The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-13 00:00:00

BANKittiPTS.

William Knight, wine merchant, Reading, April 20,
at half-past twelve, and May 28, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee ; Holmes,
Great James-street, Bedford-row ; Clarke, Reading.
Charles Stewart, builder, Little Saint Jamey's-street,
Saint James's, April 23, and May 28, at one, at the
Bankruptcy Court. Pennell, official assignee; Angell,
Dean's. court, Doctors'. commons.

Thomas Denman, stone mason, Quadrant, Regent-
street, April 20, and June 5, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook-court,
13asinghall-street; Lewis and Lewis, Ely-place, Holborn.
Edward Tibbey, diamond merchant. Frith-street,
Soho, April 20 and June 3, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-
street ; Teague, Crown-court, Cheapsidc.
Hu=h Hill Facey, builder, Exeter, April 29, at one,
and May 19, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court.
Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter; Fulford, Exeter; Coode
and Co., Bedford-row, London.
Edward Pettet and William Newton, commission
agents, Lancaster-place, Strand, April 22, at half past
one, and May 20, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall street; Coote,
Bucklersbury.
John Dearman Dunnicliff, lace manufacturer, Not-
tingham, April 23 and May 21, at eleven, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Bittleston, official assignee,
Nottingham; Camm, Nottingham.
Edward Rogers, licensed victualler, late of Great
Homer-street, Liverpool, April 27 and May 25, at
twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official
assignee, Tristram-buildings, South Castle-street, Liver-
pool ; Johnson and Co., Temple, Loudon ; Dewhurst,
Liverpool.
Mary Elizabeth Bell, newsvender, Finch-lane, Corn-
hill, April 23, at one, and June 1, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-
place, Old Jewry; Johnston, Chancery-lane.
Peter Furlong, merchant, Liverpool, April 27, at
twelve, and May 14, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool; Corn-
th waite and Co., Old Jewry chambers ; Pemberton,
Liverpool.
Richard Smith, butcher, Kenn, Devonshire, April 21,
at ten, and May 18, at eleven, at the Exeter District
Court. Hirzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Turner,
Exeter; Cowlard, Lincoln's Inn-fields.

Robert Dickinson, maltster, Poulton in the Fylde,
Lancashire, April 27 and May 25, at twelve, at the
Liverpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liver-
pool ; Appleby, Harpur- street, London ; Liddell, Poul-
ton in the Fylde ; Thompson, Liverpool.

IMPERIA C PARLIAM ENT,
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF CONIMONS..
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

The letters and General correspondence with reference
to the business of the Raja, of Sattara were placed upon
thii table.

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 he 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.
aßt
„guu
ett.
on
rti
et
ptNi.vhooecud b
el
ed
Committeeede t
o defend observedsh owehdy h
his
howt
case eHousehe
comported
howevidence
h t
he l a i
ms
takenw-
e himself
in reference to these two companies. There was also a
Mr. Douglas, who was asked whether ho had entered
into any agreement between the old company
and the new. 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 former company. Did he hold
any claim against the old company for these plans,
and other papers ? His answer was, " No." So, there-
fore, this agreement between Mr. Douglas and some
other party, turned out to be an agreement with Mr.
Douglas and no 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 bad to proceed with a company under Lord
Dulhousie'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 retrained from interfering with a
ease which stood fur 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-
snultthleir thep
rlolcoeuesde.,
icijog,
nn wt
Aoe
frarean
rogsp i
mvnei
uno
s,nt
every one would deprecate. He now, therefore,
‘th‘ iloed‘tvei :hb ‘h'
situated iut uladas it(eaddn, ci
nt ict
-a position which o'
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
asacitderatehsa t
anian
their procedure.
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
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
penning 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. Ile
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 sahctionod 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
panics 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 come before the Standing
Orders Committee? Why, the subscribers to the pre-
sent Bill were substantially the same as those to the
prk vioue company. The great proportion of the ,tirec-
tors were the same. The people of the original corn-
piny had been overwhelmed by another coni•
pany, and had been obliged to give up their ori-
gival scheme; and having done so, on the first
tavourable opportunity, they brought forward the
present scheme. Now, the decision of the Standing
Orders Committee being impugned, be 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 plans and sections for
which they had paid a sum of money. They had in fact
paid 1,0001. for them to one party, and 2501. 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 this explanation, 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. B. ESCOTT 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
Use present Bill, he knew nothing of them, and had no
desire to give an opinion on it ; but in regard to the
decision of the standing orders, he though no injustice,
on any party, would be inflicted, if the Bill was allowed
to proceed. It appeared that the great body of the
landed proprietors were in favour of the scheme pro-
posed, and he saw no reason why the Bill should not go
on. Great stress had been made by the Hen. Gentle-
man who moved the amendment about the proceed-
ings of the Committee being a violation of
the standing orders. Now he had carefully considered
the matter, and though the letter of them might not
have been strictly complied with the spirit had, and as
no party would suffer from the Bill being allowed to go
forward, he should vote for its second reading.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when
there appeared—
For the second reading
Against
Majority in favour of the second reading —54
SANATORY MEASURES.

Lord MORPETH 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 laid
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. Neot's and Bedford Junction Railway
Bill to the Committee of Selection, be read and dis-
charged: that the Bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER
RAILWAY.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition in favour of the
Huddersfield and Manchester Railway.
EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER
RAILWAY.
Mr. TRELANVNY presented a petition in favour of.
the Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester Railway.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.'

Mr. BUSFIELD presented—petitionsfrom 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 the Ebenezer chapel, Scuthsea, to the
same effect.