The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-10 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The standing orders were said to have been complied
with in the-case of several railway and other bills, includ-
ing the Caledonian Railway Company, the Southampton
Gas Company, the London and South Western Railway
Extension, the Leeds Water Works Company, the South
Lancashire Docks Company, the North British Railways
Extensions, the Furness Dock and Railway Company, etc.
The reading of the titles of these bills, as well as several
others, in which the orders were not complied with, occu-
pied the greater portion of the early part of the evening.
The SPEAKER said that the gentlemen elected as re-
ferees on private bills last year, viz., Mr. Adair, Mr. Has-
sarl, and Mr. Rickards, were to continue their useful
duties during the present session.
THE STANDING ORDERS.

Mr. C. FORSTER, made a motion to amend Standing
Order 7 by the substitution of 3 for 4, as the number
of members to compose the Select Committees on
Private Bills. He said that much difficulty had been
experienced in getting the requisite number of members
under the existing rules of the house to attend the com-
mittees. He thought the proposition of reducing the number
of members attending committees from five to four was
not practically efficient, and that his proposition, if adopted,
-would be found to work effectively.
Mr. SMOLLETT said that he did not consider the pro-
position of the hon. member would meet the real grievance
of which they had to complain. He referred to his per-
sonal experience of committees to show that the duties of
attending these committees were not properly distributed,
for in one instance he knew that a member had
boasted that for seven years he had evaded serving on
committees. He strongly objected to barristers
or other professional gentlemen being exempted
from attendance on these_ committees, and contended that
members whose private business interfered with their
public duties should resign their seats.
Sir F. GOLDSMID thought that the motion of the hon.
member would not be found efficient. For instance, a
member might be unable to attend a committee through
the death of a relative, or through his own
illness, and then it would not be equitable to proceed
with the consideration of a bill, for in order to come to
a decision they must give the Chairman a casting vote, a
proceeding which would be rendered unnecessary if they
adhered to the present regulation as to the number of
members composing a committee.
Sir G. BOWYER advocated a recurrence to the old prac-
tice of having five members on the committees.
Captain JERVIS opposed the alteration.
Mr. HODGSON and Mr. H. SEYMOUR followed on the same
side.

Lord STANLEY contended that the fewer the number
of members on committees the greater would be the
responsibility •of the individual members. No doubt
that the chairman of a committee in general paid more
attention to the proceedings in regard to private bills, but
at the same time he did not agree to investing him with
a casting vote. He considered that the time to which these
committees sometimes extended might be profitably re-
duced, and he expressed himself in favour of the motion in

certain points.
Colonel W. PATTEN said that in his opinion it would be
dangerous to reduce the number of members of committees,
and advocated the practice that prevailed in the House of
Lords, by which, if the committee were equally divided,
the bill was to be negatived. He denied that the great
railway companies would be satisfied with the decision of
two members of a committee.
Mr. X. GIBSON was in favour of a committee of five
members ; but if that number could not be obtained with-
out difficulty, he thought the quorum should not be re-
duced further than it was at present constituted.
Mr. BENTINCK complained that the practice in regard
to private bills was not regulated by system or precedent.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped the house would take into their
consideration the means of remedying the existing defects
by the appointment of a tribunal efficiently constituted.
After some further discussion, the house divided, and the
numbers were—
For the motion
Against
Majority —B2
PRINTING PRIVATE BILLS AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE PETITIONERS.
Mr. TORRENS moved, as a new standing order, " That
on every private bill to be considered by a committee of the
house all petitions presented by the promoters, opponents,
or other parties connected with such bills, be printed at the
expense of the petitioners, and copies of those petitions, as
well as a copy of the bill to be considered, be delivered to
each member of the committee not less than two days pre-
vious to its assembling."
After a few words from Colonel W. PATTEN and Mr. M.
GLBSON, the motion was postponed.
On the motion of Colonel W. PATTEN, some verbal
amendments were introduced into standing order 192.
Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR moved that a message be sent to
the Lords, requesting their lordships to communicate to
this house the minutes of evidence which may be taken
before every committee on a private bill originating in the
present session with their lordships, and sent down to this
house.

The question was put and agreed to, unobserved by Mr.
M. Gibson, who rose to oppose it, but was called to order
by Mr. Speaker.
DISTRESS FOR RENT IN IRELAND.
Mr. MAGUIRE gave notice that on an e l early clay
would move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish he
power of distress for the recovery of rent in Ireland.
the
MONASTERIES AND NUNNERIES IN ENGLAND.
Mr. NEWDEGATE gave notice that on Friday, March
3, he would move as an amendment, on going into com-
mittee of supply, for the appointment of a committee to in-
quire into the existence, character, and increase of conven-
tual and monastic establishments in this cQuntry.
THE EXTENSION OFTHE BOROUGH
FRANCHISE.
Mr. BAINES gave notice that he would on an early day
move for leave to bring in a bill to extend the elective fran-
chise in boroughs in England and Wales. (Hear, hear, and
ironical cheers.)

THE
MALT
TAX.
Sir F. KELLY postponed his motion on the malt tax
from February 28 to March 7.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR gave notice that on an early day he
would ask the First Commissioner of the Board of Works
whether he had taken any steps to carry into effect the re-
solution of the house last year with regard to the building
of the National Gallery in Trafalgar-square, and what the
Government would do in regard to the Royal Academy, in
accordance with the report of the Royal Commission.
EGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTERS.
Sir F. SMITH asked War whether he the Under-Secretary of State for
had received the report of the committee
appointed to inquire into the condition of the regimental
quartermasters ; and whether it was intended to la it upon
the table of the house, or take any actio,
The Marquis of HART MGT ON said the Zonrtliti; uestio
had been received, and there would be no objectionqto lay itn
upon the table of the house. Some of the questions involved
others to the
would have to be referred to the Treasury,
War Office, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Secretary of
State. On the army estimates he would state the course
which would bo pursued by the Government in this matter.
PRISONS BILL.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether the Prisons Bill about to be
brought in would remain the same as that brought in by
him last session with respect to Clause 13, Part 111., of the
bill, authorising the discontinuance and disposal of Abingdon
Gaol.

Sir a GREY said he had given notice to bring in a bil
on the subject, and would defer his explanations till then.

A ROYAL DOCKYARD FOR CORK.

Mr. P. HENNESSY asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty what steps the Government propose to take with

reference to the recommendation made by the select com-
mittee of last session in favour of establishing a Royal dock
in Cork harbour.
Lord C. PAGET said Government intended to proceed
with the dockyard in Cork. He would deal with the report
of the select committee on the navy estim rtes.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. BENTINCK asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether, in consequence of the repeated recurrence
of railway accidents, it was the intention of her Majesty's
GovernMent to introduce during the present session any
measure for the better prevention of railway accidents,
founded on the report of the Committee on Railway Acci-
dents which was laid upon the table of the house in the
year 1858.

Mr. GIBSON said the committee over which his hon.
friend presided in 1858 made a number of recommendations,
the first of which was that the Board of Trade should have
the fullest powers to investigate and report to Parliament
upon any accidents which might occur on railways. Go-
vernment did not intend to ask Parliament to invest the
Board of Trade with these powers, for all accidents were
inquired into, and the railway companies had been willing
to supply the inspectors who conducted those inquiries with
all the information which was needed. The next recom-
mendation of that committee was, that Government should
compel the companies to make some communication between
the guard and the driver. This subject had been under the
consideratton of the committee at the railway clearing-house.
They had not yet made their report, and therefore the Go-
vernment could not yet saywhat course the companies would
pursue, or what course would be taken by the Government.
At present it was not the intention of the Government to
introduce any measure on the subject. The next point was
that of telegraphic communication. This was already in
force onmany of the principal lines, and the Government did
not think it necessary to legislate on the subject. Nor was
it desirable to relieve the railway companies from the re-
sponsibility which now devolved upon them of providing
for the safety of the public traffic. It would be seen from
an analysis of the returns that in 1864 there was an increase
in the number of accidents to passenger trains. In 1863
there were 52 accidents to passenger trains ; and in 1864
there were 77 separate accidents of that kind. But
there had been a considerable increase in the number of
trains altogether that run and an increase of mileage.
Therefore, in dealing with the increase in the number of
accidents that deduction must be made. As to the number
of passengers injured in 1864, he found that the railways
had conveyed 220,000,000 of passengers, exclusive of sea-
son ticketholders. There had been only 14 persons altoge-
ther killed, or one passenger out of every 15,714,285 pas-
sengers carried. There had been one passenger injured
out of every 315,638. passengers carried. This showed an
increase of the injured, and a decrease of the killed. In
1863 the railway companies had paid a severe penalty for
the injuries to passengers, amounting to no less a sum than
£170,000.
THE SHREWSBURY MAGISTRATES AND THE
CASE OF MR. ASHWORTH.

Mr. BAZLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether his attention had been directed to a
gross outrage committed upon Mr. Charles Ashworth, of
Fairfield, and of Egerton-hall, Lancashire, who was seized
by a pretended police-officer at Shrewsbury, robbed of his
watch, money, and other property, and then taken before
the borough magistrates, and under their orders incarce-
rated for 24 hours, though the most respectable and liberal
bail was offered on the arrival of a clerical friend, but re-
fused, and the testimony of his high respectability disre-
garded; and whether the magistrates had been removed
from the commission of the peace.
Sir G. GREY said he had received no official information
or complaint on the subject.
THE BELFAST COMMISSION.

Mr. O'REILLY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
when he would lay upon the table of the house the report
of the Belfast Commission of Inquiry ; and whether he in-
tended to propose any legislation founded on that report.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not know what the recommen-
dation of that committee would be, and therefore couldnot
say what Government would do in respect of it.
EX-GOVERNORS OF COLONIES.

Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE asked the Secretary of
State for the Colonies if, during the recess, the case of the
ex-governors of colonies had been taken into the consi-
deration of the Government ; and whether a bill would be
introduced to grant them retiring pensions.