The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA r 30.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
On the motion of Mr. BE:TIIELL, Raike's Estate Bill
was read a first time.
111 r. B. SMITH presented a petition from the corpora-
tion of Norwich, and another petition from the inhabitants
of Norwich, against the Norwich Improvement Bill.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. HODGES, the South-Eastern
Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented five petitions from coal
owners and others against the Birmingham Canal Bill.
SMALL DEBTS BILLS.
On the motion of Mr. B ROTH ERTON, the Eckington
Small Debts Bill was read a second time.
Mr. GREEN gave notice that in all these Bills he
should resist the clause whereby minors are liable to
be sued.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the Chester-
field Small Debts Bill was also read a second time.
LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY BILL.
The London and Birmingham Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed, after some amendments had been
agreed to.
Lord TEIGNMOUTH said be had been instructed to
move the insertion of a clause for an additional station at
Camden-town, but was informed that it could not be enter-
tained, in consequence of the requisite notices not having
been given at the Private Bill Office.
BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION RAILWAY BILL.
Sir E. WILMOT said that on Tuesday ho presented
several petitions against the Birmingham Extension Rail-
way Bill, which were ordered to be referred to the
Committee. The Committee met on Wednesday, and
found that they had not been presented within the
requisite number of days, and that they coul d
not receive them. The circumstances of the case were.
these. On the 14th of this month the Bill was read a
second time, and the House adjourned on the 15th to the
27th. The notice of the Committee was given for the 22d.
No business was done on that day in consequence of the
election of Speaker, and, therefore, the only day for the
presentation of these petitions was Tuesday last, and, con-
sequently they could not comply with the Standing Orders
of the House. There was no lache on the part of the
petitioners, and he therefore hoped the House would,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, direct these
petitions to be laid before the Committee.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS had a petition from the solicitor for
the Bill, praying that this course might not be adopted.
The petitioner stated that it was yesterday mentioned to
tho Committee on the Bill that it was intended specially
to apply to the House on the subject—that there was no
reasonable ground for the application, and that the parties
had the means of preparing the petition within the usual
period prescribed by the Standing Orders. Perhaps
no Bill had ever become the subject of so much
notoriety in Parliament as the present one, and never had
there been a case in which parties had less right to plead
surprise. The petition for leave to bring in the Bill had
been presented on the 11th February. The Committee
commenced its sittings on the 22d, and the opposition
before that Committee was most unexampled.
The SPEAKER said the proper course for the Hon.
Member to pursue would be, to move that the petition he
printed, and to bring it before the House for consideration
on a future day.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPPS of course bowed to the sugges-
tion of the Chair ; he would only mention that the agents
for the petitioners had been in the Committee-room during
the proceedings, and therefore the neglect, if any, was
their own.
Sir E. WILMOT wished to state that the Committee
had not at all decided the merits of the question ; it had
only come to the opinion that the course alluded to could
not be pursued consistently with the regulations of the
House.
After a few words from Sir E. KNATCHBULL and Mr.
BROTIIEZTON, both of whom were understood to recom-
mend that the petition be printed and considered hereafter,
Mr. W. PATTEN said the late Speaker had sug-
gested that these cases should be left to the Committee
for decision.
An HoN. MEMBER moved that the Standing Orders be
relaxed in this case.
Mr. BROTHERTON said this case involved an im-
portant question, whether or not the Standing Orders
should be departed from. If the parties could have
pleaded ignorance that would have boon some excuse for
the application.
Sir E. WILMOT said it was not from ignorance that
the application arose, but from the impossibiliiy of the
parties being able to comply with the Standing Orders.
Lord STANLEY said it must be a strong case
which would induce him to relax the Standing Orders,
because the House had, upon very good grounds,
declared that it was necessary, in Railway petitions,
that three days notice should be given to the
parties on the other side, in order that they
might be prepared to meet the allegations, and in
the only case in which hardship could arise to the peti-
tioners, an exception was made by the Standing Orders,
when the petition was founded on matters which had
arisen before the Committee, but when the cir-
cumstances were all known, if they once made
a deviat'on from the rule which required notice to
be given, they would receive endless applications, and
defeat what appeared to him to be a very salutary rule.—
( Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON said in this case if the parties had
been required strictly to adhere to the Standing Orders,
they would have had imposed on them an impossibility ;
now what was the facto On the day after the second
reading of the Bill, the Hourse adjourned to the
27th May, when it met again for the purpose of
electing a Speaker. He had the petition in the House
at the time, but was precluded from presenting
it by the circumstances to which he had alluded ;
he, therefore, thought he had made out a case which
would show the House would be doing the greatest possible
injustice by shutting out parties whomigbt have the greatest
possible interest in the Bill. —( Hear, hear.) Ile, there.
fore, trusted the House would not refuse the application.
Lord STANLEY—After the statement made by his
Noble Friend, which he was not aware of before, would

withdraw all opposition, and, therefore, suggested that it
be an instruction to the Committee that they hare power
to take these petitions into consideration, notwithstanding
the Standing► Orders have not been complied with.
Mr. FINCH believed the statement of the Noble Lord
the Member for Liverpool was not quite correct. The
second reading took place on the 14th. On the 15th the
House met again, and the petition might have been pre-
sented, when it would have been in time to go before the
Committee.
The SPEAKER then put the question, that it be an
instruction to the Committee on the Birmingham and
Manchester Extension Railway Bill.to take into conside-
ration the petitions presented on Tuesday last, against the
said Bill, which was agreed to.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS then moved that the petition
be referred to the Committee.
The SPEAKER asked if that was one of the petitions
which was presented on Tuesday last.
Mr. PHILLIPS said it was intended to draw the atten-
tion of the House to the circumstances mentioned in the
Committee.
The SPEAKER intimated that it could not be re-
ceived, and
Mr. PHILLIPS said he would withdraw it.
The Rampton Inclosure Bill was read a third time and
passed.
On the motion of Mr. M. PHILLIPS the Manchester
and Leeds Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir GEO. STRICKLAND, the
Rishworth Reservoir Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Great Milton Inclosure Bill was read a second time
on the motion of Mr. GRIM SD ITC H.

The Report of the Committee on the Brighton Gas
Bill was brought up.
Mr. INGHAM presented a petition against the Redcar
Harbour Bill.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from certain water.
men of the City of London against the Deptford Pier Bill.
Mr. CRIPPS presented a petition against the London
Cemetery Bill.
On the motion of Mr. BAINES, the amendments of
the Lords to the Great Western Railway Bill were
agreed to.
The Bury and Haslingden Roads Bill was read a third
time and passed.
EDINBURGH RAILWAY BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the third read-
ing of the Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway Bill.
Sir G. CLARK opposed the third reading of the Bill,
believing it to be brought in more for the purpose of in-
creasing the price of shares in the Trinity Harboureith,
scheme than any other object.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that the Bill
was approved of by the inhabitants of Edinburgh, Leith,
and Newhaven ; the objects of the measure were well
known, and down to the present hour not one petition
had been presented against it. Under such circumstances
he felt bound to porsevere in moving the third reading.
The Bill was then read th'rd e a

The Camber (Portsmouth) Quays Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
On the motion of Mr. LE ADE R , the Brompton New-road
Bill rts.s read a second time, and ordered to be committed.