The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PARLIA-
MENT.-(YESTERDAY.)

(Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.)
RIBBLE NAVIGATION.

Committee decided that the Standing Order had not been
complied with, but under extenuating circumstances. The
further notices, books of reference, &c., estimate, and contract
were proved ; and it was signified, on the part of Mr. Fleet-
wood, that if the object were merely to deepen the bed of the
river, and not divert it, he should not give any further opposi-
tion.—( Here a very important matter came on relative to the
9th new Order, p.lB, requiring the promoters of Bills to lodge
one tenth part of the estimate in the Bank of England. In
this instance, Mr. Ley, the officer of the House, had refused
to open an account with the Bank of England without a Bill
of indemnity, but that the money had been laid out in Exchequer
bills, which were then invested in a bank for the purposes of this
Bill. The Committee agreed to report accordingly ; and
some very strong remarks were made against the Standing
Order, which, with the refusal of Mr. Ley to concur without
an indemnification, would stop every private Bill for local
irnprowemelets now before Parliament.
EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY.
The petition was read, which stated that the Bill had been
carried last Session through the Commons, but stopped in the
Peers by the demise of the late King. Petitions of the Earl of
Hopetoun, Mr. R. Watson,&c.,were read,stating that the former
Bill was not the same as this, and that Standing Orders bad not
been complied with, chiefly with regard to the contract and
deposit of the tenth ; also objected, that many of the share-
holders are dead—some insolvent_some not possessed of their
shares—and many incapable or unwilling to act. The plans
were proved, and also compliance with the Standing Order
VII., page 24, as to the renewal of applications to Parlia-
ment, which directs the deposit cf the plan, &c., before the
30th of November, in the year preceding the application. In
the course of this examination, it appeared that the House of
Commons required that plans, &c., should be left with Clerks
of the Peace, sealed ; and the House of Lords ordered that such
plans should be sent by the post from such clerks to them ; the
consequence of which had been, that near 4001. for postages had
been paid. In the applications to owners it was admitted that
Lord Selkirk could not be found before the Ist of Jan., and cer-
tain boatmen could not be found by the 30th of Dec., the day
to which such applications were limited. The Chairman also
discovered that the Duke of Hamilton was described as a
" Dissenter," though the evidence viva voce was, that no
answer whatever was given. Explained, that very few Scotch-
men give answers the moment they receive application, but
generally afterwards by letter. Estimate of Beo,ooo/. by Mr.
Miller, proved. On the Subscription Contract the first ob-
jection was taken, under the 9th and 10th Standing Orders,
which required that the Subscription Contract should
be entered into " subsequent to the close of the Session
of Parliament, previous to that in which the application
is made for leave to bring in a Bil P—whereas the English
portions of these contracts were dated Ist April, 1836. 2d
Objection—That those contracts did not contain " the Chris-
tian and surnames, description and place of abode of every
signature"—whereas in some of these contracts there were no
places of abode, and in many instances insufficient ones, such
as " the United States of America," " Liverpool," &c.,
which was no definite direction. 3d Objection—That the per-
sons who bad signed the contracts so long ago should not
now be bound by time, inasmuch as many were dead, some
insolvent, &c. ; many had parted with their shares be-
tween the two Sessions of Parliament. The answers
to these objections were, that it was evidently the
intention of Parliament to relieve parties who had
been defeated by them, but who had previously fulfilled all
the Standing Orders ; as to the parties signing the contract,
the contract itself proved that the parties were still liable, and
an order of the House would not absolve them. The contract
would be good in a court of law ; and if parties were altered,
how could it be a "renewal ?- It was impossible that the
new Standing Orders could be applied to renewed Bills, the
more especially ae those Orders recognized the compliance of
former Standing Orders, and as the whole must operate as an
ex post facto law. It was admitted that the contract was not
the same, as there were additional signatures ; but this, it
was held, was additional security, the deed being the same.
Last Session there were nineteen petitions against this Bill,
and all the Standing Orders were fought in both Houses.
The Committee ordered the room to be cleared, and after
a long deliberation came to the important decision, " That tLe
Standing Orders had not bees complied with, inasmuch as the
subscription contract had not been entere 1 into subsequent to
the close of the last Session of Parliament." A strong ap-
peal was made against this, and it was contended that the par-
ties under the contract were bound for these ten years to
Come.

The Climes!As said that was the very evil which the House
of Commons wished to correct. It was then added that the parties
considered themselves bound only by the 7th Order, page 24.
It was also added that ail the new Orders had not been com-
plied with, as to the deposit of ten per cent., &c.
(This decision, if not revc,ked by the Select Committee on
Standing Orders of the House, will have a most obstructive
elect upon many of the great Railways. )

MILTON NEXT SITTINGBOURNE (KENT) IM.
PROVEMENT BILL.
Sir EDWARD KNtercunum., Batt., in the Chair.
This Bill passed through the Committee without opposition.
The Report to be brought up to the House by the Chairman
this evening.