The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-01 00:00:00

RAILWAY,

Lird LYNDHURSTmoved the appointment of a
Select Committee to consider the case of this company.
Lord REDESDALE felt it necessary to call the at-
tention of their Lordships to this Committee, and
the subject to be submitted for its consideration.
There was no intention of working the line, but there
was no means of defeating an Act of Parliament. In
March last the chairman of this Committee possessed
220 shares, but he had since sold 170 of those shares.
Mr. Russell, the chairman of the Great Western Railway
Company, held 220 shares, of which he had sold 199
shares, and now only held 21 shares, having en
joyed the premium upon the shares which he
bad parted with. Then there was Mr. Stephenson,
who held 2.025 shares, of which be had parted
with 1,848 shares, retaining only 177. It was repre-
sented that the directors held 3,545 shares, but they
now held only 957. On all these grounds, then, he
thought that the order for this Committee was dangerous,
and ought to be rescinded ; and he trusted that their
Lordships would not, therefore, vote according to their
instructions, but according to the conviction of their
own consciences.

Lord LYNDHURST said that the object of this com-
pany was to make a line direct between Oxford and Bir-
mingham, in order to obtain Oompeting line to that town;
and this he had stated to be the object when he presented
this notice to the House more than six weeks ago. But
what had the Great Western Company done ? They
had used every effort to bring the line into play, but the
North-Western Company had bought 8,000 out of
50,000 shares, with a view to obtain a command over
the proceedings of the company. He begged their
Lordships to consider the powers of the Birmingham,
now called the North-Western Company—powers given
it not only far the good of the shareholders, but for that
of the public also ; and he begged that they would look
at the abuse which had been made of these powers.
Such was the conviction on his own mind that he would
persevere in his motion.
Lord BEAUMONT thought there had been a great
misconception of the case before their Lordships.
The case was not one bearing on the relative
claims of two contending companies, between
whom their Lor iships were milled to judge. That
was a misconception. The motion so grounded, was
wrong, and without precedent. If a case of a public
grievance had been made out, that would have been a
legitimate subject of public inquiry. But the miscon-
ception had arisen from the mis-statements of
the Noble and Learned Lord. He thought
the principle of selection for the Committee
was that which applied to a Committee sitting on an op-
posed Bill. But the case was one of public grievance,
and the Committee ought to have been appointed in the
usual way, the Noble and Learned Lord himself being a
member and a Chairman of the:Committee.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought the case was one
fit for, and requiring a sitting inq-airy, how those mono-
polising abuses had arisen.

Lord STANLEY said it was assumed by some of
their Lordships that there had been a public grievance;
bat he denied that there had been any thwarting
of the intention of Parliarneut, or public grievance.
The Wolverhampton and Dudley Company had power
to sill, and sell they did. But how did they come to
Parliament? Was it as bond fide shareholders?
They first contracted to sell to the Great Western;
they afterwards sold to the North-Western at
a premium ; and they wished, with this money in their
pocket, to exercise their influence. These parties came
asking Parliament to inquire into the facts. What,
then, was the Committee to do ? They would inquire
into the facts, and report upon facts already well known.
What were the Committee to do, or what did their
Lordships mean to do ? There was no fraud. The
shares of the railway in question. were in the market,
and were brought up as those of another
would have been. Looking at the whole he fat
it necessary to call upon his Noble and Learned
Friend to reconsider his motion. If he pressed it to a
division he would certainly vote against it.
Lord ASHBURTON did not mean to occupy
their Lordships' time, but the question was one
demanding the expression of opinion. This was not
like any ordinary railway Bill, for it affected the great
manufacturing interests of the north, and it was evident
that when the business of that district could not be carried
on by one line of railway, that they were entitled to
two. If, then, a mistake had been made, was it to be
said that when the subject came before their Lordships
that this mistake was not to be considered in order that
the error might be remedied ? But how did this atr,.ct
the groat companies? They gave power to raise capital
for effecting certain public purposes, and yet all those
purposes were defeated by the proceedings of a rival com-
pany. A certain Noble Lord had stated that out of the
50,000 shares 38,000 had been bought up by a rival
company. To this it was replied that those shares had
been bought, not by the company, but by individuals
connected with that company ; but when he (Lord
Ashburton) saw that the individuals who had
purchased these shares were persons who were
chiefly interested in the property of the rival
company, he could not help believing that the opposition
arose out of the conduct of the company itself, and ha
thought that this was an element well worthy of the
consideration of their Lordships.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the statement on this
subject had been made with the clearness which charac-
terised all the speeches of his Noble Friend, but yet,
notwithstanding all that, it should be tecullected
that he had only stated three or four of the
bare tacts, and though they were important
facts, yet such as only gave a very meagre view of the
ease. Their Lordships should further recollect that this
decision was not arrived at on the moment, but declared
after an adjournment, in order to afford due considera-
tion to the subject, and no doubt whatever had been
expressed upon the result at which they had arrived.
He cautioned them against changing their decision so-
lemnly come to, on any but the strongest grounds. Un-
less they did so they would destroy all importance at-
tached to the authority of the House. He would sup•
port the motion for the Committee.
Lord WICKLOW saw no good reason for the ap-
pointment of the Committee, and would oppose it.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when
there appeared for the Committee—

Content 29
Not content
Majority in Favour of the motion —
FACTORY BILL.

The house then went into Committee on the Facto-
ries' Regulation Bill.

TT hit Earlli
poafs
sSeudAtFhTrEosuhgtJh uit in
Committee,t e C
and
was ordered
to be read a third tim to morrow.
ARMY SERVICE BILL.
e
On the order of the day for the third reading of the
Army S,rvice Bill being read,
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY protested against
the measure as a mo,,t ruinous one, and he prophesied
that in a few years the Government would be most
anxious to retrace their steps. It was a most rash and in-
considerate experiment.
The B:11 was then read a third time and passed.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from
the parishes of Marylebone and Lambeth, praying for
an equalisation of the poors' rates.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. 4110 y 31.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed
Bridge House Estates Debt.
Cleveland-square, St. James's, Westminster, Improve-
ment.
Commercial Gas-light and Coke Company.
Dunfermline Waterworks.
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley. Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 1).
Imperial Continental Gas Association.
Kingsnorton, Northfield, &c., Rates.
Paivley and Renfrew Railway (Sale and Improvement).
Payne's Patents Assignment:
Plymouth and Tavistoek Road (No. 2).
Warrington Gas-light and Coke.
Wexford Free Bridge.
Westminster Improvements.
York Lovovenment (Lendal Bridge and Approaches).

REPORTS.
The following reports were brought up and agre-d to:
Airdrie and Bathgate Junction Railway (Amendment
and Deviation).
Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklauds Junction Railway
(Cowla'rs Branch).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No 5.)
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Branch to the
(.aledoniau Railway and Diversion of Canal).
G: eat Northern Railway (Extension to Leeds and Wake-
field, Deviation of Methley Branch of Wakefield, Pon-
tefract, and Goole Railway).
Great Northern Railway (Purchase of Ambergate, Not-
tingham, and Boston, and Eastern Junction Rail-
way, &c.)
Great Northern Railway (Branch to King's Lynn).
Great Northern Railway (Deviations between London
and Grantham).
London (City) Small Debts.
Lynn and Ely Railway (Lynn and Wornaegay Naviga-
tion).
Newbury Cemetery.
North British Railway (No. 2).
Royston and Hitchin Railway (Sale o- L ase).
THAMES CONSERVANCY.
On the bringing up of the report on the Thames Con-
servancy Bill,
Colonel T. WOOD moved that the proceedings f the