The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-04 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented two petitions
from Chelsea against the London Railway (Victoria Station)
Bill. The noble earl said the bill proposed to appropriate
Sloane square for the purposes of a large railway station,
and that amongst other evils numbers of the working
classes would be rendered nearly homeless, and hundreds
of small shopkeepers would be ruined.

- PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Buckley Railway and Fulham Bridge Bills were
read a second time.

PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES ANNUITIES

BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES (METRO-
POLIS) BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this
bill, which makes bills due on the 7th inst. payable on
the 6th.

The motion was agreed to.
The standing orders were then suspended, and the bill
was committed and afterwards read a third time and passed.
NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEER ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
THE lONIAN ISLANDS.

Lord CHELMSFORD proposed his motion relative to
the removal of two of the judges of the supreme command
of the lonian Islands.

Their lordshit s then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.

The following bills were read a second time—Drayton
Junction Railway, Great Northern Railway (Spalding to
March), Inverness and Perth Junction Railway, West
Shropshire Mineral Railway,
REGENT CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
On the second reading of this bill,

Mr. H. LEWIS moved that it be read a second time
that day six months. He wished it to be dis-
tinctly understood that he was not opposed to any
useful and requisite project which would relieve,
by carrying off some portion of the traffic, the over-
crowded streets of the metropolis; but this project
would create a far worse nuisance than the acclivity of Hol-
born-hill. Some of the most populous streets, such as Old
street-road and Euston• road, would be interfered with in a
wanton and extraordinary manner. For instance it was
proposed to raise Euston-road 11 feet and to entirely close
one of the streets out of the Old St. Pancras-road
abutting upon Chesterfield-street. In several places,
too, there would be open crossings, and the sewers
would be materially interfered with. The rate-payers
were almost entirely opposed to the project. There was a
question on the order paper by his noble friend the member
for Middlesex (Lord Enfield) as to whether the Government
would not deem it expedient to appoint a Royal Commission
on the subject, so that the wise would act unwisely by
giving powers for the construction of a railway that might,
on inquiry, prove inimical to the metropolis.
Lord FERMOY seconded the motion.

Mr. H. ROBERTSON supported the second reading. It
was quite a " bugbear" to say that there were twenty-eight
metropolitan lines now actually before the house.
Out of the number originally proposed nineteen were
for the northern part of the metropolis, Six of these pro-
jects had perished, whilst four were not of a character to do
more than make requisite extensions of existing lines; 10
had gone up to the House of Lords, and six were simple
junctions. Thus it appeared that only five metro-
politan projects were left, four of which had been read a
second time ; in fact, this was the only one left in the House
of Commons for discussion. The line would be a great
benefit to the metropolis, would not interfere with any great
thoroughfare in an objectionable manner, and would only
carry out to the required extent the plan of railway accom-
modation fostered by the house.
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the bill. If the House of
Commons had passed some of the railway projects, as stated
by the hon. member, he trusted the House of Lords would
do its duty and reject these bills, in order that some public
body, such as the Metropolitan Board of Works, or a com-
mission, might report upon the nature and expediency of
the various projects.
Sir S. M. PETO had been urged to a large extent by his
constituents to vote against this bill, but he should not do
so at the present moment until the merits of the various
projects had been investigated by a oemmittee of that house
or a special commission.
Mr. JACKSON supported the second reading. The
bill would, as a matter of course, be fully investigated up
stairs in committee, when all the opposing parties would
have an ample opportunity of being heard against it.
Mr. DALTON opposed the second reading. As a mem-
ber of the Board of Works he trusted the house would
spare that body the trouble and expense of opposing it. It
would create, in one part of its route, a nuisance quite as
great as Ludgate-hill.
Mr. LOCKE opposed the second reading, on the broad
principle that no railways ought to be permitted to enter
the heart of the metropolis. He trusted the north part of
the metropolis would be saved from the nuisances created
by railways on the south side of the Thames.
Mr. HODGSON knew nothing of the bill or its pro-
moters, but the house would act in opposition to all
precedent, if it rejected it on a second reading, without
giving the parties an opportunity of going into committee.

Mr. TITE characterised this as one of the wildest of all
the many railway projects proposed for the metropolis. It
never could be constructed as proposed. The bill ought to
be rejected at once.
Lord FERMOY advocated the immediate rejection of
the bill. The line could not be worked in any sort of uni-
formity with existing lines.
Mr. MASSEY said if the bill was really so objectionable
in principle and faulty in detail, probably it would be ad-
visable for the house now to reject the bill, so as to compel
the promoters to bring in a proper and amended bill. But
this was an enterprise of a peculiar character ; it was the
first attempt yet made to enter the very heart of
the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) It was certainly a
very bold project. Of course it was to be regretted that in
the infancy of railways a distinct and comprehensive system
of action was not adopted. (Hear, hear.) It was the

duty of the house to see that the public, had no improper
schemes thrust upon them. As far as he could see, the
scheme was a crude one, promoted by parties with whom in
his oflisial capacity he had never before come in contact.
(Hear, hear.) It professed to be connected with the Great
Northern Railway, but he did not find that the directors of
that line had anything to do with it ; and as it
would interfere with a large amount of valuable pro-
perty, really an exceptional case, he thought the house
would do well not to send the bill upstairs to: committee.
He understood it was intended to construct several mounds
and to make a subterranean passage through them.
Sir J. Shelley, Sir De Lacy Evans, and Mr. Malins op-
posed the bill. The last speaker sail it was intended to
cross Oxford-street on a level, which was a monstrously
absurd proposition.
The 'notion for the second reading was then negatived
without a division. The result elicited much applause.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MAGUIRE gave notice that after Easter he should
introduce abill to amend the relations between landlord and
tenant. (Hear, hear.)
IRISH BOARD OF FISRERIES.

Mr. BLAND asked the Secretary to the Treas
ury,
whether his attention had been called to the
fact of one of the defendants in a fishery pre..
secution instituted by the Irish Board of Fisheries
having sworn at a trial which took place during
the present month at Arthurstown, county Wexford, that
Mr. James Redmond Barry, one of the Commissioners, had
written to him to the effect " that he was not a party to the
prosecution against him for alleged illegal practices, and that
the said prosecution was an unfair proceeding." And
whether the Secretary of the Treasury had taken any, and
what, measures in consequence of the above proceeding on
the part of Mr. Redmond Barry?
Mr. F. PEEL replied that no report of the matter had
been furnished to the Treasury, but he believed the cir-
cumstance, as related by the hon. member, was substan-
tially correct. It was right, however, to state that the
opinion was conveyed in a private letter, and proba-
bly the sentiments it conveyed at the official position of
Mr. Barry ought not to have been penned. Probably Mr.
Barry would be remonstrated with on the impropriety of
his conduct.
RAILWAY METROPOLITAN PROJECTS.
ENFIELDVis asked the President of the Board
of Trade whether, hh considering the numerous schemes that
were proposed for intersecting the metropolis and its
suburbs with various
of lvirineesotrailway, be would take into
consideration the
orrecommending the appoint-
ment of a special committee, commissionhear,)
to investigate
and report upon the same? mear,
Mr. M. GIBSON replied that the '3Government did
not deem it expedient to institute aninquiry
the aid of a Royal Commission. some years by
ago
a commission was appointed to inquire into the subject of
metropolitan railways, and an elaborate special report was the
result. For some years it was the custom of the
Board of Trade to direct the attention of the com-
mittee of that board on railway bills to that report.
They however ceased to do so after several of the proposi•
tions laid down in that report had been overruled.
The sacred area which they recommended should
not be interfered with by the metropolitan railways
had been invaded— (hear, and laughter) for railway
bridges had been projected to cross the Thames, and
power obtained to construct them. If the house
desired it a special committee of the house could be ap-
pointed. But knowing the interest taken in the sub-
ject, and the importance of having the various railway
metropolitan projects properly and quickly considered by
Parliament, he had intrusted an officer of the
Board of Trade to devote his attention to
tbtse schemes, and to frame a report thereon.

When the report was ready he should be prepared it) lay
it ma the table of the house. (Hear, hear.)

THE DEVONPORT ELECTION.
Mr. FEItRAND asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether the First Naval Lord did not receive a deputation
from the dockyards men during his canvass at
Devonport, for the purpose of hearing their com-
plaints against the regulation issued in October, 1861,
which prohibits promotion in the dockyard after the
age of 45; whether he did not promise them a full inquiry
into the operation of this regulation immediately after
the election, with the view of its being rescinded

if its effects was injurious to the dockyards men; whe-
ther this promise was not in part fulfilled by orders be-
ing sent from the Admiralty to the principal officers of the
yards for a report of the working of the said regulation;
whether they had not replied, condemning the restriction as
to age for promotion ; and, whether the Secretary to the
Admiralty would place upon the table of the house the in-
structions sent and the report of the officers thereon?
Lord C. PAGET replied that Sir F: Grey when can-
vassing the electors of Devonport, very properly refused
to receive any deputation, or to make any promise to
redress any grievances. (Hear, hear.) After the
election was over, Sir F. Grey received a deputation of cer-
tain dockyard men complaining of the restriction with regard
to promotion. The result was that the Board of Admiralty
desired the dockyard officers to report on the matter,
which they accordingly did, and to the effect (as
understood) that the present system ought to be
maintained. it was not usual to publish confidential re-
ports between officers in departments of the public service,
therefore he must decline to lay this correspondence on the
table of the house.

PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES:ANNUITY

BILL.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS and Mr. Justice BLACKBURN, at-

tired in their full robes, brought up this bill from the House
of Lords, and intimated that there were no amendments.
The learned judges were somewhat awkward in their
progress up and from the table, bowing somewhat out
of order, and retiring backwards not quite in
accordance with the practised rigidity of those used to the
process. The result was a gool deal of unseemly laughter,
in which the learned judges could not perforce but join.