The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against certain
clausas in the Midland Counties Railway Rill.
On the motion of Mr. GLADSTON-E the Leicester Small
Debts Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. BAR NA RD presented a petition from Deptford against
the Deptford Pier Junction Railway Bill.
MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY COMMITTEE.

Mr. GISBOIINE brought up the Report of the Midland
Counties Railway Committee. The Report stated that three
witnesses summoned to appear before the Committee had re-
fused to attend.

Mr. TOOKE presen4ei a petition from the proprietors of
the Croydon Canal, against the Croydon Railway.
Major BE A UCL ERK presented a petition in favour of the
South Eastern Railway.

On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL the Dublin and
Drogheda Railway Committee were empowered to allow the
evidence taken before it to be printed at the expense of the
parties. The Hon. and Learned Member then moved for
leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Dublin Steam Packet
Company, notwithstanding the time for bringing in private
bills had expired. The former Bill provided that no sub-
scriber should be responsible beyond the amount of his sub
scription, and on that ground the •Bill was rejected. The
Company had previously made contracts to the amount of
137,000/., and the object they had in view was to enable
them to apply the capital already subscribed to fulfil
their contracts. The Bill before brought in created
a limited responsibility, and it was rejected for
no other reason than that it created a species of
monopoly. It did not create any monopoly. The proposal
he intended to submit to the House was, to ask for leave to
bring in a Bill, so that any person might be in possession of the
real contents of the Bill. No argument could now be used
against this Bill, as he only asked for leave to bring it in.
The moment it was brought in, ns it was already printed, it
would be deposited in the Private Bill Oaice. When that
was done, the controversy, if there should be any, might
arise upon the Bill when it was regularly before the House.
By the present Bill, every person who stipscribed the smallest
amount was liable to the extent of his entire fortune. Under
these circumstances, lie hoped that the House would allow the
Bill to be brought in, as the rejection of the former Bill had
placed the Company in a situation of great embarrassment, and
had caused very considerable injury to the people of Ireland.
The House, he was sure, under these circumstances, would be
pleased to permit him to bring in this Bill, and he hoped
sincereiy-that no local jealousy would interfere with a Bill
which held out so many advantages to his unfortunate country.
Ile would conclude by moving for leave to bring in this Bill.
Mr. PLUNKETT seconded the motion. He considered
the Company ought not to be prevented from obtaining a fair
power; and they merely asked for that power which was every-
where allowed. He thought that such a monopoly as they
sought for would create a competition that would in the end
very much benefit the public.
Sir M. S. STE WART would stand on the forms of the
House in opposing the motion. At that advanced period of
the Session he conceived it very improper to introduce a pri-
vate Bill so many weeks after the time allowed by the House.
With reference to the Bill itself, he would merely remark
that it contained the objectionable principle which the House
before refused to sanction.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS, before giving any vote on the ques-
tion, wished to know how the amalgamation of proprietors
could be prevented in the new and old Companies,-which
would have the effect of ridding both of all responsibility
vilatsoever.

Mr. O'CONNELL said his object was to .have the facts
fairly before the House; he was therefore anxious that the
Bill should be read a first time.

Lord P. EGERTON strongly supported the motion, and
hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a first time.
From his connection with Lancashire he could say that this
Company had confer cod great benefit upon Ireland.
Sir H. PARNELL contended that the present Bill would
be very detrimental to the interests of the old subscribers,
whose interests would be compromised by it.
Dr. BOWRING hoped the House would not 'sanction
indirectly what could not be done directly. At this late period
of the session the details of the measure could not be possibly
discussed. It was quite clear that a number of persons with unli-
mited responsibility were about to be grafted upon persons with a
1ira1.,••14 responsibility, and there must be much contradiction

and difficulty in arranging so complicated a memure. Under
all the circumstances, he thought the wisest and best course
for the House would be to reject the Bill.—( Cries of "divide.")
After a few words from Lord SANDON in support of the
Bill,
Lord CL E NIE NT S rose amid cries of divide. This was
the first Company that established steam boats as trading
vessels, and it was now proposed that the Scotch Companies
should come in and carry off the benefits they were entitled to
derive. This was a most peculiar case, and he was sure this
manoeuvre would not be permitted by the House.
Sir GE ORG E CLERK thought the question for the House
was, whether there was sufficient to justify the House in adopt-
ing the novel and unprecedented course, that when a private Bill
had been thrown out to endeavour to introduce it again in an-
, other shape. He thought there ought to be minute inquiry
into the necessity of the case before such a measure was allowed
to be adopted. • Under these circumstances he felt bound to
vote for the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG thought that the promoters of this Bill had
cause to regret that they had not manifested the same discre-
tion as the Hon. and Learned Member who had introduced
it. They had supported it on a principle which he was per-
fectly prepared to controvert; although he would at that mo-
ment abstain from doing so. Either this Bill was or was not
the same in principle, differing only in the manner in which it
was to be carried into effect, as the one rejected. If it were the
same, that was a sufficient motive for rejecting it. If it
were not the same, then it was incumbent on those who intro-
duced it to show cause for the introduction of this Bill at a
period when they had not complied with the Standing Orders.
This had not been stated, but the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin had told them that if they rejected this Bill,
they would inflict very great injury on Ireland.—(Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL could not but complain bitterly of those
who would not allow him to put a Bill on the table, when every
man might see what the Bill was, and yet would argue against
him on the contents of it. If the Bill contained a different
principle from what he stated it did ; and if it did not
work out that principle completely, then Hon. Members might
reject it. All he required was that he might be allowed to
bring in the Bill, and then he would demonstrate to the House
what the principle was. Then as to the point of form—it could
not be denied that there was a Company that had done extreme
service to Ireland—no Company ever did more ; no Company
ever did so much. ft had been said that he had ob-
jected to capital being sent to Ireland, but here was
an opportunity afforded for sending capital to Ireland.
It appeared on all sides of the house that sufficient notice had
been given, and he would be willing to give up the Bill the
moment it was found to contain the principle objected to before
by the llouse. , .

✓
Mr. WM. ROCHE supported the motion.
Lord SANDON would feel himself at liberty to oppose
the third reading of the Bill, if hereafter it appeared to contaiu
the principle before decided by the House.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw and the house
divided, when the numbers were—

For the Motion
Against it
MAjority
The Bill was then read a first time.
Mr. SC A RLETT presented a petition against the Eastern
Counties Railway Bill. _ _ _

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS presented a petition in favour of
the Manchester and Salford Junction Canal Bill.
Mr. CLAY moved the further consideration of the Report
on the Birrniughaln, Bristol, and 'Thames Jurictio.l Railway
13.11.