The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-18 00:00:00

confer any substantial public benefit. Ho hoped the house
would throw out the bill, and thus prevent a useless waste
of money and time in opposition bet ween the cc ntending
lines. The whole matter had been set at rest by legislation
in 1861. He moved that the bill be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. C. GILPIN supported the bill, and contended that
it was a far superior line to the one opposed to it. The
line, although opposed by a few of the landowners,
and some of the inhabitants of Folkestone, was never-
theless an excellent one, and would confer great
advantage in time and speed, on the public. The bill ought
to be carefully investigated upstairs in committee. The
bill had successfully passed that house, but was lost in the
House of Lords through the oppositien of landowners.
Mr. M. MILNES deprecated the practice of bringing
forward these kind of bills year after year, and thus putting
the landowners and others to enormous expenses.
Mr. NORRIS would, as in 1861, vote in favour of the
bill. The house ought not to permit landowners to stand
in the way of the construction of an important public
work,
Mr. MASSEY said it was quite true that the bill was
carefully investigated by that house in 1861, and ultimately
thrown out of the House of Lords, but surely that
house was as competent to judge of the necessity of the bill
as the Upper Ho Ise. Since 1861, he understood the
opposition of one of the most important of the land-
owners had been withdrawn. He considered that
the bill ought to be referred to a committee up stairs. The
promoters were, he thought, specially entitled to the favour
of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LYGON explained, as one of the members of the
committee of 1861 on the bill, that it met the approval of a
large majority of the committee.

Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said his name was
on the bill, and he desired to say it was not exactly the same
bill as 1161. Since that period the company had made ar-
rangements with some of those who had heretofore opposed
it. The bill should be referred to a committee up stairs.
Col. KNOX opposed the bill. He could not understand
how 20 minutes could be saved in three-quarters of a mile.
(Laughter.) He thought the house ought not to let rich
railway companies tire out legitimate opponents in the
way it was asked to do. The promoters ought to pay
the expense to which opponents had been put before they
were allowed to proceed.
Sir B. BRYDGES denied that the bill would be of any
real public beneit. The landlord who had not agreed with
the company was not residential. The opponents had al-
ready been put to an expense of £6,000, and it would be too
bad to make them pass again through the ordeal of opposi-
tion, and to incur the like expenses. (Divide, divide.)

Mr. CORBALLY intimated that the case before the
house strongly indicated that a new mode of legislating
with respect to private bills was desirable. The President
of the Board of Trade intended to-night to move for a select
committee on the subject, which would remedy, he hoped,
the evils complained of in the course of this discussion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. 111
Against

Majority ll
The bill was consequently lost.

PRIVATE BILL FEES.