The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-07 00:00:00

ROYAL MINT BILL.

Viscount DUNCAN NON moved the Order of the Day
for considering the Report on this Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he still retained his ob-
jections to the 4th clause, which gave large powers
to issue money without restraint. He was aware that
some fund was necessary to be provided, in order
that the Master of the Mint might have the power of pur-
chasing bullion, but the powers given by this Bill were too
large, as it was in the power of the Treasury by its provi-
sions to issue any sums which might be in the Consolidated
Fund for the purchase of bullion—this was the first time
any measure of the kind was proposed without a sum being
mentioned, beyond which it would not be legal to go. Be-
sides this, the clause providing that the account of the issue
should be annually laid before Parliament was exceedingly
vague. Upon these grounds he should oppose the clause,
and if he stood alone in his opposition he should consider it
his duty to enter his protest upon the journals of the House
against the acknowledgment of so unconstitutional a prin-
ciple.

Viscount MELBOURNE said that the principle and
general object of the Bill was to bring the whole proceed-
ings of the Mint under the controul of Parliament, and
that the whole expenses of that establishment should be an-
nually voted by Parliament. The fourth clause was merely
intended to effect that object. The objections of the Noble
and Learned Lord were twofold. He first objected to the
principle of the clause, and then as to the form. With re-
spect to the clause itself, it was only intended to authorise
the application of a certain sum out of the Consolidated
Fund, in lieu of the sum which had before been received
from the profits of the Mint, and it asked that Parliament
should give the Treasury the power of paying that sum out
of the Consolidated Fund, according to their discretion.
It was absolutely necessary for the purchase of the bullion
that the Treasury should possess this discretion. For it
was impossible to say, beforehand, the amount that would
be required—when it was to be brought, or at what time ;
and therefore it was not too much to ask for this discretion,
in order that the Government might suit their conduct to
the exigencies of the public service. With respect to the
other point mentioned by the Noble and Learned Lord,
there was a proviso appended to the clause providing that
an account of the issue during the preceding year should be
laid before Parliament within ten days after the meeting of
Parliament, whenever Parliament might meet.
Viscount DU NCA N NON said that by the Bill the
Master of the Mint was only empowered to draw for the
amount of the bills in purchase.
Lord AB IN GER said he should imagine that the all
must have passed through the House of Commons without
discussion, for many of the clauses were exceedingly obscure.
Lord BROUG II AM said that such must have been the
case, for one clause of the Bill pretended to repeal an Act
which had never existed, the 2d and 31 of Geo. IV.,
whereas the real Act was the 2d and 3d of the present
King.

After some further observations from Lord Abinger, the

Lord Chancellor, and Lord Brougham, the gallery was
cleared for a division, but none having taken place, the re-
port was brought up.
IRISH AND SCOTCH VAGRANTS BILL.

After a few words from Lords Redesdale and Broug-
ham, and the Lord Chancellor, the Bill was a third time,
and passed.
Lord REDESDALE presented petitions from places in
Northamptonshire and Oxtbrdshire, against the abolition of
Church-rates generally, and some against the Ministerial
scheme in particular.
Several private Bills were then advanced a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned at a Quarter-past Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Arigri G.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. Ellis appeared at-the bar, and presented returns of
all the pauper lunatics in the county of Middlesex.—Laid
on the table.
Mr. MAXWELL presented petitions from the Glas-
gow, Paisley and Ardrossan Canal Company, and from the
Trustees of two roads, against the Glasgow and Ayr
Railway.
Mr. FINCH brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Stamford Water Works.
Mr. PIGOTT presented a petition from Bridgenorth
in favour of the Manchester and Chester Railway.
Col. THOMAS presented a petition from an individual
against the Cork and Passage Railway.
On the motion of Mr. TOOKE, Gardner's Divorce Bill
went through a Committee of the whole House, and was
reported without amendment.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from an individual
against the Richmond Railway Bill.
MANCHESTER AND STAFFORD RAILWAY.
Sir JOHN BECKETT presented four petitions against
the Manchester and Stafford Railway.
Referred to the Committee.
SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH
RAILWAY.

Mr. WILKS requested the attention of the House
while he brought before them a subject which ap-
peared to him to be of importance—( Hear)—as to
the course of proceeding to be adopted hereafter
by the House in . similar cases. The case • arose
upon a petition presented by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Surrey, from the Churchwardens and Overseers of the
parish of Christ Church, in the County of Surrey, and
from another petition presented by him (Mr. Wilks) from
the occupiers and owners of property in that parish. The
petitioners stated that they had seen a Bill pending in that
House for making and maintaining a railway from South-
wark to join another railway at the other end of the metro-
polis ; and it was proposed to erect a bridge across the
'Thames, near Blackfriars, to take down several houses, and
that the Bill would be productive of extreme injury to the
property, and ruin to the trade and establishments of the pe-
titioners. They also stated that they had received, in con-
formity with the standing orders of the House, notices in
September and October last, from certain persons, repro.
senting themselves to be the promoters of the Bill for a
Railway, to be called the City of London Railway,
which was to terminate at Richmond, and which was
to have a branch Railway from Putney to Battersea and
Hammersmith. Having received these notices, the Peti-
tioners watched the proceedings that occurred in the House,
and expected to find that a Bill would be introduced into
the House for carrying into effect the measure,
of which notice had r been given to them.—(Hear.)
After watching the proceedings of the House they found
that no such Bill was introduced ; but that a Bill, bearing
the title of the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway
Bill, had been brought in, read a second time, and referred
to the Surrey list. The petitioners felt themselves ex-
ceedingly prejudiced by such a proceeding as they had
now no mode of obtaining redress but by appearing as in-
dividual petitioners before the Committee, thereby creat-
ing great additional expense and trouble to them. Ile
was unwilling to point out the objections that existed
to the plan itself, or the utter impossibility of its
ever being carried into effect ; but be must say,
that the extreme irregularity, he would not call it
fraud, by which the petitioners had been prevented
from successfully opposing it at an earlier stage, was in
contravention of the rules of the House, and a direct
evasion of its Standing Orders. The House had made
certain rules for the protection of the public, which he (Mr.
Wilks) trusted it would see the necessity of enforcing.
Instead of the measure for which notices had been
served, another totally different plan had been presented
to it. The House would recollect that there were other

objections to that Bill—that its proceedings had been re-
ferred to the Dover Committee for the purpose of investi-
gating frauds alleged against its promoters, and the Hon.
Member fur Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) had just presented
a petition from one of the shareholders, complaining
that the money subscribed by biln for promoting the
City of London and Richmond Railway was now
to be applied to a totally different purpose. If
these irregularities were allowed to go on, there would
he no security for any property in the country. Persons
would be deprived of their right of resisting such a Bill
upon the second reading, unless the Standing Orders were
. .

strictly carried into effect. All that the petitioners asked
was, that they should be put in the same situation as they
ought to stand, in relation to the Bill of which they re-
ceived notice. He threw the case of the petitioners upon
the House, and he trusted the Chairman would favour them
with his opinion upon the point.
Mr. GORING thought that the parties had been mis-
led by the statements of the projectors of the Bill.
Captain ALSAG ER was of a similar opinion.
Mr. HAWES said that subscriptions had been made,
and deposits obtained, for one Bill, which had been applied
to another.

After a few words from Mr. SANFORD,
Mr. SULKS said he was quite willing to take the
opinion of the Chair as to the course he ought to pursue. If
it were left to him he should move that the Order for going
into Committee be discharged, and the Bill be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER said, this appeared to him to be a
case as to which the House was placed in very considerable
difficulty. There could be no doubt at all that the title by
which the Bill was known in the notices, ought, as far as
possible, to be the title throughout all its future stages, in
order that all parties might have perfect cognisance of all
its progressive stages through Parliament. The difficulty
arose from this circumstance—he then held in his hand a

list of different Rail ways, from which it appeared that a very
large proportion of those Railways passed by names that were
very vague, and which went through a large dis-
trict of country. It turned out, in a large majority
of instances, that when a petition was presented for
leave to bring in a Bill, it described it• by a different
title, as it gave the two termini ; for instance, application
had been made in this very case for leave to make a
Railway from Southwark to Hammersmith. Now this was
a matter which required very serious consideration.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then instanced the case of the
London and Exeter Railway, in which there was a devia-
tion from the plan originally laid down. If the House
would now agree to a proposition to rescind the order
for the second reading, and the committal of the Bill,
it might happen that a small number of the opponents of any
Bill might without any just grounds come before the
House and make a similar application. Therefore, while
on the one hand they should avoid establishing any prece-
dent, by which i►sjury or inconvenience might arise to

the promoters of theso undertakings, on the other hand
they should ascertain whether these parties had been
prevented from sustaining their interests before the
Committee in consequence of having been misled,
in which case undoubtedly they had a right to re-
dress. If the facts of the present case were referred
to a Committee to inquire specifically into them and
report to the House, they would then be better able
to come to a right decision. He would suggest to the
Hon. Member, therefore, the propriety of referring these
petitions to a Committee, who would report their opinion
to the House ; and in the mean time, perhaps, it might be
necessary that the proceedings of the Committee before
whom the Bill was now pending should be stayed.
Mr. WILKS had no objection to adopt that course.
The petitions were referred to the Committee on Private
Bills.

On the motion of Mr. SANFORD, the Bridgewater and
Taunton Canal Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord STANLEY moved the third reading of the
Lancaster and Preston Railway Bill.
Read a third time and passed.
Mr. HARDY presented a petition from an individual
inl favour of the Railway from Exeter to Portsmouth.
'Sir A. LEITH HAY brought up the Report of the
Edinburgh Police Bill.
RAW COTTON.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that, in the absence of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not feel
that he could with justice bring forward the motion
of which he had given notice for the repeal of the existing
duty on raw cotton, and he would, therefore, postpone it
if any member of the Government present would insure to
him a day on which he might make the motion.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that his Right Honourable
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware
that the motion of the Honourable Member for Man-
chester would have come on so very early—(Hear)—
otherwise he would have been in his place, but he
had no doubt the answer of his Right Hon. Friend would
be the seine as that which had been given to other Hon.
Gentleman, that the better time to discuss it would be
when the financial statement was made. _

Mr. M. PHILLIPS thought that under all the circum-
stances it would be desirable that he should postpone his mo-
tion for the present.—( Hear.)
PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.

Mr. TOOKE said the motion he was about to make
was for the purpose of giving greater effect to the resolution

of the 25th Feb., 1830, which was to the effect that it was con-
trary to the law and usage of Parliament that any
Member of the House should be permitted to engage,
either by himself or any other partner, in the manage-
ment of private Bills, before that or the other House
of Parliament, for pecuniary reward.--(Hear.) There
the resolution ended. Therefore an agreement might be
entered into for the purpose of avoiding the clear spirit
of the resolution. The case was now disembarrassed
from any retrospective view, but it was the duty of Par-
liament to add words which would preclude any eva-
sion of the resolution for the future. What he pro-
posed to add after the words " pecuniary reward,"
was this—" to be received by such Member or by any per-
son standing in any relation of partnership with him." That
would preclude the possibility of any Member having that
connexion with any one out of the House, which
could occasion any supposed exercise of that influence
which caused the passing of the Resolution of 1830.
It might be said that the late Sir James Graham and Mr.
Smith, of Drapers' Hall, had transgressed that regulation ;
but the House would bear in mind that these gentlemen
had died before the passing of the resolution by the House.
It might be considered invidious in a gentleman to bring the
subject before the House ; but he thought they should be
particularly careful lest any imputation might attach to
them, and he should prefer to seeing solicitors altogether
excluded from that House, than to have any suspicion at-
tached to their parliamentary conduct. If it once came to be
known that the resolutions of 1830 did not apply to limited
partnerships, the House would find that its privileges would
be abused, and that they would be compelled to bring for-
ward much more stringent regulations. He was not in-
fluenced in his present course by any personal considerations;
his anxious desire was to maintain the respectability and
honour of the profession, and uphold the purity of the par-
liamentary conduct of professional gentlemen. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving his resolution.
Sir F. POLLOCK had no desire to get rid of the mo-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman by a side-wind, by moving that
the House proceed to the other Orders of the Day ; but he was
bound to say that if after he had offered a few observations to
the House, the Hon. Gentleman persisted in his motion,
he (Sir F. Pollock) would feel bound to meet it with a
decided negative. He hoped, however, the House would
not be forced to decide hastily upon such a matter.
He would take the liberty of pointing to a few of the
cases in which the motion, if agreed to, would be most
objectionable. In the first place, lie did not think the words
were proper ones to meet the case, which notoriously bad given
rise to the resolution, for neither the Hon. Member for
Penryn or his partner had anything at all to do with the
case of the Brighton Railway. Besides, he thought that the
words proposed to be added went far beyond what the
Hon. Gentleman, who moved them, intended.—( 'Tear.)
Many Hon. Members were no doubt shareholders of
Joint Stock Banks, and, by the present resolution,
they must either get rid of their shares or their partners.
—( Hear.) Was the Honourable Member prepared to say
that every Honourable Member who held shares in a
Joint Stock Bank was bound to asscertain whether
any of the members of that body were solicitors, and if
they were to declare that they ought not to transact any
Parliamentary business ? He (Sir F. Poll9ck) thought some
resolution ought to be adopted that would meet all the
difficulties of the case. For the purpose of meeting that
object, he would propose that the question be postponed for
a short time. If his Learned Friend would not agree
to that proposition, as he considered the question one of
vital importance and foil of difficulty, he shulsl with great
reluctance be compelled to meet it with a decided negative.
Mr. TOOKE said be would postpone his motion till
Wednesday fortnight.