The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-10 00:00:00

PRICE OF S.

thought of taking last session, when he happened to be in a
majority. He sought an interference with the Committee,
such as had not taken place under any circumstances; and as
he thought it a most inconvenient precedent, he would cer-
tainly vote against the motion.
Mr. P. STEWART agreed with the lion. Member that
this was a novel proceeding, but he begged also to state that
the Committee was placed in a very novel situation. He be-
lieved that never had a Committee had four Bills before them
upon which to decide. The motion ,of the Hon. Baronet
asked for no more than what the Committee bad done them-
selves. They had agreed to take the engineering evidence on
the four lines consecutively. They had done so, and be could
see no reason why it should not be reported to the House.
Sir S. WHALLEY trusted that the House would allow the
present Committee to adopt the same course which was pursued
by every other one. He thought if the House were to reverse
the decision of the Committee, it would cot be in the power of
the Committee to carry the object through. Believing that
the motion was impracticable, he hoped that the House would
not agree to its being entertained.
Mr. GURTE IS thought the House ought not to grant the
special favour asked for. It would be unfair to the Committee
for the House to withdraw its confidence at the present moment.
Mr. TOOKE thought that the course recommended by the
Hon. Baronet was the only means by which justice could
be done.

Captain PE CHE LL trusted that the House would never
sanction the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet. They could
never do so with justice, unless they were determined to dis-
miss the Committed He was perfectly satisCed with the de-
cision of the Committee, and trusted the House would agree
with him in thinking they ought to resist the motion.
Mr. SHEPPARD said it would be impossible for the
House to form any correct judgment upon the matter, unless
they had before them several Reports of the Committees.
Loid G. SOMERSET said that a difficulty had arisen
with respect to the Brighton lines, which, as it was unfore-
seen, had not been provided for--namely, that parties in con-
junction might oppose one particulae line, and throw it
out ; but which, taking the various lines separately,
the majority of the Committee would be in favour of. The
parties who felt themselves so oppressed by the union of three
other parties appealed to the House, and the House was put
in possession of the advantages and disadvantages of each par-
ticular line. The House should therefore decide, upon a view
of the whole facts, which was the best line. Under these cir-
cumstances he thought a claim was laid for the interference of
the house, and he should therefore support the motion of
the Hon Baronet.

Mr. WI GN E Y felt it to be his duty to oppose the motion.
After a few words from Mr. CURTEIS and Sir R. INGLIS,
Lord G. LENNOX said the facts of the case were these:
On the 28th day of the sitting of the Committee, a motion was
made that Stevenson's line was the best in an engineering
point of view. An amendment was moved, and carried by a
majority of 17 to 26, that it was not the best line. Immediately
afterwards it was moved by the supporters of Sir John Rennie's
line, that the Committee should adjourn, in order to give the
South Eastern line, and that of Sir John Rennie, an opportu•
pity of coming to some arrangement. After the adjournment
the Committee again met, and it was understood that these
two lines had joined; and a motion was afterwards made that
Sir,John Rennie's line was the best to recommend to the
House, which was carried by a majority of 20 to 12.—( Hear,
hear.) On the 28th day of the sitting of the Committee there
were no less than 46 Members present whom the Committee
liever hid the pleasure of seeing before, and who had come
down for the express purpose of voting for Stevenson's line.

Mr. GOUL AURN understood the Noble Lord that the
the Committee had rejected Stevenson's line, and had decided
that Sir John Rennie's was the best.—( Hear.) He under-
stood from his statement also that some of the contending
lines had coalesced, and that the only question now before them
was as to the engineering capabilities of Stevenson's and
Rennie's lice. That was a point to which he thought
the House should look generally. If Parliament had
been in the habit of calling on these Committees to make a
report es to the engineering difficulties of the line, before go-
ing into the merits of the case as it affected the landowners,
then the Commitee had acted in accordance with established
usage ; but if such had not been the practice of the House, he
did not see why the present was to be made an exception to
the general rule upon the subject.
Col. WOOD—The Committee had rejected Stevenson's
Line, and were now going into the details of Rennie's. The
question was, whether in so doing, the Committee had or had
not outstepped their duty. _ _

Sir C. iItRRELL said the vote of the Committee of last
year was confirmed by the House.—(Hear, hear.) He was
convinced that the merits of Stevenson's Line, and the de-
merits of Rennie's remained the same as then, and therefore,
the House ought to be put in possession of the evidence upon
which they had decided so differently now, from last year.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 77
Against it ... 72

Majority in favour of the motion ...... —5
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented petitions from Sheffield
against the London and Salisbury Railway Bill.
Sir JOHN BECKETT brought up the report of the
Committee on the Leeds Waterworks Bill.

Sir L. PARRY presented a petition against the Ouse
Railway.
EXETER AND FALMOUTH RAILWAY.

Lord EBRINGTON said that in rising to move thC.Order
of the Day for the further consideration of the report on this
Bill, he did so for the purpose of moving that the further con-
sideration of the report be postponed till this day six months.
Mr. M. PHILIPS held in his hand a petition from an in-
dividual against the Bill, and which contained very serious
charges. As he believed the House were about to throw out
the Bill, he begged to ask whether he had not the power of
moving that the petition be referred to the Deptford and Do-
ver Committee to investigate the allegations.
The SPEAKER said it appeared the House were already
in possession of facts, which would enabl it to come to a con-
clusion upon the Bill. If there was any allegation of fraud
in the petition which it was thought fit the House should
take cognizance of, that was a question for the consideration of
the House, and the House would decide upon it.
Mr. WILKS considered the petition deserving the atten-
tion of the House.

Mr. P. THOMSON thought the better way would be that
the petitions should be printed with the votes. when auy steps
might be taken upon it which would be deemed most advisable.
The House agreed to the motion of Lord EIMINGTON, and
the further consideration of the Report was therefore post-
poned till this day six months.
GRAND CONNECTION (WORCESTER AND
WOLVERHAMPTON) RAILWAY.

Mr. BARNEBY moved that the Report on this Bill be
further considered that day six months.
Mr. HOLLAND supported the Bill.
Mr. HAWKE'S said this Railroad would destroy the whole
of the beauty of the county of Worcester.' It would cost
1,100,0004, and would afford no adequate advantages for it.
He therefore hoped the House would reject the Bill.
Mr. ROBINSON said the Committee, to whom the Bill
had been referred, bad reported in its favour on every point ;
he, therefore, hoped the House would not throw it out, not
one word Wring been said in support of such a r.:otion.
After a few words from Sir J. WROTTEF.ILEY,
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said many gentle.:.nen had declared
they had no interest in the Bill ; but lie wr.uld ask whether no
Noble Lord or Honourable Gentlerne.a who attended the
Committee was interested against thr: Bill being interested
in canals with which this railroad wa's to compete? He had
attended the Committee, and beard the speeches of Counsel
upon the evidence pro and con., an?, he had never given his
vote more conscientiously than he h•ad given it in favour of the
Bill, and he was not interested. iu any property within, 100
miles of it.
Mr. CHARLTON was opposed. to all railroads-...' rimers)
—and more particularly to the present one, whicts •.would very
much interfere with private rights and property--
of " Divide.") Loud cries
The gallery vas then cleared.
there appeare&--

The How
,e divided, when

. ..
For the motion
For the amendment
"
Maj0rity............ 77 -
On our return to the gallery we four d Mr. WALLACE
on his legs, in order to bring on his e
aotions relative to the
Post-office, but he was inrerrnpted .iy
LONGFORD EI,E,
.3TION.
Mr. LAWSON, who said he has riven notice of a motion
which deeply affected the rights am?
and therefore he hoped to be alto-,n .4priviliges of the House,
el to bring it on. It was
for the purpose of having
Longford Election C t"..P.ams .s of voters reported by the
struck off the poll.. nin'th.i:ee ' . having voted wrongfully
T. -r.' brie' I remarks made by the Hon.
Member in making the :notion were almost entirely inaudible,
owing to the low 'gm of vole a in which he addressed the
House, and the een%sioa whic h for some time prevailed. The
course of the Dousel,;
'he sa'd, was manifest, and be was very
glad that the Hon, Member fo 'r Meath had given notice of an
amendment, as this would brir ig the question fairly to the issue.
If the register were not to b a purified, the bone fide electors
must inevitably be swamped.
Mr. H. G EATTAN mo red, as an amendment, a resolu-
tion; " 3'114t ON Sraker is Dot authorized to direct the clerk