being completed, but he had the assurance
of the Engineers and Directors of that Company, that that line
would be completed. It was absurd to object to a railway
because it terminated in a line not yet completed, but it did not
follow that the line i❑ which it terminated would not hereaftei be
finished. He must complain of the system of papers being
put into the hands of Hon. Members coming into that House,
for the purpose of prejudicing their minis, and which con-
tained statements it was impossible to contradict, unless some
Hon. Members aware of the facts took the trouble of doing
so. He hoped that the statements in that paper were not true.
There was a gross perversion of the facts relative to the number
of assenting and dissentieet landowners, and as regarded the in-
terference of the line with pleasure grounds and private; roper-
ty. Another falsehood was, that the Southampton line was four
years in progress, with no prospect of its being completed.
Why the Bill had been only obtained on the .25tti July, 1334,
two years and a half ago, although the paper stated that it
was four years in progress. He hoped the system of putting such
documents intothe hands of Hon. Members would be put a stop to.
All that he asked was for an investigation before th., Com-
mittee, as he thought the adoption of that course was not
only due to the public, but to the parties themselves.
Mr. B. WALL opposed the Bill.

Lord EBRINGTON had come down to the House to nip-
port the Bill, but unless the statement respecting the num-
ber of assents and dissents was contradicted, it was impossible
for him to vote in favour of the Bill. If that statement were
true they would be doing a great injustice to the proprietors
of land along the line if the House agreed to pass the Bill.
Captain BOLDER() saw no re‘v.son for rejecting this Bill
on the second reading. With regard to the asserts and dis-
sents, if the statement were true the Committee was the proper
place to inquire into it. He would" pledge himself in Com-
mittee, if he found that this Bill did injustice to any individual,
most strenuously to oppose its farther progress.
Mr. BE NETT would vote against the motion of the
Hon. Member for Bridport, notwithstanding the line would go
over his property to the extent of four miles.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Gallery
was clnred for a cliviion.

During our exclusion from the gallery, we Understood the
House divided on a motion for postponing the further consi-
deration of the second reading for a week.

Ayes
Noes 76
Majority for the postponement —
Petitions were pas mted relative to Railway Bills by Mr.
Sandford, Lord Dalmeny, Mr. Baines, Mr. Kelly, and several
other Honourable Members ; but from the great confusion
prevailing in the House we were unable to catch the particulars.