The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-14 00:00:00

SHIPLEY GAS BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
EDINBURGH AND PERTH RAILWAY.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against
this Railway Bill, after which be proceeded to give the
reasons why he opposed the second reading. The
evidence, he maintained, did not warrant the conclusion
which the Committee had come to, as it contained
many discrepancies and contradictions. The Hon.
Member here proceeded to quote the evidence in
support of the allegations which he had made.
But it would be observed by the House how the law-
agent proceeded to defend his case ; the evidence taken
before the Committee showed how he comported himself
in reference to these two companies. There was also a
Mr. Douglas, who was asked whether he had entered
into any agreement between the old company
and the mew. He answered that he had been
a party to no agreement for the transfer (that was, of
these papers), except verbally. He was asked whether
there had been a verbal agreement? and his answer was,
that there had been a verbal agreement for the plans
and notices of the
the
Hisanswer former
oldaen r company. Did he hold
any claim againstercompanywas, for
~these plans,
and other papers ?
there-
fore, this agreement between Mr No. So,
Douglas and some
other party,_ nturone d out to be an agreement with Mr.
Douglas and
one else ; Mr. Douglas came to an
agreement with himself, and there it ended. There
was a Mr. Macrieff called before the Committee,
both secretary and treasurer, and he trusted
to make out an agreement between the old company
and the new. But his evidence would be seen, upon
examination, to be something very extraordinary. Now
he (Mr. Duncombe) would admit, for argument's
sake, that all this about the agreement between the old
company and the new was correct—that the
parties understood each other, and were clear
and definite as to the object of their ar-
rangement. But he denied the right which either
party had to proceed with a company under Lord
Dalhousie's Act, or the standing orders of the House,
and to take up the old plans and papers. The Hon.
Member then quoted a section of the Railways Dissolu-
tion Aet, and proceeded to ask how, when an Act of
Parliament had been passed regarding the dissolution
of companies, that Act could possibly not extend to the
whole company or partnership and all their affairs—how
it was possible that any parties with the consent, much
less without the consent of the old company, could go on
with any of these contracts ? He, in these circumstances,
would like to have the opinion of the House how these
parties could proceed when their proceeding was in
violation of the standing orders of the House, and espe-
cially where there existed an Act of Parliament against
them. He must, moreover, remind the House that
there was a suit pending before the Superior Court of
Scotland bearing upon these parties proceeding with the
old plans and papers. Now he admitted that the
House always refrained from interfering with a
ease which stood for decision in a court of law. They
invariably abstained from an opinion on a case so
situated. There was then such a suit in the present
case before the Supreme Court. It might be decided
soon, and decided against the parties proceeding with
the Bill before the House. And if such a deci-
sion were given, how, he asked, could the House,
come to an opinion which would sanction their proceed-
ing ? Affairs must then be situated in a position which
every one would deprecate. He now, therefore,
asked the House to throw out the Bill on
the second reading. That was not a ques-
tion which could be raised before the Committee
on the Bill. The questions he had raised could
not be brought before that Committee. He
said that in answer to his Hon. Friend near him.
And if the House allowed of their proceeding
the effect would be, that any set of men could come
in and claim the sanction of that House to their
schemes and their procedure. Now, he would
contend that, under the Act of Parliament,
neither company had a right to proceed, and he
quoted the terms of the Act to show this. He would
contend, therefore, in the face of this Act, that
there was a direct inculcation that both the
companies should be dissolved, and he would remind the
House, moreover, that there was an action at this time
pending in the Supreme Court of Scotland on this
matter. He need not remind the House that it was the
unalterable custom not to interfere in any matter which
was at the time litigated in the courts of law. He
would again protest that he had no interest what-
ever in this line ; but he could not refrain from
impressing upon them that this matter was at the present
moment under consideration before the Standing Orders'
Committee, and if they sanctioned such a proceeding
they would be giving an indirect premium to every
species of disorder and fraud. The movers in this
matter had seen the advertisement in the Gazette, and
they therefore knew that the company had been regularly
dissolved. Yet, notwithstanding all this, these parties had
deliberately taken possession of all the papers of the
parties who had expended large sums in obtaining them,
and they rightly sought relief for the injury from this
House. He must say that it was not without rea-
son that they made their complaint, and he should,
therefore, move that this Bill be read a second time this
day six months. He could not agree that other parties
should take possession of the notices and other
documents, and use them for other purposes than
those originally intended. If the standing orders were
worth anything they ought to be made avail-
able for the purposes for which they were originally
intended, and not to be violated in the manner they had
been in the present case. He did say that if they passed
the present Bill they would be establishing a dangerous
precedent for all future Bills, and therefore he trusted the
House would step in and put an end to such a system.
In pursuance of this he hoped they would throw out the
present Bill. Having said so much, he would sit down,
by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day,
six months.
Mr. D. BROWNE seconded the motion.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said that, as the standing
orders had been so pointedly alluded to, he wished to
make a few observations in answer to those who opposed
the Bill. The decision which the Committee had come
to had been impugned, and as this was rather a peculiar
case he felt desirous of making some explana-
tion of the course which they had taken.
The parties who now opposed the Bill were desirous of
applying the letter of the law in one respect, and the
spirit of it in the other. Now, he admitted that if they
went by the letter of the law, they might object to the
progress of the Bill; but, on the other hand, did they
take a liberal view of the case, did they interpret
the standing orders in a comprehensive spirit, they could
not object to the parties proceeding with the Bill.
Now, what were the real facts of the case?
How did the question comp before the Standing
Orders Committee? Why, the subscribers to the pre-
sent Bill were substantially the same as those to the
previous company. The great proportion of the direc-
tors were the same. The people of the original com-
pany bad been overwhelmed by another com-
pany, and had been obliged to give up their ori-
ginal scheme; and having done so, on the first
favourable opportunity, they brought forward the
present scheme. Now, the decision of the Standing
Orders Committee being impugned, he hoped he would
be allowed to say a few words in justification. The:Com-
mittee, when they examined into the matter, found the
shareholders in the new company were in fact the share-
holders in the old, or at least the great majority were so.
But before the old company broke up the directors issued
a formal report, stating the reasons which had induced

them to do so, and urging the shareholders to
come forward again in the new one. The latter having
been organised, they made arrangements with the
old company for the use of the plan ;'and sections, for
which they had paid a sum of money. They had in fact
paid 1,0001. for them to one party, and 250/. to another.
lie would not further trouble the House, but he
must observe that he considered the present opposition
altogether uncalled for, as the spirit of the standing
orders had been complied with. The standing orders
were instituted to guard parties against fraud, and for the
protection of landed proprietors ; but in the present case
there could be no violation of them, as the landed
proprietors were generally favourable to the scheme, '
and no party would be injured by the Bill being allowed
to proceed. He hoped, having made thisexplanation, that
the Bill would be allowed to be read a second time,

that they would not consent to interfere with the deci-
sion of the standing orders, without better reasons than
had been stated in the present discussion.
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to say a few words. He had
for many years been connected with the Standing Orders
Committee, and he could not allow the present matter to.
pass by without'some observations. As to the merits of
the present Bill he knew nothing of them, and had no
desire to give 'au opinion on it ; but, in regardtothe
decision of the sta
on any party would g'ord.ers, he. thought. no injustice
ci
to proceed. It a be inflicted, if the Bill was allowed
to
Weaered. that the great body of the
landed
and pro
1. e
saw
rree
asin favour of the scheme pro-
posed,
on. Great stress had beoenn Why
the Bill should not go
man who moved the amendmade by the Hon. Gentle-
ings of the Committee about the proceed-
the standing orders. Now he g a violation of
the matter, and though the letter earetf;l:rn might y considered
notered
have been strictly complied with thes3
no party would suffer from the Bill besiPnirit had, and as
forward, he should vote for its second realanle.l"ed to go
i
The gallery was then cleared for a d-: •
viston, when
there appeared—
For the second reading
68
Against
14
Majority in favour of the second reading —54
SANKT, )ItY MEASURES.
Lcrd ITORPETH moved that no private Bill relating
to town improvements or to public cemeteries be further
proceeded with by this House before the Ist of May
next.—Agreed to.
EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. GREENE moved that the Edinburgh and North-
ern Railway (Branch from Burntisland to Dunfermline
Branch, &c.—No. 2) Bill be read a second time, not-
withstanding the breviate has not been laid on the
table one clear day, provided the breviate shall be hid
on the table previous to such reading.—Agreed to.
CAMBRIDGE, ST. NEOT'S, AND BEDFORD
JUNCTION RAILWAY,
The HON. GENTLEMAN also moved that the order
made upon the sth day of March last, for referring the
Cambridge, St. Neo.rs, and Bedford Junction Railway
Bill to the Committee of Selection, be real and dis-
charged: that the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER
RAILWAY.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition in favour of the
Eludders&eld and Manchester Railway

EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER
RAILWAY.
Mr. TRELAWNY presented a petition in favour of
the Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester Railway.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. BUSFIELD presented petitions from various
Dissenting congregations in Halifax, York, and other
places, against the Government scheme of education in
England.
Sir G. STAUNTON presented a petition from the
congregation of Ebenezer Chapel, Southsea, to the
same effect.
SEAMEN'S ENLISTMENT BILL.

Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that, on the 25th instant,
he should move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend
the Seamen's Enlistment Bill.
GREECE.

Lord J. MANNERS gave notice that he should renew
his motion with respect to the condition of Greece this
day fortnight.
NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.
Mr. HUME gave notice that on Thursday he should
move for a copy of the instructions issued by the Board
of Admiralty to the Committee, appointed to in-
quite into the state of Naval Architecture ; also for
copies of the several reports with respect to ships in the
course of construction.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. DUNCOMBE gave notice that, on Monday next,
on the motion for going into a Committee of Supply for
the purpose of voting the educational grant, he should
move that,previous to anygrant of money being voted by
the House for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of
national education, as stated in the minutes of Council
agreed to in August and December last, which
had been presented to both Houses of Parliament
by command of her Majesty, a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the justice and expe-
diency of such a scheme, and its probable annual
cost. Also whether the regulations proposed would not
endow the Crown with too much power over the people,
and at the same time interfere with the religious opi-
nions of her Majesty's subjects; and that the Committee
report the result to the House.
THE EX-RAJA OF SATTABA.

Mr. HUME gave notice that on this day week he
should move for the production of the correspondence
which had taken place between the authorities of the
East India House and the Governor-General of India
with respect to the ex-Raja of Sattara.
CURRENCY.
Dr. BOWRING said that he could not but feel regret
at not having an opportunity of bringing forward his
motion respecting a decimal system of currency. How-
ever, he would take the earliest opportunity of bringing
the subject under the consideration of the House.
THE NAVY.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER said that he would wish
to ask the Gallant Admiral whether there was any
objection to call on Admiral Parker for his report
on the squadron under his command. He be-
lieved a copy of such a report was forwarded
to the late Admiralty Board. He would also
take an opportunity to ask the Secretary for the Ad-
miralty, whether there was any objection to produce
the order, suspending the construction of the ninety-
two-gun ships, which had been alluded to ou a previous
night, and also to report whether it was obeyed or not.
Admiral DUNDAS said that he was not prepared to
answer the question at the present moment, but that he
would be so on Wednesday.
DETENTION OF VESSELS.
Mr. HUDSON desired to ask the Secretary for the
Admiralty, whether there was any order which em-
powered revenue officers to board a vessel and detain it
for any length of time, which did not contain merchan-
dise? In coming over from Boulogne the vessel in
which he was in was boarded, and the passengers were
detained three-quarters of an hour.
Mr. WARD said that the question was one which
belonged more to the Customs than anything else ; but
he would inquire, and answer the question to-morrow.
THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION
Mr. BROTHERTON presented three petitions against
the scheme of national education as proposed by the Go •
vernment.
Mr. MUNTZ presented several petitions from diffe-
rent bodies in Birmingham, in favour of the national
educational scheme.
Mr. H. BERKELEY and Mr. H. BARING also pre-
sented petitions against the Government scheme for
national education.
CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.

Mr. MUNTZ also presented a petition from the
.nhabitants of Litchfield, in favour of the Bill for the
removal of the penalties upon Catholics.—Ordered to lie
on the table.
Mr. BARING also presented a petition from the Ca-
tholics of Bristol in favour of the Bill brought in by
the Hon. Member for Kinsale, to remove the penalties
from Catholics.
Mr. COMPTON presented a petition from the chair-
man and board of guardians of Lumley, praying for the
alteration or repeal of the Poor Removal Act.
Ordered to lie on the table.
_ Mr. CLIVE presented a petition from the justices of
Salop against the Custody of Offenders' Bill.
Mr. BROWN presented seven petitions from Man-
chester against the Government scheme of education.
Lord LINCOLN presented a petition from Hadding-
ton against the Scotch Registration Bill.
Mr. WATSON and several other Hon. Members
presented a -number of petitions in favour of the Bill for
the Removal of religious disabilities on Roman Ca-
tholics.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the
guardians of East Preston, praying for the repeal of the
Poor Removal Bill.
Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition against the
Scottish Registration Bill.
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented petitions from place.; in
Staffordshire in favour of the Roman Catholic's Disabi-
lities Bill.
Mr. CHRISTIE presented two petitions from Wey-
mouth against the national scheme of education.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Mr. WALPOLE, in rising to ask leave of the House
to bring forward a Bill to amend the law for the regis-
tration of persons entitled to vote in the election of
members to serve in Parliament for England and Wales,
pursuant to suggestions contained in the report of the
Committee on votes of electors, said that he be-
lieved that no opposition would be offered to its
introduction, and he would therefore defer any
remarks which he might have to make until a future
opportunity. Still, he considered that the House
ought to be put in possession of the alteration
which he intended to make on the present measure.
That alteration consisted principally in the doing away
with the vexatious interruptions which were at present
offered to electors who had once registered; and he in-
tended that a penalty should attach to such vexatious
objections, where they were proved to arise from a mere
desire to give uneasiness. The registering would still be
kept correct and pure, although these vexatious objec-
tions would he put down. He would not trouble the
House with further observations at that time, but reserve
further remarks until the Bill came on for the second
reading.
The Bill was then read a first time.
RETAIL BREWERS IN THE MIDLAND
COUNTIES.
Mr. MUNTZ moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
enable retail brewers in the- midland counties to keep
open their houses till twelve o'clock at night, the same
as the metropolitan retail brewers; and he must
say that in making this motion he was only
asking
for a measure of justice. He was quite aware
that, in defence of the system which snow obtained
it was stated, that the hours of the nobility and
gentry were later in London than in the provinces. But
he bad never heard it asserted that the hours of the
working people were later than in the country; and with
this opinion, and especially as he saw no material dif-
ference between the retailers of beer and the licensed
victuallers, he felt assured that the House would enter-
tain his motion.
Sir G. GREY regretted that it was incumbent upon
him to oppose this motion ; and although it might not
be worth while to enter into the whole of the reasons for
his opposition, yet he might state that by the 3d and
4th Victoria, chap. 61, a clear distinction was drawn
between the regularly licensed victuallers and the re-
tailers of beer. There might be some reason for
this application from those persons who were
resident is Manchester or Birmingham, and towns such
as those, but there was no reason for it in the general
aspect of the country. He should, therefore, feel that
he was doing his duty by opposing the introduction of
this Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said, notwithstanding what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
with much of which he agreed, he felt reluctantly com-
pelled to take the sense of the House on his motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 4
Against it
Majority against the motion ....
EXPENDITURE UPON THE NEW PALACE OF
. WESTMINSTER.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the aggregate
amount already paid, or agreed to be paid, to contrac-
tors and other persons for the purchase of land and
houses for the erection of the Palace of Westminster
(or, Houses of Parliament); distinguishing, under se-
parate heads, 1, the cost of the purchases of the
lands and hereditaments ; 2, the cost of the wharf-
ing, terrace, and foundations for -the buildings ; 3,
the cost of the carcase or shell already executed ;
4, the cost of the principal alterations made
from time to time, stating the authority under which
they were severally sanctioned ; 5, the cost of the in-
terior finishings ' • 6, the cost of the internal decorations
of the House of Lords and its adjuncts, as far as they
s
have been completed ; 7, the amount of the commission
and other charges paid, or to be paid, to the architect ;
8, the amount paid, or to be paid, to surveyors,
valuer
who 1;a:e1e
the architect'l:.
en of the works, and all other persons
under these
whole amount of
Westminster and
."Pal heads, for
vrint:employed, and not included in
employed,
charge—sc, as to exhibit the
Palace of W
Also,
expenditure o 1 every description,
its appendages, up
Fork done t
idmo
an
tee ,
31st day of December 18
the separate heads e:6*
which will be required Cove
to stet 1 underat
ttlie
eel, of the sums
lands and hereditaments Lay
afor such other
chased for the completion of 'nth: le- to be pm._
proaches thereto ; of the sum regtexelase and the ap-
Houses of Lords and Commons and. treheirto finish the
of the sum necessary for the Victoria Toawpeprendates ;
other works proposed to be executed to finish thenklanil
Also, a'copy of the several contracts made with builders
or other persons for the construe tion of the said
works, stating the conditions and: amount of each
original contract; and also a statement of every altera-
tion or deviation therefrom, and the :amount paid, or to
be paid, for each such contract and aktoration, and under
what authority such alterations or deviations were seve-
rally made. Account of the sums pied each year since
the destruction of the Houses of Prirlinment by fire, for
temporary buildings, and repairs fort be accommodation of