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

ARMY SERVICE BILL

On the order of the day fir going into Commititee ort
this Bill being read,
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to moi e the,
the Bill be committed this day six months. He expresses
)f
his opinion on this Bill at a time when he moved foto,
certain information, but it so happened that be we k,
necessarily absent at the second reading. He was stmt.
prised that on that occasion the Noble Earl shotai
have taken so much notice of his speed-, whete
a speech much more able had been mad 4
upon the subject by a Noble Lord On the same benc'W
with him. He (the Marquis of Londonderry) asked the
Noble Earl whether he could support all these change
by the opinion of able officers in the army. He ha
brought none of these forward. The great majority (1
the army—nine-tenths of the officers—were opposed re
it. But the Noble Earl, far from answering the speee4
of the Noble Earl, had employed his eloquence on MOT t
popular subjects—the minor improvements that had becti
effee:ed in the army.
The Earl of CARDIGAN said it Ras with great pair
he opposed the present measure, supported, as it was,'
by the authority of the Noble Duke. But that sanction
had been given to it with such qualifications and in such
a modified manner as to lessen very materially the value
which he would be otherwise inclined to attach to that
authority. The measure tright do very well for any
European army, but for the British army, dispenied as)
it was, over every quarter of the globe, he did not con-
sider it would be found at all applicable, and if it were
carried into effect there must be very great changes in-
troduced with regard to those in the colonies. He
believed that with regard to the pension, that two-
pence was an addition to the original sixpence, and
he thought it but justice to the soldier that
he should obtain a fair reward for his services.
He thought there should be some change in the present
system. He thought that the two periods of service
should be altered to fourteen years ana seven years. That
would enable those who entered the service to retire at
a proper period of life.
Earl GREY said that he did not understand the Noble
Marquis, or the Noble Earl, who had spoken that even- •
ing, and intended to oppose going into Committee on
that Bill. He would, therefore, mention only one facts'
which bore strictly on the question before the Rouse.
An officer in her Majesty's service, who had been pro-'
moted from the ranks, when he heard of this Billv
warmly approved of it, for, as he stated, he had been "
man for seven years.
After a few words from Lord Ellenborough, Vitt*
count Combermere, and the Marquis of Londonderry
the Rouse went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
The Earl of LUCAN moved to substitute twelvc

years in the infantry for ten, and fourteen for twelvo
years in the cavalry and artillery. He considered tho.
term fixed by the Bill, as it at present stood, was tool
short, granting the soldier his discharge just at the
period when he was best adapted for the service. The
period which he proposed was, he believed, the very
period originally intended by the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Secretary-at-War. The only argument which he
had ever heard urged in favour of the provisions of the
Bill was, that it should populairise.lllelfrviee. --He was
at a loss to know what they meant by popularising the
service. Had they not tried to popularise the service ?
By means of large bounty and larger pensions, but it
failed ? Let them look at tho year 1807. In
that
.year they bad 19,144 men in the army ;
but in 1846 they employed actually 1,600 more
than they did in 1807. This sho,ed that the service
was popular. The same might be derived from the
number of deserters. He ,aould 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 in 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, in con-
sideration of their Lordships' time, do more than ad-
dress himself to the amendment of the Noble Earl. This
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
Bill, 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
a man, when he left the service at the end of his enlist-
ment, 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. He would
rather that the Bill was rejected altogether than incor-
porate it in the measure, as it would cause the principle
of unlimited 4enlistrnent to be tried under every disad-
vantage. If the principle was to be fairly tested,.the
Bill must be carried through in its integrity, instead of
its provisions being frittered away.
Viscount COMBERMERE, as an old soldier, must
support the amendment proposed by the Noble Lord
(Earl Lucan). He would ask their Lordships what would
become of that nondescript person, a discharged soldier,
who would thus at the end of ten years be thrown out of
the service ? Ile would be cast, with his wife and chil-
dren, a burden on the community, and the greatest evils
would ensue.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that on a former
occasion he had fully stated his views on the principle of
the Bill, and why he considered it would be for the
benefit of the service. He did not apprehend an
_y diffi-
culty in retaining the service of the men at the end of the
en years.
of T ywt
future. would
be
an
effec-
tualmeans
He advised
their Lordships to agree to the Bill as it had come up
e
securingincre aseof
them thineir thep a fu
from the other House, and recommended by her Ma-
jesty's Government. He did not think the Noble Earl
(Lucan) had made out a case for the alteration to twelve
years. He considered ten years would be as effectual
in retaining the soldiers in the army at the end of the
period of their service. The law had hitherto autho-
rised 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.—(Hear, hear.) He saw
therefore, no reason whatever for the adoption of the
present amendment.
Lord 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 inth:
osuetid-
vice. The simple question for them to consider was, should
they service
the old soldier at the expiration of ten 3
d not, and therefore it was that he
He apprehended they be able under this Bit!, as it at present stood, to retain
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.
oorvietdy agbnaarainstenitd.m..
Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
Strangers were then crdered to withdraw, and the
Far the Amendment
3
en-t-p r.ovi3-Ingß that
ThAegEsiarnsltoift LUCANAIajm
the soldier should be allowed to decide upon • 1.
anytime during the last twelve months ofamendment,evvirte-dien itement at
servitude.
Earl GREY saw no objeetion to the
the time was limited to six instead of provided
twelve months.
Lord STANLEY thought if
the suggestion of the Noble
Earl opposite were adopted, a distinction ought to be drawn
between 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 clause so amended was then agreed to.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII proposed an amendment
to the third clause, to the effect that any person whatever to
whom the Secretary at War might issue his warrant, should
have the power to enlist soldiers into her Majesty's service-
Earl GREY had no objection to the amendment, which was
agreed to.
The Earl of ELLENBOBOUGH proposed another clause
after clause 4ill—" That it after the expiration of such first or
second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged
service, any soldier entitled to his discharge, being on a fo-
reign station, shall not be willing to re-engage or to continue
in her Majesty's service, or in the service of the East India
Company, the commanding officer of the regiment in which
he may be serving shall, as in the case of soldiers invalided,
take the usual measures, with all convenient dispatch, for the
conveyance of such soldiers to England, and on the arrival 'of
such soldier in England, he shall be finally discharged.
provided always that during such time as may elapse
between the expiration of such term of service as aforesaid and
his final discharge. In England, such soldier shall remain
subject to all the provisions of the Army Act, which may then
be in force for punishing mutjny and desertion as fully as ho
may have been subject thereto before the expiration of such
6 terms of service ; provided also, that if, at the expiration of

4176737017;;;;;;Iof limited service' or of such tra ran of
prolonged service, any soldier being in any
y of her Mul esty's
colonies, shill claim his discharge, and shall signil y to
the Governor of such colony, through the
.commanding r. officer
of the regiment in which he may be serving, his desiru to re-
main in such a colony, it shall be lawful for such:Gent-LA ,if he
shall think fit, wilds the consent of such commanding offs t er, to
permit such soldier to remain therein ; and, thereupoes, such
soldier shall be finally discharged, and shall not be ent id (ed to
claim to be conveyed to England at the public charge' ;It any
future period.
Earl GREY said that he could not assent to the amer idlatent.
The number of men discharged in the Indian army w as very ,
small, and se great was the disposition of the soldie rs:, who
might be discharged there, to remain in the country, tl sat very
Tew of them would avail themselves of the privilege cef going
home at the expiration of their term of service. The prin-
ciple, therefore, of keeping soldiers in the army long er than
was provided by their term of service, was both inexpedient
and ennecessary. 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 Eng!ian6 after
having served his term of service in India. He bel'ieved that
the disbanding of a number of soldiers in India after theiir ser-
vice would, in some eircumstances, be attended 'with. the
greatest danger. From the moment these soldiers were dis-
discharged, they were left uncontrolled by any military, taw, at
the same time provided with subsistence. What must he the
effect of discharging those seldiers and leaving them to w ander
through the country without any military discipline whatever.
Earl GittEl said he would call the attention of the .douse to
the facts of tee case. By the fourth cause of the Bill it would
be seen that some of the objections that had beers 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.
Tee Duke of WELLINGTON said that he agreed with the
Noile Earl that it would be extremely inconvenient to allow
a number of soldiers to be without control in India. There
almuld 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
greatinconveniences connected with the working of the Bill.
He had heard of a case of great hardship with respect to a cler-
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 Ro-
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 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, which he proposed to do, and it was no matter
whether he asked those questions on the second or third reading.
of the 13111. The present was a question which certainly was
orie that ought to be considered as very peculiar. They must
look at the Bid 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
ineonveniencies.

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 cognizance, 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 eharge, had taken place, and he certainly
thought that some remedy should be found for a system which
admitted of so much above. 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 indistinetively heard)
said he could mention several 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 Ist 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 outof 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 be 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
not 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 to look with patience, and he hoped that when the
measure came under discussion this irregularity would be re-
medied. He hoped also that the clauses of this present mea-
sure would, before they were passed into a law, be remodelled
so as better to meet the wants of the country to which they
were to be applied.
Lord BEA U MON T said that the clergy hail 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 2.55. they lost ss. This was a matter which ought
to be remedied by the Government.
Earl GREY said that with regard to the observation of
the Noble Lord (the Earl of Clancarty) he was not then pre-
pared to enter upon the matter fully. With regard to the
observations of the Noble Lord who had last spoken, the evil
he complained of could only be remedied by the Church Tem-
poralities Act, which might at some future time be brought
under their notice.
The Marquis of HERTFORD wished to make a few observa-
tions upon this 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 free 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 FITZ WILLIAM said that in his opinion the measure ,
would be attended with not only unsatisfactory but 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 rosponsibillty rested entirely
with them. It rested upon 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 Elizabeth 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 few 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 some 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 as it may, he was strongly im-
pressed with a conviction that the land of Ireland would never
be able to sustain the poor of the country, either in times of
prosperity or in times of depression.
After a few words from Lord ABINGEB. and Lord Mosr-
EAGLE, the latter of whom moved the insertion of a clause,

.art GREY resisted the insertion of the clause.
After some further conversation, the clause was negatived
without a division.
On Clause 10
Earl GREYt'zowsed an amendment.
The Earl of
on the clause, and Le NBOROUGH made a few observations
which he believed wouldtlted into the general merits of the Bill,
earbeitfoouuntd. wholly inoperative, as there
was no machinery to
Earl GREYYparatedeprecatedclause,
ethe discussion of the merits of the
Bill on each se
....tirl.be hoped that their Lordships
would not follow the Noble
unusual a course.
After a few words from Earl Gin se'
The Earl of WICKLOW saidrithEatYhte retained the opinion
he had expressed the other night olt.thi
,:vere the only one
before their
Lordships. If the objection now e subdect
that could be urged, they could inserta ae
tenant to surrender in the same way as clause
to
enable the
expired. the lease had not
The Earl of CLANCARTY said he could not azre w;,,,
what was urged in favour of them. The same poweiwase with
given of subdividing the land, and there was no improvement
effected by the present measure.
Lord iIEDESDALE said, that at present there was no
power to enable the proprietor to make arrangements with
respect to the matter with the occupier, unless they could
make some arrangement between the landlord and tenant on
this point, they could not expect that the measure could work,
and he would, therefore, take the clause of which he had given
notice, to empower the landlord to make an agreement with
the tenant. _

Earl GREY said that he was not prepared to oppose the
clause, but he thought that it would be likely to endanger. the
Bill in another plae.e- if the amendments of his Noble Friend
were agreed to.
Lord MONTEAGLE 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
press fora I: ision on his clause.

Lord CAMPBELL thought that the Noble Lord ought:not
to persist in the course be was adopting.
Lord MONTEAGLE called the 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 had in the matter, to make the amendment, the House
of Commons might not so readily accept 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 proprietors to act as ex officio
guardians in their absence.
After a few observations from Lords REDESDALE and
MONTEA OLE,
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 enacted that the whole 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 'would be to raise
no rate whatever above 35. 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 FITZWILLIAM 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 Is.
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 Birmingham and Oxford
Junction Railway, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton,
and Dudley Railway Amalgamation Bill,
Sir F. THESIGER 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, and the petitions of other
shareholders in the Birmingham and Oxford Railway,
against the said Bill. The Hon. and Learned Member
entered at considerable length into the details of the
proceedings which had been 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, namely, 10/. ss.
a share, and a meeting was called, at which resolu-
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 clauses of the Dissolution Act.
This, however, received no attention, and the allotted
number of days was allowed to pas: over without
the meeting being called. The shareholders, however
then called it themselves, and the shares represented
were no fewer than thirty-five thousand ; the directors
were present also, but they only represented one
thousand shares. It was proposed 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 did not consider
themselves bound by the proceedings of the di-
roctors. A petition was then preseeted to the
House stating these facts, which was referred to
the Committee, who in their turn refused to eetrtain
it, considering that the petitioners had no locus standi.
It was stated also that there was a rule that share
holders should not be heanl 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 case of
Henry Smith v. the Exeter and Falmouth 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 think fit, they
could not grant him redress. In 1342 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 decisions.
In 1844, in the cases of the Northern and Eastern
Railway, and the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway Com-
panies, petitioners, being shareholders in the two com-
panies, appeared before Committees, and were allowed
to be heard. He confessed that this appeared to
him to be an a fortiori case, because it was
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 33,000 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, and
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 clement in proving
the preamble to the Bill that it should be shown that
the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company were
desirous of forming the amalgamation for the purpose
of being afterwards sold and transferred to the Great
Western Company ; but what was the course
pursued by tho 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 an unopposed measure.
Now he did trust that he had brought a case before the
[louse which demanded its serious attention. He had
stated the facts as clearly and distinctly as be possibly
could, and in his opinion 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 that had taken place,
both in law and equity, in connexion with this matter.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then related the pro-
ceedings which have been instituted its law and equity
by the shareholders of the Birmingham and Oxford
Junction Company ; and concluded by moving that the
Bill be recommitted, with instructions to the Committee
to hear the opposing petitioners.
Mr. GOULBURN would not enter into the legal
merits of the question, but as Chairman of the Com-
mittee on this Bill ho would simply state the course
which the Committee had taken in the matter.
Their duty was to consider how far the provisions of
that Bill were consistent with public justice, and how
far its provisions could be carried into effect. The ques
Lion upon this particular Bill was, whether the share-
holders were at liberty to impungn the Acts of the ge-
neral corporation, or Acts which affected 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 not 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 par-
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 Committee,
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
the company, under the authority of 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-
holderse.: vsieoln'e
He thought that this question ought never to have been
permitted to vote under certain conditions.
lastdiscussed, after the decision of the Committee. In the
man, on the of
fi
merits wllrelhiaomf:,etznh.t there was a decision in a
Committee,
penly stated that
Bailerheard
meritshe
flc~
been
the
mittee. and the reports
pethtietiontewros
"Divide, di-
cempaniea were the a
toell cep believed that
public policy,
hadvide "o) itish madtandhi
were made accordingly to the lall'ao
place
inommittee, and
oipipeotsiiiti on to
that decision was prematire,c )nturEr;till
and unworthy of the consideration
that the arnalpmation should take
the votes of a majority of the shareholders.
therefore, that the House ought to abide by the decisioncght,
of the Committee.—(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.")

Mr. EDWARD BULLER said, that having been
Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been
made, he trusted that the House would hear him, as
would
dthey y e abgereene da
mt oo
swt p tohs es
br
he believed the decision had been quite correct.
im
leoptopopnreoncetsedwwainthtedaniyt
Bill. Having said these few words respecting the
peculiar circumstances which it was stated made
the present case an exception to the general rule,
it was his opinion no body of shareholders ever
had a: worse "case to come before Parliament. What
were the real facts of the case ? An arrangement had
been proposed for 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 one 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 directors 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 effect that where the Great Western Railway
Company only proposed to give 101, the London and
North Western offered 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. He 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
anxious for no delay—(Cheers and groans)—but in the
face of them he would say, that on former occasions he
had objected to that tribunal deciding upon railways ;
and he asked the House if his views had not been
confirmed ?—(Hear, 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.
Gentleman 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
railway Bills?—(Hear, 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 llouse to destroy that opinion. IF
this were done would Oat 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 that decision had been:arrived at
after a careful examination of all the facts in the
case. This, if it were nothing more, would be suf-
cient to determine him to vote against the motion.
of his lion. 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 lion. and Learned Nlember's first
attempt to thwart this measure, for he had on
a previous occasion moved that the Bill be read that
day six months. He thought that this was
a most improper tribunal to decide the Inatt,:r.
and he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to
support the decision of the Committee. That dectsion
should only he 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
principle of justice to uphold their authority.
Lord ROBERT (;ROSVENOR 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
Captain 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 agreed 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.
Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway (Deviations
between Duntocher Lime Works and Bowling, &c.)
Caledonian and Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railways
Amalgamation.
. _ _

Caledonian Railway( Purchase of Lease ofWishaw andColtness.)
Dublin, Dundrum, and Rathfarnham Railway (Extension to
Stephen's Green).
Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Branch from Navan to Kells).
General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Railway Branches.
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow South-
ern Terminal Railways Amalgamation.
Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway (Construction of Docks).
Great Northern Railway (Hertford, Hatfield, and St. Alban's
•

Branch).
Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West London
Railway, Widening and Enlarging of West London Railway,
and Branches to Hammersmith. and to join the London and
South-Western Railway near Lambeth).
Llynvi Valley Railway Extension.
Lynn and Ely Railway Deviation and Lynn Docks.
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension from
Athlone to Galway).
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Newcastle, An-
niskinnan, and Baltrasna Deviations).
Newry and Enniskillen Railway.
Norfolk Railway (from Thetford to the Lowestoft Railway
near Reedham, with a Branch to Halesworth).
South Staffordshire Railway (Cannock, Wyrley, and Norton
Branches, &c.)
Swansea Valley Railway.
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway (No. 1).
Westminster Improvements.
Windsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway (Richmond to
Windsor. &c.)
Windsor, Staines, and 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 did not anticipate any great
objection on the part of the Chairman of the Committee, and
there were circumstances in the case which would amply justify
the re-committal 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 the 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.

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.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE DERBY

DAY.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—Mr. Speaker' as to-morrow
is the Derby day—( Loud laughter)—which for half a century
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. It is out of its place here, being
No. 18 in the list.—( 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
hour.

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. SHARMAN CRAWFORD protested against the
House rising in the present state of things, and when so many
questions of vital import were pressing upon the attention of
the Government. He should add no more, but rest contented
with this expression of his opinion.
The adjournment of the House was then carried.