The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-28 00:00:00

THE MARKETS-(THIS DAY.)

HAY AIARKETS.—(At per Load of 36 Trusses. )
CUMBER) AND.
Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay...—. ........... .........,.C4 0 .. £4 5
New Meadow Hay t.o
0 0 0
Useful Old Ditto
Fine U and Meadow and ltye-grass Hay
Clover flay 5 5 6fl
Oat Straw £2 Bto £2 10 1 Wheat Straw 2 10 2 IJ

SMITHFIELD. •
Clarse heavy Lowland. Meadow Hay .£3 15 to .C 4 0
Naw Meadow Hay
Uiefia Old Ditto- • 4 5 4 1.1

SiL4 tj 1\ 1-7.4 I) I I 0 7:4;

UN 0.1• TI Stycn or Cluck.

IMPERI A.l, PARLIAMENT,
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SITAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
GRAND CONNECTION (RAILWAY.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX presented a petition from an
individual in fam ur of the Grand Connection (Worcester and
Wolvcrhamp on) Railway.
Col. LYC. ON ,)resented a petition to the same effoct from
certain oectu rs laud on the line of railway.
Mr. VILLIERS preset:lA a similar petition from Wol-
v. rhampton.
Captain WINNINGTON presented a petition to the same
effect, front certain occupiers of laud in the county of Wor,
cestcr.

CHELSEA WATER WORKS.
On the mo',ion of Mr. FINCH, the Chclsca Water Woks
B II was rea•l a first time.
DI:BLIN AND KILKENNY RAILWAY.
Mr. 11A NI i LTON presented a petition from the Dublin
al. Company against this Bid.
TANIWORTH AND RUGBY RAILWAY.
Sir E. WILNIOT presented a petition from the Directors
of the Tarnworth and Rugby Railway, stating that, in conse-
quence of a misconception on their part they Irzi not included
in their plan a barn, which they thought they ought not to
have included; the Standing Order Committee had reported
that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The
object of the petition was, without at all impugning the deci-
sion of the Committee, to have the case referred back to the
Streiding Order Committee.

Sir .IbEIN WROTTESLEY said that two years had
elapsed since the decision of the Committee had been pro-
liounced, and there had been no appeal from it ; but he thought
the better uay would be to move that the petition be printed
with the Votes, and fix a future day for the consideration of
thu subject.

Lord' F BRING TON, having been Chairman of the Stand-
ing Order Committee on the occasion referred to in the peti-
tion, could not help expressing his hope that the Ilonourable
Baionct would, in justice to the Members of that Com-
mittee, adopt the course thieli was recommended by
his Hon. Friend (Sir John Wrottesley.) Without going
into the merits of the case, perhaps he would be allowed to
state the decision which was come to by the Committee
was adopted without petition, and no doubt was expressed
at the time as to the propriety of that decision.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND was one of the Mem-
bers of the Standing Order Committee who differed from the
rest, though that difference was not so strong as to induce him to
divide the Committee. He did not think it was necessary
that the petition should be printed with the Votes. He saw
many of the Members of that Committee in the House, and
lie thought they could discuss it then. The Report from the
Sub-Committee was that the Standing Orders had not been
complied with. His opinion then was, and it remained so,
that strickly speaking the Standing Orders had been complied
with, because the parties who had the conduct of the railroad,
had declared it was not their intention to.take the barn, and
it was necessary that they should give an enlarged plan of it.
The barn stood in a small field, part of which would be tra-
versed by the railway. Having considered the case very at-
tentively, it was his opinion that the standing orders had been
complied with, and he was inclined to allow 'the Bill to go on.
He thought, however, it would have been better, if the Com-
pany had been more candid, and had given him an enlarged
plan, and he hoped the prayer of the petition would be com-
plied with.

Sir T. FREMANTLE happened to be on the Commit-
tee l‘hen this question was disposed of. He did not approve
of the course suggested by the Member for Yorkshire. He
thought it would be better to have the petition printed, anti
taken into consideration on a future day.—( Hear, hear.) He
did not mean to say that the Committee might not have
come to a wrong decision, but ho believed the better
way would be to have the quest on disposed of by the House.
After a few observations from Sir E. WILMOTT and the
SPRAKER, 'which did not reach the gallery, the petition was
ordered to be printed, and taken into consideration on Friday
next.

GRAND CONNECTION RAILWAY.
Mr. COOK ES presented a petition in favour of the Grand
Connection Railway.
EAST LONDON GAS COMPANY.
Mr. \MKS presented a petition signed by 2,000 inhabi-
tan. householders of the Eastern part of London, praying that
the Eastern Gas Company Bill, upon which the Committee
bad reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied
with, might be referred back to that Committee. There had
been merely an informality in the posting of the notices, and
he trusted that the House would not permit a great public im-
provement of that nature to be passed over for another year
upon such slight grounds.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL thought the application
a most extraordinary one. The petitioners appeared to be
quite aware of the irregularity that had been committed, and
yet they earns before the House to have the Bill referred back
again. This was one of the cases in which the House should
stand by its former decision, as unless some reasonable ground
could be shown the House could net be asked to dispense with
its Standing Orders.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that the House should require
some very strong and special reasons to induce it to depart
from 'ILI rules which were always laid down upon such occa-
sio is, snd he for one should oppose the application.
s; OHN WROTTESLEY did not think that this was a
case in which the House ought to grant any great indul-
gence. He hoped the House would not adopt the suggestion
of referring this Bill back to a Committee who were unani-
mous in their opinion. If the House were to adopt a contrary
opinion to that of the Committee, they would be acting in direct
opposition to every decision of the last two years.
Mr. R. PALMER, having been Chairman of the Com-
mittee, begged to inform the House that the parties promoting
this Bill bad neglected to give the regular notice on the Church
doors, and that the first notice had been given on the last day
of November. It was clear, that the Standing Orders had
not been complied with.
Mr. WIL KS did not say that the Standing Orders had
been complied with—if they had, he need not have appealed
to the liberality of the House. The course he meant to pur-
sue was to move that the petition be laid on the table. He
had not heard a word to induce him to think that this was
not an occasion in which great public (convenience would
result from liberality on the part of the House.—( Hoar. )
It %WS his intention to move on a future day that the petition
be printed, and he would then distinctly bring it under the
consideration of the House.--:The subject then dropped.
ELLESMERE AND CHESTER CANAL.
On the motion of the Earl of DARLINGTON, this 8111
vas read a second time.

GRAND CONNECTION RAILWAY.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Worcester in
favour of this Bill.

Mr. H. TRACEY presented a similar petition.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented retitions from Market
Boswell anti other places, praying to be included in e opera-
tion of the Small Debts Bill.
On the motion of Lord FRANCIS EGERTON the South
Union Railway Bill was referred to t'ie Lancaster list.
Mr. GREEN brought up the Report of the Committee on
the London and Greenwich Railway, reporting that the Stand-
ing Orders had not been conTlied
with.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Captain A L SAGER moved that a message be sent to the
Lords, requestinr• their Lordships would be pleased to com-
municate to the House a printed-copy of the evidence taken
before a Committee of their Lordships on the London and
Brirgbton Railway.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND AYR

RAILWAYS.
Mr. WA R BURTON said it was his intention pursuant to
notice, to move for the revivd Gf the Committees on the peti-
tions for the Bills of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock,
and Avr RAway Company, and of the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow Rai;way Company. aril for the re-commitment of the
yeti:ions for the said Bills severally to the Committees. As
to the course of proceeding.' the would recollect that
in case the lit of I,:rty-two had decided that the Standing
Orders were not complied with, or in rase 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
l'cfore 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 paised by the [louse had not been complied
with ; and that the old rules had been superseded by the
general Standing Orders, which applied -to private Bill..
The House would recollect that the new Standing Orders
respecting railroads, which required contracts, should he de-
livered in before the prenntation of a petition, for the Bill did
not for the first ttw require that. Originally there was a sub-.
scription list and contract required, but the contract wasnot to be,
delivered in before the 2d reading of the Bill. All that was done.
The new regulation was that it require I the 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 whether the general Standing Order respecting subscription
lists had been superseded, and not, whether that general
Standing Order 'nut been,complicd with. The allegations in the
petitions I'.'e had last night presented were that they had not
been e,omplied with, and upon these grounds he proposed that
the.se two Bills be referred back to the Committees.
Mr. SHAW LA FE V RE had the honour- to be Chairman
of the Sub-committee to which these Bills had been referred.
The House would recollect that previous.to the last Session of
Parliament, S:anding Orders were prepared which would
apply to Railway Bills only. and upon time report of a Com-
"tnittee 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 bad the opportunity of.examining the subscripOi3n
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 movie' 'responsible
than by signing the subscription list ; still it was possible
there might be fraud practised by persons signing the con-
tract, who were mere men of straw. It was therefore exceed-
ingly desirable that the public .should have all the protection
that could be thrown around them. Ile regretted to say he
bought some 'doubt arose from the manner in which the

Standing tdll,lrk- tau been framed, becanse the difficulty
that c.::tAirred in this case might occur aglin. and
11":,Aao, fxpedient that all parties sito-alol rtittitittly know what
the ir,tent of the House waf. material question for, the
(louse to consider Werether they thought th'er'e n'tinl3.
a sult,,cfiptioi: lkst ac well as a 'Conti-get.; a'ltA they were of
that opinion, then whether Tt .Wit'ttid hot be desirable that that
opinion should reclitie ).he sanction of the whole House ?
( Hear,
MI% WA RB RTON thought that every protection should
he alfcrded to the public.
Lord S N DON WAS unilerstooA to tat; '';ould have no
objection to amend the Stands Oeilers, so as to meet such
cases as that now IturT4t. I.lle cunsideration of the House.
Mr. GlSlzOlta.\;E observed that there was aritn!iq point on
which a good deal of ntisunders:and;n6 appeared to exist out
doers, and it was with r;l'ect to the time at which pe-
titions against prirat,', Bills might presenteds niaay per-
-3'6115 irnaneti that these petitions conch presented at any
time previous to the s?cond r^_: cling of the Bill, aid parties
were in this way diseri','6inted, being told that their petitions
were too late her not presented within seven ,oys. Ile
hoped ratlle 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 requirrd. They had ascertained that in
all the Standing Order., relating; ' to other Private Bilk, 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 subscription list was required,
cmtaining 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 sobtription list as well as a contract,
that this would hale been included in the Standing Orders,
which otity 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 General 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 subsetiption 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 its 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 upop 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 Bill 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 SPEAKER 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 was 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. WARBURTON 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
wee 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 be 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.
SEPTENNIAL ACT.
Mr. D'EYN CO URT, in answer to a question of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, said he would postpone his motion
for the repeal of the Septennial Act until the 18th of April.
The subject had been protracted for two years, but it was
his determination to take the sense of the House on it this
Session.

IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had understood that it was the
intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the
second reading of the Irish Poor-law Bill this evening. He
did not know at what hour it was intended to bring the matter
on. He was prepared to vote for the second reading, but he
was afraid sufficient notification had not been given to Gentle-
men who might wish to state their opinions.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that although he could not corn-
plain of want of notice, still he believed there were many
gentlemen not then present who wished to state their senti-
ments to the House before it went into Committee on the
Bill. It was a subject which ought to be approached with the
greatest care and caution, and he hoped if they could not dis.
cuss it at an early hour the second reading would be postponed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there were several notices on the books which it was con-
sidered would not take long, and if they were disposed of by
nine o'clock, he had intended to move the second reading, but if
that was considered inconvenient, he would on the suggestion
of any Hon. Member postpone it at once for a future day.
Sir R. PEEL considered that of all questions that came
before the House, this was one which they cught to address
themselves to with the greatest dispatch, and with the most
sincere desire to bring it, to a practical conclusion.--( Hear,
hear.) The observations he had made applied not so much to
the lateness of the hour as to sufficient time not having been
given to gentlemen to enable them to collect their ideas and
refer to documents which they might wish to state to the House.