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

confer any substantial public benefit. He hoped the house
would throw out the bill, and thus prevent a useless waste
of money and time in opposition bet seen the contending
lines. The whole matter had been set at rest by legislation
in 1861. He moved that the bill be read a sec)nd time that
day six months.

Mr. C. GILPIN supported the bill, and c ontended 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 opposition 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. M ASSEY 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 se. Since 1861, he understood the
opposi ion 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owners had been withdrawn.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.

111 r. kNATCHBULL-H UGESSEN said his name was
on the bill, and he desired to say it was not exactly the same
bill as 186]. 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 benefit. The landlord who had not agreed with
the company was not residential. The opponents had al-
ready been put to an expense of £5,000, 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 th 9 second reading
Against

Majority
The bill was consequently lost.
PRIVATE BILL FEES.

Mr. R. HODGSON then rose to propose rescinding so
much of the table of fees charged at the House of Commons
(under the standing order of the house passed in 1852) as
multiplied the fees payable on the petition, first, second,
and third readings, and report of private bills, according to
the money to be raised or expended under the authority of
such bills—the reduction to take effect in respect of private
bills introduced in the present session.
Mr. HADFIELD reconded the resolution, which he
said was highly necessary and important. The returns
showed that the railways of the United Kingdom had cost
£20,000,000 for fees alone. He thought, while they were
about it, they might also introduce some system of taxing
the enormous fees demanded by the counsel with their
briefs. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said the subject was no doubt very
important, but he intended that evening to move for a
committee upon the whole subject of private legislation, and
the question of fees would certainly form part of their de-
liberations. (Hear.)
Colonel PATTEN and Colonel FRENCH hoped that
would be so, and on that ground would advise the with-
drawal of the motion.

Mr. HODGSON said, upon that understanding, he would
withdraw the motion.
PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.

Mr. B. FERRAND gave notice that on Tuesday next
he should ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the
board intended to rescind the order of October, 1861, rela-
tive to promotion in the navy.