The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-17 00:00:00

BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

Mr. CURTEIS, in the absence of his lion. Colleague,
wished to draw the attention of the House to a question very
much like that under their consideration yesterday. He had
yesterday stated there were five competing lines of Railroad
from Brighton to London, and he was informed there was a
general understanding between all parties, that no objection
should be taken as to the strict interpretation of the Stand-
ing Orders. The decision of the Committee against Mills'
line was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman.
The resolutions respecting Railroads were he thought so ex-
tremely lax, that it was impossible to understand them. The
Select Committee reported that the Standing Orders had not
been complied with ; but he believed the point upon which
they so decided was, that the engineer had not put in the large
scale the names of all the lands through which the Railroad
was to pass. He understood, however, that it was not in-
tended that these lands should be interfered with in any ma-
terial degree. He did not wish to trespass on the House, and
hardly knew with what motion he ought to conclude. He
was entirely in the hands of the House, and ho would will-
ingly adopt any suggestion which might be made. He moved
that these petitions be. referred back to the Committee.
Mr. R. PALMER defended the course pursued by the
Standing Orders Committee, and pointed out certain informa-
lities in the plans which had been lodged, which he contended
fully justified the Committee in deciding that the Standing
Orders had not been complied with. lie admitted that there
was some difficulty in complying with the rules of the House
in that respect, but it was the duty of the Committee to abide
by these rules.
Sir E. KNATC BULL said that, as he understood the
motion of the Hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Curteis) it was,
that this petition might be referred back to the Standing
Orders Committee. To such a motion he felt bound most
decidedly to object.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND rose for the purpose of
moving an amendment which he trusted would meet with the
concurrence of the Standing Orders Committee. That
amendment was that the Ilouse would permit the parties to go
on with their Bill. He believed that in consequence of some
mistake with respect to the interpretation of the four Standing
Orders with respect to Railways, great injustice would he done
to the promoters of the Bill, if they were not allowed to proceed.
The Standing Order Committee ought to have given the
parties every indulgence, considering the difficult situation in
which they were placed. The Hon. Baronet concluded, by
moving that the parties be allowed to proceed with their Bill.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX felt it necessary to explain a
statement which had been made a few nights previously in that
House, relative to an understanding having been come to
by the promoter of four of the Brighton Railway Bills. He
had taken the trouble of making inquiry, and could state that
there was no understanding between the parties so far as Ste-
venson's line was concerned.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW LE FE VRE,
Mr. ESTCOURT said this case was precisely similar to
one which had been formerly under discussion, and the devia-
tion noticed by the Standing Orders Committee was similar
to that which had occurred in a case that underwent consider-
able debate, and where several Hon. Members bad suggested
the great inconvenience resulting from a deviation from the
rules of the House. He thought it would be a bad precedent
to sanction a motion for referring the matter back to the Stand-
ing Orders Committee, and lie hoped the House would not
permit such a course.
Mr. E. L. BULWER said that the Hon. Member for
Berkshire had himself admitted that it was extremely difficult
to understand the Standing Orders. The only question, then,
was whether they would make these people the first martyrs.
After a few words from Mr. POTTER, which were not
heard in the gallery,
Captain PECHELL- believed that the whole of the land-
holders along the line were opposed to this Bill; but as the
petitioners came to that House making allegations and de-
manding justice, lie certainly would vote for the Amendment
of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Yorkshire.
Mr. CURTEIS had no objection whatever to the amend-
ment proposed by the. Hon. Member for Yorkshire, and he
trusted "that the House would not put him to the trouble of
dividing upon the motion.
Mr. \VILKS did not see why the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Yorkshire should be resisted, and he should there-
fore support it.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY felt himself compelled to oppose
the motion of the Hon. Member for Sussex upon technical
grounds. As a Member of the Standing Orders Committee,
he protested against any question decided by that Committee
lhing, referred back to them. The Committee had taken
great pains in considering the subject now before the House,
and whether the opinion they had come to was a right one or
not was for the House to determine. The Committee had
given the subject the most attentive deliberation possible.
Mr. GRE E4E regretted the time of the House should be
occupied in discussions of this description, and thought it
ought not from day to day come to decisions upon questions
which had been already investigated and settled.
Mr. A GLIONB Y thought the public were interested in
this discussion. This course of proceeding no doubt would
very much lessen the utility of the Committee appointed, and
therefore he hoped the House would take some step to pre-
vent it ; but as long as these questions were brought before
the House they must be discussed upon their merits. Had they
the power to decide as a Court of Appeal on the deci-
sions of Committees? A great part of the inconvenience
at present experienced arose from the House not under-
standing upon what it had to decide.—( Hear, hear. )
He understood there were fifteen objections, every one of
which was taken out of the consideration of the House
by the Standing Orders Committee. He wished to ob-
tain authentic information on the subject. The one case
excepted was, that where it was decided that the Stand-
ing Orders could not be dispensed with, because the
house and garden which would be taken in by the Rail-
way was within a hundred yards of it, and was so set down
in the book of reference. He wished to know, were there
other modes of obtaining, in the Standing Orders Committee,
authentic information byond the book of reference and the

notices ?
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were:—
For Sir George Strickland's motion , . 22
Against it B3
Majority —6l
Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition from a gentleman
of the name of Gilbert against the City of London Railway
Bill.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL presented a petition from
the Commissioners of Westminster Bridge, against the West-
minster and Deptford Railway Bill; also, a petition from a
Gentleman of the name of Watts, a large Timber Merchant
in the City, against the City Railway Bill.
Sir R. VYVYAN presented a petition from Bristol against
the Severn Navigation Bill.
Mr. PRYME presented a petition from an individual, com-
plaining of the same practices having existed with re-
spect to the Hammersmith and London Railway as
those complained of in the Greenwich and Deptford Railway.
The Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed, and
gave notice of his intention to bring the subject under the
consideration of the House to-morrow.