The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-19 00:00:00

THE SLIN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 19, 1847.

IMPERIAL PA ki E.,AMENT
(it)GSL OF LORDS. May IS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at five o'cloi k.
MESSAGE FRI ) THEII OUSE OF COMM N.
Messsnarrs Irons the House of CialllllOPS brought up
several Bills. which were ordered to lie on the table.
COUNTY BUILDINGS BILL.
is Bill was read a second time.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of ST. GERMANS, this
Bill was read a second time.
FACTORY BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM presents: d a petition from Mac-
clesfield, in favour of the Ten Hours Bill. Also a peti-
tion from Inverness, against the Police Bill;
and a petition from the Standing Committees ut
the three denominations, the Presbyterians. the Inde-
Pendents, and the Baptists of London, against the
Government scheme of ducation.
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
The NOBLE Lean also presented a petition from the
printersßil aan(.l London, in favour of the Health of Town'
made some observations with respect to the
exemption of the City from the operation of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL, said that the tone of the Noble
Lord on this, and his tone on the other, side of Temple.
bar was very differeno—(Laughter.) There was some-
thin,„g in
the atmosphere of this House which induced
the ;noble oble Lord to declaim with respect to the Corpo-
ration of London in terms of censure, and there was
something in the atmosphere of the other side of Temple-
bar to induce him to speak in the most eloquent terms is
their praise. —(Much laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM said that of all the misrepre-
sentations ever uttered by the Noble Lord—(Laughter)
--of all the misstatements ever made even by him—
(Laughter)—this was without exception the farthest
removed from truth —(Laughter.)
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from
the poor-law guardians of Londonderry against the
reor Removal Act fur Ireland and Scotlsnd. The
Petitioners complained, and, as he thought justly, of the
Power that was given by that Bill to remove paupers to
any of the eight places named in the Bill.
Earl FITZWILLIAM begged to give notice, that on
the third reading of the Poor Removal (Iri land) Bill,
het‘ would mOvea-clause to the effect that this Bill should
e of a temporary character.
ARMY SERVICE BILL.
Oa the order of the day for going into Cemmittee on
this Bill being read,
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to move that
tlsi:Bill he committed this day six months. He express( d
h
opinion on this Bill at a time when he moved for
certain information, but it so happened that he was
n
easarily absent at the second reading. He was suf..
raed that on that occasian the Noble Earl should
"eas taken so much notice of his speec‘ , when
n-P,e,ach much more able had been made
by a Noble Lord on the same bench
(the Marquis of Londonderry) asked the
1:11-iotlh-- I eh': 'n?" l'sUblieee
Earl whether he could support all these changes
aY the opinion of able officers in the army. He had
taught none of these forward. Thee react majority of
''ritlYst-nine-tenths of the officers were opposed to
oft
hneut the Noble Earl, far from answering the speech
pefroeepnia's\sT,
soubblje Earl, had employed his eloquence on more
0 in
the
milior improvements that had been
The E army.
he o,m, sari of CARDIGAN said it was w 4h great pain
by tirstal the present measure, supported, us it was,
h authaeity of the Noble Duke. But thus sanction
it'irn`4odoeln given to it with such qualifications and in such
aaruhtiheohlued manner as to lessen very materially,
the value
Euro rithye. would be otherwise inclined to attach to that
carriedls ti erns,t over
pean•
army,
measure might do very well for any
inevyesrybuqtutaerrtetrheofßrthiteisghl,a,brem,
3hedditiplenrostedconas-
'would be found at all applicable, and if it were
trod into effect there must be very great changes in-
heltwe'd with regard to those in the colonies. He
p'eyed that with regard to the pension, that two
ence Was
additien to the original sixpence, end
hee thought it but justice to the soldier that
li tisibould obtain a fair reward for his services.
sYste °ught tbcre should be some change in the present
shoulT Ile thought that the two periods of service
enable
altered to fourteen years and seven years. That
would those who entered the service to retire at
a proper period of life.
Marquis.
GREY said that he did not understand the Noble
Alna tand illig.iontretnhdeedNotobleopEpaorsle, who had spoken that even-
ing,
bo'rellsetriC'°tlllyid' therefore, mention only one fact
that going into Committee on
on the question before the House.
An officer in her Maj-sty's service, who had been pre-
war from the reeks, when he heard of this Bill
Jltyorapsepyrz3d.eourfsi.t, for, as he stated, he had been " a
enttfttea,r a few words from Lord Ellenborough, Vis-
th_ „out onabermere, and the Marquis of Londonderry,
1! Jot
.tse went into Committee on the Bill.
‘-icisliuse 1 being proposed,
years i earl of LUCAN moved to substitute twelve
Years in n the infantry for ten, and fourteen for twelve
term fizetithe cavalry and artillery. He considered the
short, as bY the Bill, as it at present stood, was too
periio:;noftiting the soldier his discharge just at the
period whiernhahielbewas best adapted for the service. The
proposed was, he believed, the very
the
Bill was. 1 Y intetided by the Right Hon. Gentleman
had eves- .Y"t-War. The only argument which he
th hear
urged in favour of the provisions of the
at a loss at it should popularise the service He was
e
servie to .
Hail they know what they meant by popularising the
not tried to popularise the service ?
151_
mean' of large bounty and larger pensions, but it
fatle.d ? Let there leek at the year 1807. In
that year
they had 19.144 men in the army ;
but in 1846 they employed actually 1,600 more
than they did in 1807. This slices ed that the service
The same might be derived from the
number popular. e_
number of deserters. He would not detain their Lord-
ships, but he begged to assure them that he was actuated
by no party spirit. He was too much attached to the
army as a service to be so actuated iu speaking on such
a measure.
Earl GREY said the speech of the Noble Earl was
not a speech in favour of a particular amendment, but
against the whole Bill. As their Lordships had already
affirmed the principle in the Bill, he would not, incon-
sideration of their Lordships' time, do more than ad-
dress himself to the amendment of the Noble Earl. The
Noble Lord, after speaking against the whole principle
of limited service, concluded by eying that he was in
favour of it. And why ? Because it would enable them
to get rid of those who were vicious in a regiment,
When he (Earl Grey) moved the second reading of this
he did say so much ; he considered this to be a
Most desirable advantage to every regiment. But
limited service carried this other advantage with it, that
man, when he left the service at the end of his enlist-
°sent, would not be useless for any other employment.
If they were to adopt the present Bill at all, he could
not consent to the Noble Earl's amendment. lie would
rather that the Bill was rejected altogether than incur-
Porate it in the measure, as it would cause the principle
(14 unlimited enlistment to be tried under every disad-
rtaa'es If the principle was to be fairly tested, the
sten must be carried through in its integrity, iratead
--il,7•T'visions being frittered away.
supiZruttmt COMBER\IERE, as an old soliEe a must
(Earl Lithe amendment proposed by the Noble Lord
whothe He would ask their Lordilips what a ou'd
sehn
wa th that nondescript person, a diacharged suloier,
the sei.olild thus at the end of ten years be thrown out of
dren..v" ? He would be cast, with his wife and ehil
wo „is burden on the community and the greatest evils
•
The ) ensue,
neettai uke of WELLINGTON said that on a former
sa, Bill, ands had fully stated his vi‘sws on the principle of
beesfi 't and why he considered it would be ler the
Nitt or the service. He did not apprehend any da-
te., yin retaining the service of the men at the end of the
Years, The increase of their pay would be an effec-
taatt means of securing them in the future. He advised
f,eir Lordships to agree to the Bid as it had come up
; um the other House, and recomaiended by her Ma-
4,esstY's Government. He did not thiak the Noble Earl
(Lucas) had made out a case for the alteration to twelve
Years, lle considered ten years wool 1 be as effectual
in retaining the soldiers in the army at the end of the
period of their service. The law had hitherto auttie-
?sised the raising of men for six, seven, fourteen, and
twenty years, as well as for unlimited service, and it
had been found to operate well.—(Bear, hear.) He saw
therefore, no reason whatever for the adoption of the
present rimer. &neer.
Lnrd STANLEY thought the Noble and Gallant Duke had
Misunderstood the purport of the amendment proposed. His
object was precisely the same as the Noble and Gallant Duke,
and so. he believed, was the object of the clause proposed by
the Noble Lord (Earl Lucan); and the sole question they had
to consider was, the best means of securing the service of the
soldiers after they had been the proposed ten years in the ser-
ycicee. The simple question for them to consider was, should
able under
at thenderthi
this Bill,
pas ant pi?rfesteentit styooeadr,..t.oerceietaein?
the be
He apprehended not, an-diratherefore
and his Noble Friends who acted in concert with him
were so anxious to introduce this amendment. Now,
he hoped
their Lordships would adopt the amendment, and thereby offer
some inducement to the old and efficient soldier to remain in
the army after a long term of servitude.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared--.
For the Amendment 3O
Against it
Majority against it... 8
The Earl of LUCAN moved an amendment, providing that
the soldier should be allowed to decide upon re-inlistment at
au time during the last twelve months of servitude.
Earl GREY saw no objection to the amendment, provided
tae tinie was limited to six instead of twelve months.
Lord STANLEY thought if the suggestion of the Noble
E °POosite were adopted, a distinction ought to be drawn
tWeen troops engaged on home and foreign service.
Earl GREY said it would be better to let the clause stand in
its present form, and to add a proviso to carry out the view of
the Noble Lord who had just sat down.
The Cause so amended was then agreed to.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII proposed an amendment
to the third Claim., to the effect that any person whatever to
"horn the Secretary at War might issue his warrant, should
11e the piiwer to enlist soldiers into her Majesty's service.
Earl GREY had no objection to the amendment, which was
agreed to.
_,,Tert3P Earl sif ELLENBOBOUGH proposed another clause
!el% clause 4th—" That if after the expiration of such first or
rvned term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged
;eei_3 P. any soldier entitled to his discharge, being on a fo-
ist: Station,is shall not be willing to re-engage or to continue
r lajesty's service, or in the service of the East India
he 'Jul, the commanding officer of the regiment in which
ho_ig.a.ye be serving shall, as in the case of soldiers invalided,
eolev:ha usual measures, with all convenient dispatch, for the
Ysoze of such soldiers to England, and on the arrival of
sUch
bctween the England, be shall be finally discharged.
Provided Isierlwiyis that during suck time as may elapse
subject to all the
provisions. of the Army Act. which may then
for punishing mutiny and desertion as fully as he
Kay have been subject thereto before MIMI of lonics. the expiration of such
s provided alio, that if, at the expiration of

any first or second term of limited service, or of such term of
prolonged service. any soldier being in any of her Majesty's
colonies, 'belt claim his discharge, and shall sign:, to
• the Governor of such colony, throuAh the commanding officer
of the reeiment in which he may be serving. his desire to re-
main in such a colony, it shall be lawful for such,Governor, if he
shall think fit, with the consent of such commanding officer, to
permit such soldier to remain 'herein ; and, thereupon, such
soldier shall be finally discharged, and shall not be entitled to
claim to be conveyed to England at the public charge at any
future period.
Earl GREY said that he could not assent to the amendment.
The number of men discharged in the Indian army was very
small, and so great was the disposition of the soldiers, who
slight be discharged there. to remain in the country, that very
few of them would avail themselves of the privilege of going
home at the expiration of their term of service. The prin-
ciple, therefore, of keeping soldiers in the army longer than
was provided by their term of service, was both inexpedient
and unnecessary. Besides the object which this clause con-
templated was secured by other provisions in the Bill.
After a few words from Earl Grey, the Earl of Ellenbo-
rough, and Lord Combermere.
Lord STANLEY thought this was a question of very great
importance, and he appealed to the Noble and Gallant Duke,
whether the soldier should not be discharged in England atter
having served his term of service in India. He believed that
the disbanding of a number of soldiers in India after their ser-
vice would, in some circumstances, be attended with the
greatest danger. From the moment these soldiers were dis-
discharged, they were left uncontrolled by any military law, at
the same time provided with subsistence. What must be the
effect of discharging those s 'ldiers and leaving them to wander
through the country without any military discipline whatever.
Earl GREY said he would call the attention of the Mouse to
the fa-ts of the case. By the fourth cause of the Bill it would
be seen that some of the objections that had been advanced
against the measure had been met, and they would find that
the soldiers were to be sent home by the first convenient oppor-
tunity that might occur, of which they were to be judges; for
they could not deprive them of the right to exercise their
judgment, which must regulate the question.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he agreed with the
Noble Earl that it would be extremely inconvenient to allow
a number of soldiers to he without control in India. There
should he some control over them, at the same time that ar-
rangements should be made to provide the soldiers with the
means of returning home.—( Hear.)
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the remaining
clauses of the Bill were agreed to.

The House then resumed.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for the order of the day for the third reading
of this Bill, .

Lord MONTEAGLE, in moving the amendment of which
he had given notice (which was the same that the Noble Lord
had proposed on the second reading of the Bill), said there were
great inconveniences connected with the working of the Bill.
He had heard of a case of great hardship with respect to a clers.
gyman of the Established Church. if the present Bill was
agreed to. it would be productive of very much of what was
objectionable with respect to the endowment of the Roman
Catholic clergy. and retained all that was objectionable in the
voluntary principle. They would be not only endowing the Bo-
man Catholic clergy, which he wished their Lordships had the
energy to do, and which they must eventually do, but
they would be doing that at the present time by the sacrifice
of the Protestant interest. This Bill was not only objection-
able on this point but on other points also. It would in its
operation be dangerous to the elective franchise of Ireland.
There was no constitutional principle better understood in Par-
liament than that the receipt of parochial relief disfranchised
the voter.—( Hear.) He need refer only to one authority on
the subject. In the statute book there was an Act of Parlia-
ment which declared that the receipt of parochial assistance did
disfranchise the voter, and that he could not register. In looking
at England they must be practically acquainted with the work-
ing of the law. It was said that they would, by opposing the
present Bill, be infringing the privileges of the other House.
But the subject was too important to be affected by such a con-
sideration, and called for the notice of their Lordships. He
gave notice that he would ask these questions of her Majesty's
Government, thich he proposed to do. and it was no matter
whether he asked those questions on the second or third reading.
of the Bill. The present was a question which certainly was
one that ought to be considered as very peculiar. They must
look at the Bill with reference to its administration. Under
the system, that the present measure would introduce, they
would find it most difficult to afford relief without very serious
inconveniencies.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that his Noble Friend had
stated to them a circumstance which had come to his know-
ledge, and of which he also had taken cognisance, but he
could not conceive how any one landed proprietor could
withhold double the amount of the rate levied for the three
months under the existing law. He was informed from
very good authority that the deduction of the whole year's rate,
out of the six months charge, had taken place, and he certainly
thought that some remedy should be found fur a system which
admitted of so much abuse. If it were not too late, and in his
opinion it was never too late to do an act of justice ; he called
upon her Majesty's Government to take such measures as would
prevent the repetition of these acts of injustice. • -
The Earl of LUCAN (who was very indistinctively heard)
said he could mention severA cases in the county of Mayo in
which this abuse existed. The law had nothing to do with the
amount of these. A rate was struck, and was deducted in due
course from the rent charge. He did not mean to say that if
a rate was struck on the 2d of May it could be deducted from
the rent charge of the lit of May, it would be charged upon
the next rent charge in the whole sum whenever that might be.
The Earl of CLANCARTY said that under the Temporary
Relief Act, food only was given out of the workhouse, but under
the Permanent Act, clothes and money were given. The Tem-
porary Act was already sufficiently successful, and he, there-
fore, thought that the Noble Earl was a little too sanguine as
to the effect of the Permanent Act. This measure ought not
to he applied to Ireland at all, it was better calculated for
English towns. He was extremely surprised to see sent up
to that House the other day a Bill called the Poor Removal
Act, by the provision of which Ireland was compelled to support
Sot only her own poor—but the casual poor of England.
and Scotland who went over there, whilst the Irish poor who
came to England and Scotland were entitled to claim their
being sent back. Upon such a state of things it was scarcely
possible toloek with patience, and he hoped that when the
measure came under discussion this irregularity would be re-
medied.s.owr
eab would,t
better
rhe
ethfooo
rpm: re:
heatelyst ohwetehwr
at
npt
tah.sesoeclauses
cwoouft ttwhr,yi shtpresent
ohdme theyl el
wereead-
s
Lu t;do bßeEaAp pul i
ido.
NT said that the clergy had one cause of
complaint ; they were empowered to levy rates according to
their incomes, and therefore if the rate was 20s. they took it, but
if it were 255. they lost ss. This was a matter which ought
to
EbaerrleGmeadEiedy
itdh et
hGa
to v
we
tnhm er lt.
regard to the observation of
the Noble Lord (the Earl of Clan Cart ) hNeiriwts not then
matterpre-
Lordwhfuo
llhyad last s orekgearnd
the
the
observations
t eori ut
hpootNa
othhiee
mmeedifeudtubrye ttieChbeu
th
brought e'reernvi
l
hpoercaritim complained could owf ulhcicohrml
yt
al7 sroe
under their notice.

The Marquis of HERTFORD wished to make a few observa-
tions upon tuts measure before it received the assent of their
Lordships. It was true that for the last 32 years the landlords
of Ireland had been drawing their incomes tree of all taxation,
and this measure was the only one which could have been de-
vised to remedy that. It would be the commencement of a
new system, under which he hoped that the country would
emerge from the trouble and difficulty under which she had
been so long labouring. This measure had been long required
by that country, to effect an equal distribution of the expense
of maintaining the poor, and also create a new description of
labourers who, under its operation. would no longer be sub-
jected to the misery with which they had for many years past
been too constantly afflicted. He felt that this Bill was likely
to effect the social' revolution which was so absolutely essential
to the welfare of Ireland, and therefore he should give it his
cordial support.
Earl FI FZWILLIANI said that in his opinion the measure
would ne attended with not only un,atisfactory hut disastrous
results, and in that opinion all those who were, like him, con-
nected with the two countries were ready to concur. A great
responsibility existed with regard to this measure, but he did
not think, with many others, that that responsiblity rested upon
the Ministry. He felt too deep an interest in their successful
government to admit that the responsibility rested entirely
with them. It rested uuon others, who, if they had not been
first in the introduction of this measure, had at least, in igno-
rance of its real effects, carried it into operation. It was the
duty of every one to assist those who were in distress, if they
had it in their power, but he thought that some discrimination
was necessary as to the nature of the relief to be given
and from what source was it to come? They would find in
the Act of Elisabeth the evident intention that the
land alone was not to bear the burden of the maintenance.
Such a provision could not stand for twelve months—( Hear,
hear)—and, he would be bound to say, that if Parliament
were to dissolve in July or August, and meet again in Septem-
ber or October, that before the end of six months they would
be under the discreditable necessity of acknowledging that their
legislation had been wrong.
After a ew words in explanation from the Marquis of
HERTFORD,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that he thought that
the way only by which the preamble of the Bill was affirmed,
both in that and in the other House of Parliament, contra-
dicted the assertion of the Noble Lord, that all who were con-
nected with the two countries joined with him, in his opinion,
as to the inefficacy of this measure. They had heard
much of the dangers of this measure, and the
ends which were to result from the adoption of
the principle of out-door relief. He begged to remind
the Noble Earl who had last spoken, that in the west
of Ireland, in the counties of Galway and Mayo, there was
hardly such a thing as a poor-house at all. He believed that
for souse years to come the maintenance of the poor would be a
great incumbrance upon the land of Ireland, but that was an
unavoidable evil. He for one took upon himself a share of the
responsibility of the measure, and he entertained a fervent hope
that it would prove successful.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL was just as convinced that it would
not prove successful, as the Noble Marquis opposite was that it
would and therefore he could not refrain at that late
hour of the night from entering his protest against the measure.
Ireland had no manufactures to depend upon like this country,
and he was afraid the law would press heavily upon the landed
proprietors. Be that however
itfn,as,touoan
inaidedts
hnGi
wholly
thatmay,
h e rheetawinasedsttrhoeneolypinimio-n
preAsseftderwaith a conviction that the land of Ireland would never
e
be able to sustain the poor of the coruhigoneelmtnnlryety;rd,ianeleither in times of
prosperity or in times of depression.
few words from Lord MUNGER and Lord Moir-
EAGLE, the latter of whom moved the insertion of a clause,
Earl GREY resisted the insertion of the clause.
After some further conversation, the clause was negatived
without a division.
On Clause 10,
El
an
e Bd
b
whichontThree hEe GREYa
bel
lieved clause,
of i
eEn wouldt.°pEo enteredN.3
e
was no machinery to carry it out.
Bill on each separate merits
fewinoperative,
rrai observations
eatrhsveatthßi oei nrl
Earl GREY eeprecated the discussion of the merits of the
The Earl of WICKLOW.
would not hallow the NobleferamaseE,aarnldGhßeEhoyp,ed that their Lordships
After few Earl in so unusual a course.
bLeordhsalsihipesx.
Priiisetdhethe objectionoth
er night on the subject before their
the now made were the only one
that could be urged, they
e"
ex
Three E. dE 'd insert a clause to enable the
tenant to surrender in
same way as if the lease had not
arl of CLANCARTY • 1 he could not agree with
what was urged in favour of them,san The same power was still
given of subdividing them land, arid there was no improvement
effectednrti bnyEtEth presenteEs
A L
rwobilt:hrtiwettphoeren toee
emnapkieer,arurnalne
eblemathtteerEp said, 'that at present there was no
totoentha
make some arrangement
prenswpeerct
the landlord and tenant on
gssemtheenyts couldwith
and he would, therefore, take the
this point, they could not expect that
e the measure could work,
notice, to empower the landlord toanmseaknef wanhtachg
the tenant. rheeemhaedntgwivietnh
not preparedlikely to endanger the
to oppose the
Earl GREY said that he was
cßlailuls
ien,
abnuotthheertphloaueeghttf t hot:et i
at
mvierniunlmd
ebnets of his Noble Friend
were agreed to.
Lord AIONTEAGLE said that as he had already stated he
thought they should not be influenced so far by any interference
with the privileges of the other House, and he would certainly
pm: fora IL icon on big clause.

. Lord CAMPBELL thought that the Noble L.ed ought:not
to persist in the course he was adopting.
Lord AWN TEAGLE called tne attention of their Lord-
ships to the Duke of Wellington's clause in the late Poor-law
Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords. The clause
was of a similar character to the one now under consideration,
and the House of Commons accepted it as an amendment,
which the House of Lords had a right to make.
Lord REDESDALE could not see on what grounds the
House of Commons could reject the clause after accepting the
one of the Duke of Wellington referred to.
Earl GREY said the effect might be, whatever right this
House bad in the matter, to make the amendment, the House
of Commons might not so readily accspt ether amendments, as
they would otherwise do were this clause not introduced into
the Bill.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Earl GREY moved an amendment on the 16th clause,
which had been referred to the other night, which was to
enable the agents of great pi oprirtors to act as cx officio
guardians in their absence.
After a few observations from Lords REDESDALI and
MONCEAG LE,
The amendment was agreed to.

Lord ABINGER then-moved a clause to the following ef-
fect; -" And whereas it would be expedient to fix some rea-
sonable limit on the amount of the rate to be levied for the
relief of the poor, be it therefore enac•ed that the who'e of
such rate, whether levied on the landlord or upon the tenant,
or upon both, shall in no case exceed one-sixth in the pound
on the net revenue."

Earl GREY said the effect of the clause 'Pi ould be to raise
no rate whatever above 3s. 4d. in the pound. He thought it
would be very enormous to make any such restriction in a
case of great destitution such as prevailed in Ireland.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM proposed a clause that the Bill
should continue in operation for three years, and to the end of
the next then ensuing session of Parliament, and no longer.
After a few words from Earl GREY, the clause was nega-
tived, without a division.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Earl GREY gave notice that, on Thursday next, his Noble
Friend, the President of the Council would move that the
House, at its rising, do adjourn till Friday week.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION

RAILWAY.

On the motion for taking into consideration the re
port of the Committee on the Birinieghatu and Oxford
Junction Railway, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton,
and Dudley Railway Amalgamation Bill,
Sir F. TIIESIGER moved that the Bill be referred
back to the same Committee, with an inten-
tion to hear the petitions of Sir Henry
Verney and others, aid the petitions of other
shareholders in the Birmingham and Oxford Railway,
against the said Bill. The lion. and Learned Memb,r
entered at considerable length into the details of the
proceedings which had beets taken by the shareholders
and the directors of these lines. The Birmingham and
Oxford Railway, he said, was passed in the last
session of Parliament, and power was given in the Act
to sell or lease the line to the Great Western Company.
It appeared that the shareholders of the Birmingham
and Oxford line were dissatisfied with the price which
the Great Western Company gave them, nam ly, 101 55.1
a share, and a meeting was called, at which reso.u,
tions were passed expressive of such opinions, and
requiring the directors to repudiate the agreement, and
a requisition was signed, calling upon them to convene
a meeting under the cl ioses of the Dis,olution Act.
This, however, received no attention, and the allotted
number of days was allowed to pass over without
the meeting being called. The shareholders, howeeee-
then called it themselves, and the shares repress)• ted
were no fewer than thirty-live thousand ; the directors
were present also, but they only represented one
thousand shares. It was p, oposed at that meeting and
carried unanimously, that the proprietors wholly disap-
proved of the amalgamation, and the sale to the. Great
Western Company ; and that they d:d not consider
themselves bound by the proceedings of the di-
rectors. A petition was then preseeted to the
House stating these facts, which was referred to
the Committee, who in their turn refused to entertain
it, considering that the petitioners had no locus standi.
It was stated also that there was a rule that se sr,
holders should not be heard against their directors. There
was no such rule, and if there was, the sooner
it was abolished the better. Let him suppose a number
of persons in a canal company, and that a general meet-
ing resolved that they should turn it into a tailway, by
a small majority, did they think the minority
ought to be bound by such a decision ? Would it
not be a very hard case that they should be so ?
Now, he should hardly have thought it necessary to cite
precedents from the Courts of Chancery on this point,
but he could also quote from precedents of their own,
and he would, in the first place, instance the ease 01
Henry Smith'''y. the Exeter and tpalmouth Railway,
in the year 1837. The petitioner objected that
his money should be expended on the con-
struction of a portion of the line for which he
had signed the subscription deed, and the Committee,
after due deliberation, decided that the petitioner having
signed the Parliamentary contract which empowered the.
provisional committee to make any,. or such portion of
the line as in their decision they might thick fit, they
could not grant him redress. In 1842 Mr. Harkhurst
was heard on his petition against the Bolton and Preston
Railway, and there the decision was in his favour, be-
cause the provisional directors had extended the powers
with which they were in the first place invested.
Thus the House would see that the same prin-
ciple was affirmed by two very opposite dec'sions.
In 1844, in the cases of the Northern and E istern
Railway, and the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway Com
panics, petitioners, being shareholders in the two com•
panies, appeared before Committees, and were allowed
to be heard. lie confessed that this appeared to
him to be an sit fortiori ease, because it as
not the case of individual shareholders, but the
case and petition of the whole company. It was
the unanimous petition of almost the whole body of
shareholders, holding upwards of 35,000 shares. Would
the House for one moment permit him to call attention
to the mode in which the parties who were promoting
this Bill were compelled to proceed under the ex-
traordinary circumstances in which they were placed.
Allow him to call the attention of the House to a
recital contained in the preamble of this Bill. Of course
it was the duty of the parties promoting the Bill to
prove the whole of the preamble. Now the preamble
stated that the Birmingham and Oxford Junction, anti
the Birmingham, Dudley, and Wolverhampton Railway
Companies were desirous of being united into one company
for the purpose of jointly executing the two lines
aforesaid. It was a most material element in proving
the preamble to the ail that it should be shown that
the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company were
desirous of forming the amalgateatiou for the purpose
of being afterwards sold and transferred to the Great
Western Company ; but what was the course
pursued by the counsel promoting the Bill ?
Why, he called Mr. Phillip Henry Munta, the
chairman of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction
Company, to prove that it would be highly advantageous
to unite the two lines; but he never asked him
whether the Birmingham and Oxford Junction
Company were desirous of uniting the two
companies, or he must have answered that
question in the negative. And yet, in the
face of all this, without calling any further evidence, the
Committee passed the Bill as au unopposed measure.
Now he did trust that he had brought a case before the
ouse which demanded its serious attention. He had
stated the facts us clearly ae.d distinctly as he possibly
eould, and in his °pillion they were more than sufficient
to justify the House sending this Bill back to be re-
committed. Perhaps, before he concluded his observa-
tions, the House would permit him to advert just for one
moment to certain proceedings tha: had taken place,
both in law and equity, in connexion with this matter.
The Hon. and Learnt d Gentleman then related the pro-
ceedings which have been instituted its law and equity
d
Bill
Junction
brht.ei 0 s 0
ruGe cohcoaoumrmeLmhpßoiatl
tr.teyeßdr
:Ns
with
of the
concludedut de instructions Bn oitm nn
bgt
eyhtroammit
moving
vteaoi d
gth Oeh
axltet rd
legal
the
Committeeal
mter hr
ietas r tfh
teh
eo p pciouseisntgi pne, t ibt iuotn ear:.
Chairman of the Com-
mittee on this Bill he would simply state the course
c to
sTs tnesni dtewr
ithhowp.fabriiethieusparco.v.i.sinodnshoowf
'Their
the Committee had taken in the matter.
far its provisions could be carried into effect. The ques
tion upon this particular Bill was, whether the share-
holders were at liberty to impungn the Acts of the ge-
neral corporation, or Acts which effected their interests.
He was far from admitting such a preamble, and the
result of a contrary doctrine must appear to be per-
fectly inconsistent with the conduct of a railway Bill
through Parliament. It might, in such a case,
be in the power of the minority to come
before that House, and delay and obstruct the progress
of the Bill by their petitions. His Right Hon Friend
informed him that rule must not be taken as a general
one, but he thought that the general rule ought net to
be taken in the other direction, and that the Com-
mittee should be at liberty to entertain the peti-
tions and complaints of the shareholders. It was
upon this ground that the petitioners against this psr-
ticular Bill were not allowed to proceed with their oppo-
sition by the Committee. Whatever might be the
existing law applicable to the case before the Commit Se
An Act of the previous year gave the Birmingham and
Oxford Company powers to lease and sell themselves to
the Great Western Company. The Great Western
Company had no concurrent right in the provision,
for the power was to be entirely in the
hands of the Birmingham and Oxford Company,
to exercise the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
An agreement had been entered into by the directors of
thecompany, under the authority or the shareholders, but
the shareholders state that they were precluded from ex-
pressing their opinion at the time that the reslutions had
been passed, and, therefore, that these resolutions were
passed in defiance of the wishes of the shareholders.
Now how stood the fact upon the very statement of
these gentlemen themselves ? They told the House that
they were precluded from voting, not having received
the sealed certificates. But if Honourable Gentlemen
would look at the Acts, they would find that share-
holders were permitted to vote under certain conditions.
He thought that this question ought never to have been
discussed, after the decision of the Committee. In the
last se .sion of Parliament there was a decision in a
Committee, of which `Jr. Edward Buller was chair-
man, on the merits of which Mr. Here was heard on
the part of the Liverpool Railway, in which
he openly stated that the merits of the two
companies were the same.—(Loud cries of " Divide, di-
vide.") It had there been decided that the petitioners
had no locus standi before the Committee, and the reports
were made accordingly to the House. He believed that
that decision was premature, contrary to public policy,
and unworthy of the consideration of the Committee, and
that the amalgamation should take place in opposition to
the votes of a majority of the shareholders. He thought,
therefore, that the House ought to abide by the decision
of the Committee.—(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.")

Mr. EDWARD BULLER !.aid, that having
Chairman of the eftmalrfee t hich reference had h2eii
made, he trust.d that the Ilouse would hear him, a 4
he believed the d( cis;on h>ot been quite correct
Had they agreed to what their .ipponents wanted it
would have been almost impossible to proceed with any
Bill. Having said these few words respecting the
peculi4r circumstances which it was Stated made
the present case an exception to the general rule,
it was his opinion no body of Aar holders ever
had a: worse care to come before Parliament. What
wer, the real facts of the ease ? An arrangement had

been proposed yfor an amalgamation with the Great
Western Railway Company. Powers were required to
enable the directors to lease or sell the line to that com-
pany, and also to unite with the Oxford, Dudley, and
Wolverhampton Railway. In pursuance of this, a meet-
ing was called, which took place on the 30th October.
At this meeting oun gentleman, and one alone, ob-
jected to the proposition submitted, though he made
no amendment, and the resolution for an amalga-
mation was unanimously carried, giving directions to
the din ctors of the company forthwith to enter into
negotiations with the Great Western on the subject.
An agreement with that company was the result, and a
meeting was announced for the 4th of December to ratify
that agreement. In the meantime an offer had been
made by the London and North-Western Company
to the eff,ct that where the Great Western Railway

Company only proposed to—give 10/ , the London and
North Western of 151. The directors, however,
felt as men of honour, that their agreement was binding,
and they determined to give it effect. This led to the
proceedings in the railway market, which led to the
transference of the shares into the hands of parties
favourable to the London and North-Western Company.
The parties purchased shares which were subject to all
the liabilities and contingencies to which the shares in
other lines were liable. He should, therefore, feel it
his duty to oppose the motion.--(Loud cries of " Divide,"
" Order." and great uproar.)
Mr. BERNAL rose amidst great demonstrations of
impatience on the part of the House. lie said it was
not his intention to travel through the facts of the case
—(Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") He repeated it.
No doubt those Gentlemen who had been canvassed, and
who were prejudiced one way or the other, were
tenxious for no delay—(Cheers and groans)—but in the
face of them he would say, that on former occasions he
had onjected to that tribunal deciding upon railways ;
and he asked the House if his views had not been
confirmed ?—(llear, hear.) The fact of Honourable
Gentlemen who knew nothing of the case coming
down to vote on this subject, was an evidence of this.—
(Cheers and counter cheers.) He asked the Right Hon.
lentlinnan in the chair, who was the representative of
the honour of that House, if he considered that
branch of the Legislature a fit tribunal to decide upon
rail tae Billst—(Hea-, hear.) The Committee, of which
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr.
Goulburn) was the chairman decided in a particular
way, and Hon. Members came down without any par-
ticular allegation against the decision of the Committee,
to ask the House to destroy that opinion. If
this were done would that tribunal be respected
'either by themselves or by the country at large ?
They were about to set aside the decision of a Com-
mittee up stairs, though tht:t decision had bees ;arrived at
after a careful examination of all the facts in the
case. This, if it were nothing more, would be suf-
(tient to determine him to vote against the motion.
of his Hon. and Learned Friend. And what was that
motion? It was to refer the question back again to
another Committee; but although such was the wording
of the motion it did not follow that such was the
intention of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman.
This was not the Hon. and Learned Member's first
attempt to thwart this measure, for he had on
a previous occasion moved that the Bill be read that
day six monthst He thought that this was
a most improper tribunal to decide the matter.
and he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to
support the decision of the Committee. That decision
should only be set aside where corruption or improper
conduct could be proved against the judges, and where
such could not he adduced they were bound by every
princ;ple of justice to uphold tneir authority.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said, that if the
House would hear him, he had something to propose
which he thought was worthy of its attention. His pro-
position was, that all those Members who had a pecu
niary interest in either the Great Western or the London
and North-Western should leave the question to be
decided by those Members who had no such interest.—
(Cheers and laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. R. D. MANGLES and
HAYTER, who declared their intention to vote
according to the dictates of their own consciences,
Mr. MUNTZ complained that his name had fre-
quently been taken in vain, for, the real truth was, he
did not hold a share in any railway. The town, how-
ever, which he represented was particularly anxious that
this railway should pass as a competing line to the London
and North-Western, and he should therefore oppose
the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite.

Mr. STRUTT said no case had been made out to in-
duce him to oppose the unanimous opinion of the Com-
mittee on this Bill.

The House then divided when there appeared—
For the amendment 62
Against it
Majority for the Bill —ls2
The report was then atreed to.
REPORTS.

The following reports were likewise agreed to :
Birkenhead Commissioners Dock Acts Amendment (as to Con-
struction of Sea Wall along Wallasey Pool).
Birmingham and Oxford Junction, and Birmingham, Wolver-
hampton, and Dudley Railways Amalgamation.
CC
aall
ee
dd betweenoo
nr,
ii n
Daanundnd t Do
Geuhml
ea
rbs
gaor
Limetwo,n s h
Worksi
Paisley,r e Ju ncnat
di
no
dn Railway
Bowling,Greenock
a(eD.)Re via i al
wt i
ao
yn
ss
Amalgamation.
Caledonian Railway (Purchase of Lease of Wishaw and Coltness
Railway).
Dublin. Dundrum, and Rathfarnhatn Railway (Extension to
Stephen's Green).
cii neTsatenerrdmaiand
DroghedadaßiroaßailwaysielwayßEai
Forestl
Extension.
anmys
ai
ona (Branchm a t(io
Amalgamation.
r. o m Nav a n to KeII s ) .
General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Railway Branches.
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow South-
ern Terminal
Northern Railway Railway(Hertford, Hatfield, Hatfield, and St. Alban's
Branch).
Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West London
Branches
Valleyay
Ens Wideningclhyes t
oßailway
Hammersmith,a d
Deviation Enlarging
anadn od of
Lynn, Westonjtr
iirnuoLcet ohtkineos d.nLo et
:Rd:o o cinl Railway,
aasnßarDanecvhiattoions
South-Western Railway near Lambeth).
LynnL i)aß':adi
ial
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension from
nearn Athloneski
nßnel,
entdot Galway).haanmd,
iwiaiitthr
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Newcastle, An-
Newry and Enniskillen Railway.
(Cannock, Norfolk Railway (from Thetford to the Lowestoft Railway
South Staffordshire Railway yr ey, and
Branches, &c.)
Swansea Valley Railway. Halesworth).k)wi
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway (No. 1).
Westminster Improvements.
Windsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway (Richmond to
Windsor. &e.) Norton
Windsor, Staines, mad South-Western Railway (Staines to
Ascot and Wukingham, with branches).
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed:—
Edinburgh Markets and Customs.
Leith Harbour and Docks Dues.
THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.
Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE moved that the Caledonian
Railway (purchase or lease of Wishaw and Coltness Railway)
should be re-committed to the committee on Group 49, of Rail-
way Bills. The Hon. Member slid not anticipate any great
object ion on the part of the Chairman of the Committee, and
there were circumstances in the case which would amply justify
the re-commi tal of the Bill.

Mr. CRIPPS would be exceedingly sorry to offer any
serious opposition to the motion of his Hon. Friend, but he
yet thought that great care ought to be taken in contravening
the decision of the Committee, for he was quite sure that they
would be very careful before they sanctioned the insertion of
any clause that would be injurious to the interests of the several
parties. The clause as it at present stands would throw a
great burthen upon the company, and he trusted, therefore,
that when the Bill came before the House again on Thursday,
that it would be so modified as to suit their interests, and he
should only say, that when it so came before them, that he
should feel it his duty to secure the interests of the share-
holders.

The motion was then withdrawn, and the Bill was read a
second time.

Mr. CRIPPS said he should certainly recur to tke subject in
.he third reading of the Bill.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

Mr. HUME begged to postpone the motion of which he had
given notice for to-morrow till this day fortnight.
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL.
SE—THE DERBY
Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his motion on this sub-
ject
till Friday next.
WASTE LANDS IN IRELAND.
Mr. P. SCROPE postponed his motion on this subject till
after the holidays.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—Mr. Speaker,as to-morrow
is the Derby day—(Loud laughter )—which for half a century
ADJOURNMENT OF DAY.HOU
had been held as a holiday, I rise to move
Mr. HUME—I rise to _
order. The Noble Lord ought to
propose his motion in rotation., is out of its place here, being
No. 18 in the lilt.—(Cries of ' Chair, chair, Order, order.")
The SPEAKER said that all motions relating to the
adjournment of the House were usually considered at an early
and when so many
hour.
on the attention Of
Mr. HUME objected to such motions as the present, as it
would lead to great inconvenience and abuse.
The SPEAKER again reiterated his decision, that such mo •
tions always were considered at an early hour, for the conveni-
ence of the Members.
Mr. SH ARNI AN CRAWFORD protested against the
questionstl ihoeu Government.sHouse
risingotvivital
atl the
e importf
-r present
hnwotue slrdtea addtperoe of
things,oingmore,
with this expression of his opinion.
The adjournment of thePRISONS. Hu,se was then carried.

rponfratthiennlnnsfpetchteornsitoyf
huntthe fullest information on
aAnoNthDe°r Nprison, which
of the Giltspur-street
would Sir G.
rYn3toh statedne discipline.
inthat
teh inconvenience
e reportsn cee
Corporation
Compter.
DEATH OF THE LORD.LIEUTEN ANT OF IRELAND
the subj
Londone ct
—APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Noble Lord
obviate GREY
R EP
Prisons
Inreplywould
thoo fa a s
bdee questioncfiuduendd uponfrtoum containbuildingVi scTo
at the head of the Government had made any arrange-
up the vacancy ment with respect to filling Icy caused by the
death of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as it was important
that the intentions of the Government should be known as soon
as possible.—( Considerable sensation. )
Lord .1. RUSSELL (who appeared to labour under consi-
derable emotion) said—Perhaps the House will permit me, in
1
answering the question of the Hon. 11 .e mber, which I must
say pressed very closely on the death of the Noble Lord, the
late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.—( Loud cheers.) The
House will permit me to state what are the feelings of the
Government with respect to the molancholy loss which has
occurred—(Hear, hear)—the loss of a Noble Lord whose in-
timate knowledge of Ireland, whose clear judgment, whose
conciliatory qualities--(Cheers)—had so well adapted him to

soften the animosities that had been so long the bane of that
country, and to point thw; way to an improved state of things.
—( Cherrs. ) Having said thrse few words with re-pect to
the calamity which bas occurred, I will tell the Hon Gentle-
man who has si,ked this question that her M jetty's
Gnirnnment have felt it their duty -to advise her Majesty im-
mediately to filt up the office of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ire-
land. Whatever may be the opinion of her Majesty's Go-
vernment with respect to the general nature of that office and
with respect to the policy of maintaining it for any length of
time, as a part of the Government of the United Kingdom,
we are clearly and unanimously of opinion that the present cir-
cumstances of Ireland do not admit of such a change of autho-
rity as would be necessary by the legislative measures which
would have to be introduced by any change in the mode of ad-
ministering the affairs of Ireland. We have therefore thought
it necessary to advise her Majesty to fill up the office of the
LordkLieutenant g but I do not intend during the present ses-
sion of Parliament to introduce any measure by which an alte-
ration may be made in the constitution of that authority, and
acting upon our own responsibility, it will be absolutely neces-
sary for 'he Government to advise her Majesty to appoint a
successor to the Noble Lord just deceased.
SITTINGS OF COMMITTEES.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that it was his duty to make
a motion, in consequence of that which had been just carried.
The Hon. Member for Rochdale had announced to the House
that he was well placed for to-morrox.--( Laughter.) He
(Sir J. Graham) was very badly placed, for he wa.s summoned
to attend two Committees, one a Railw iy Committee and the
other a Commi.tee on matters of general interest to this House.
It was, therefore, his duty to move that the Committees should
have leave to sit to-morrow.—Agreed to.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT.

Mr. SPOONER gave notice that on Tuesday, the hi
June, he should move that a copy of an address from the in.
habitants of Hobart Town to Sir Eardley Wilmot, late Lieut.-
Governor of Van Diemen's Land, in consequence of a publica-
tion of a dispatch from Mr. Gladstone, be laid upon the table.
DR. BOWRING AND THE POOR-LAW COMMIS-