The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-21 00:00:00

FACTORY BILL.

Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from the weavers of
Spitalfields, praying the House not to make any alteration in
the Factories Bill.
Mr. DUNLOP presented six petitions from the hand-loom
weavers of different places in .Scotland, praying for relief.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the ope-
ratives of Preston, in favour of the Ten Hours Factories' Bill.
Also a petition from Norwich, praying fur the total abolition
4.f the Stamp Duty upon Newspapers.
Mr. FRENCH presented a petition from a place in Ireland,
praying for improvements in the River Shannon.
Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from the solicitors of
against the annual certificate duty.
Mr. WAK LE Y presented a petition from an individual in
Ireland, praying that all restrictions on the Press of that coun-
iry •rnight he removed.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Lord Provost
and trustees and hcritors of Edinburgh, against the Leith Har-
i hour Improvement Bill.

LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Mr. 0. GORE, in rising to propose the further considera-
tion of the Report of the London Grand Junction Railway,
:id that he had no personal interest in this railway, nor was
he concerned in any speculations of the kind. He rejoiced to
.ind that the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade,
who had at first cntertaind. objections to this Bill, had given
up his objections to it, and would not now oppose it. The
lion. Gyintlerean concluded by moving the further considera-
tion of ;rte Report.
Lord G. SOMERSET could also say that he had no per-
sonal interest whatever, in the measure before the House. It
was not then his intention to discuss the merits or demerits of

die 'Bill, but he certainly considered it to be a strong measure
to carry a railway of this description through the midst of a
dense population. The Noble Lord proceeded to point out
several discrepancies between the report of the Committee and
the charges in the body of the Bill, and he contended that all
,alculation would be at an end, and that no security could be
:liacecl in the reports of Committees, if inaccuracies and dis-
crepancies of.this kind were permitted. He, therefore, moved
that the Bill be re-committed.
After a few observations from Mr. Crawford, Sir Samuel
Whalley, Mr. Tooke, Mr. French, and Mr. Hume, the House
divided, when the numbers were— _

Ayes
Noes

Majority

--63

On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. HAWES alluding to the circumstance of the lion.
Member for Marylebone ( Sir S. Whalley) having voted in the
division which had taken place.
Mr. HUME contended that it was the law of Parliament
that no person having a personal interest in any question be-
fore the House should be entitled to vote. He alluded to a
case that had occurred during the time of Mr. Huskinson, and
:also to the case of the St. Katharine's Docks. When a ques-
Tion relating to the St. Katharine's Docks was before the
..-louse, Mr. P. Grenfell having voted, the circumstance was
Drought under the notice of the House, and it having been
ascertained that he had a personal interest in the question, it
was ordered by the House that his vote be withdrawn.
Sir G. CLERK read from the journals of the House a mi-
nute of the case of Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, in which, on a motion
made that the vote of Mr. Grenfell be annulled, he having had
ri personal interest in the question, Mr. Grenfell was heard in
his place, and the House resolved nem. con. that the vote of
Mr. Grenfell could not be allowed.
Mr. 0. GORE said that this was the first time that an ob-
jection of this nature had been started. Many Gentlemen bad
voted on questions in which they had a partial interest, and
it would be too bad if ,the Hon. Member for Marylebone was
to be made a scape-goat on this occasion.
Mr. E WART said that if parties who had a personal inte-
rest in a question were not allowed to vote, those who had an
interest on the other side should equally be prevented from
voting.
Mr. WARBURTON contended that, if he rightly under..
stood the precedent laid down by the case of Mr. P. Gren-
ftsll, those having a personal interest in questions of this nature
should not be allowed to vote. There was this difference in
the case of shareholders, for they would have it in their power
by either pressing or relaxing opposition to raise or depreciate
the price of shares in the market.

Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the House could not to
interfere in a case of this kind. It was not competent for the
House to deprive a representative of the public trust of which
be was the depository, nor deprive him of that right to vote
which he had received from his constituents.

Mr. AGLIONBY did not think the question ought to be
viewed on any narrow grounds. He thought the House should
inquire into the precedent afforded by the case of Mr. Pascoe
Grenfell, and if it was founded on a good principle let them
affirm and establish it. He did not offer this suggestion fromm
any desire to exclude the vote of the Hon. Member for Mary
lebone. Did no person vote last night who was interested in
the Pension List ? When the House voted 20,000,000/. com-
pensation to the West India planters, and when that grant was
opposed by him and many other Members, did no persons in the
West India interest vote in the majority for appropriating:
that
quisstioa
sum ?
Sir S. WHALLEY said . that when he voted on occa-
siontheot
andwas
labouringtheHouse.being
He had come
down with his mind made up not to vote upon the
sinLgioerdvoSteTwAaNs LofEnYo
esaoindsetqhnatentehee.
Themajo transactionrity as w
palpable
avowedlyt o allow a
any
subscribernotion
ando director,
f i
efforts to conceal it. But, indeed, no charge of improper con-
duct had been made. The object of the motion, therefore,
was not personal—it was merely to show that the law of
Parliament excluded all persons from voting upon any ques-
tion in which they had a direct pecuniary interest. This
was the question to show what the law of Parliament was, not
what it should be. There was a precedent in 1800 with se-
gard to the Albion flour mills, in which the principle was so
ruled. On that occasion the vote of William Devaignes was
disallowed, though he was only a subscriber, and stated that he
was so merely on the ground that he considered the under-
taking would be of public benefit. Several other votes were
disallowed at the same time. The case of the Ayr and Cale-
donian Company in 1828 was also in point. No person on
the Civil List or Pension List could vote in that House, and