The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-01 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

Mr. WA RBURTON said it was his intention pursuant to
notice, to move for the revival of the Committees on the peti-
tions for the Bills of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock,
and Ayr Railway Company, and of the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow Railway Company. and fur the re-commitment of the
petitions for the said Bills severally to the Committees. As
to the course of proceeding the House would recollect that
in case the list of forty-two had decided that the Standing
Orders were not complied with, or in case the Committee on
the Bill itself decided against it, there was an appeal to
another tribunal, which, however, he was free to admit, was
seldom resorted to. The case which he now brought
before the House admitted only of an appeal to the
decision of the House ; and it was upon this that he grounded
the course he was now taking. The House would recollect
that upon petitions presented against the Bills by the Earl of
Blantyre and another, the Committee decided that the new
Standing Orders passed by the House had not been complied
with ; and that the old rules had been superseded by the
general Standing Orders, which applied to private Bills.
The House would recollect that the new Standing Orders
respecting railroads, which required contracts, should be de-
livered in before the presentation of a petition, for the Bill did
not fur the first time require that. Originally there was a sub-
scription list and contract required, but the contract was not to be
delivered in before the 2d reading of the Bill. All that was done.
The new regulation was that it required Cie subscription list
and contract to be delivered in before the Bill was proceeded
with. There was nothing in the new regulation that super-
seded the delivery in of the subscription list. The question
was whetherthe general Standing Order respecting subscription
lists had been superseded, and if not, whether that general
Standing Order had been complied with. The allegations in the
petitions lie had last night presented were that they had not
been complied with, and upon these grounds he proposed that
these two Bills be referred back to the Committees. _

Mr. SHAW LE FE VRE had the honour to be Chairman
of the Sub-committee to which these Bills bad been referred.
The House would recollect that previous to the last Session of
Parliament, Standing Orders were prepared which would
apply to Railway Bills only, and upon the report of a Com-
mittee which had been aprointed, the House came to the re-
solution that the Standing Orders relating to canals and navi-
gation should no longer apply to Railway Bills, and a series of
Standing Orders for the regulation of Railway Bills was adopted.
The parties had the opportunity of examining the subscription
list, and of informing themselves of the solvency or responsi-
bility of the parties, and of their capability of carrying the
measure into execution. It was also obvious that a person
who signed a contract rendered himself more responsible
than by signing the subscription list ; still it was possible'
there migiit be fraud practised by persons signing the con-
tract, who were mere men of straw. It was therefore i:iePed-
ingly desirable that the public should have all the protection
that could be thrown around them. He regretted to say he
thought some doubt arose from the manner in which the
the Standing Order had been framed, becauao the difficulty
that had occurred in this case might occur again, and it was,
therefore, expedient that all parties should distinctly know what
na
the intent of tile Rouse was. The material question for the
House to consider was, wi he; they thought there should be
a aabscription list as Well as a contiwth awl if thq vim* 9f

that opinion, Caen whether it %vould not be desirable that that
opinion should receive the sanction of the whole House ?
( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON thought that every protection should
be afforded to the public.
Lord S A NDO N was understood to say he would have no
objection to amend the Standing Orders, so as to meet such
cases as that now under the consideration of the House.

Mr. GIS BORNE observed that there was another point on
which a good deal of misunderstanding appeared to exist out
of doors, and that was with respect to the time at which pe-
titions against private Bills might be presented. Many per-
sons imagined that these petitions could be presented at any
time previous to the second reading of the Bill, and parties
were in this way disappointed, being told that their petitions
were too late when not presented within seven days. lie
hoped some regulation would be adopted to prevent misunder-
standing upon that point.—( Hear, hear.) The Committee,
of which he had the honour to be Chairman considered
that, by the Standing Orders relating to railroads, no
such subscription list was required. They bad ascertained that in
all the Standing Orders relating to other Private Bills, where
a subscription list was required, there was appended to the
Order a reference to the Standing Order, page 7, to which
he had before referred ; but in Standing Orders relating to
Railroads, where a subscription contract was required,
there was no such reference to the general Standing
Order No. 4. It appeared to the Committee, that in Bills
relating to railroads, the House was anxious to impose upon
parties the obligation of bringing documents more binding
than the original subscription list, and that therefore a con-
tract was substituted in lieu of the subscription list. It cer-
tainly had happened that in the Standing Orders relating to
Canal and Navigation Bills a subscriptiou list was required,
containing the names and places of abode of • the parties,
and a contract was also required, which were ordered to
be deposited in the Private Bill Office at separate and
distinct times. The Committee considered that if it were
necessary to put in a subscription list as well as a contract,
that this would have been included in the Standinc, Orders,
which only made it necessary that a contract should be depo.
sited in the Private Bill Office, before the petition should be
presented. They considered that this gneral order was
completely got rid of by the subsequent orders with reference
to railways. The Committee, however, considered it right to
look at the contract, and to ascertain whether it was such a
document as would give satisfactory evidence that the
parties were legally bound by the subscription contract to
which they had attached their names, and also that they
were sufficiently designated. The contract was in this
form ; first, there was the name of the party subscribing,
as, for instance, Hugh Millar ; then his place of re-
sidence, Ayr ; then his designation, a merchant ; and
then the number of shares which he held, and the value
thereof. This was given in five separate columns, and
the Committee considered that this designation of the
parties put the public and the House on their guard as to any
fictitious names that could by any possibility be put upon the
contract. The Committee upon the Standing Orders thought
that in spirit those orders had been complied with, and that the
contract which was laid before the Committee, and also in the
Private Bili Office, was a sufficient contract, designating the
persons subscribing, together with their names and places of
abode. It was not his intention to offer any opposition to the
motion, but to leave it in the hands of the House to deal with
it as it might think fit.
Lord JAMES STUART supported the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought that before any further
discussion took place it would be advisable to hear from the
Chair its opinion upon the subject.
The SPEAK ER said that he had no difficulty in stating
that he remained of the same opinion as he had expressed
before.—( Hear, hear.) In the present case there was
not only a subscription list, but before the second reading of
the Bill there was a contract. If that contract were substituted
in lieu of the subscription list, there was in fact less security to
the public than there was before, and he could scarcely think
it could be the intention of the Committee to have given less
security than there was before. The question was, was there,
or was there not, any security by having a subscription list ?
Mr. WA RBURTON said that since he last addressed
the House he had received a description of the parties to a
contract from which it appeared that thirteen hundred shares
were held by persons at Manchester and Liverpool, who were
merely described as gentlemen and gentlewomen—some of
them were even signed for by their attorneys. Many of the
parties had no designation at all, and others were described
as residing in the United States of America, or
some of the British colonies. It would he a monstrous inse-
curity to the public if that House were to adopt the interpre-
tation laid down by the Noble Lord with regard to the Stand-
ing Orders. He had no objection to a liberal interpretation of
the Standing Orders, provided it was consistent with the se-
curity of the public.
After a few words from Mr. S. LEFEVERE and the
SPEAKER, the subject was, as we understood, withdrawn,