The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH "COMPANY .BILL

Mr. HAWES moved the consideration of the report
of the above Bill, when

Mr. ROEBUCK objected that this was not a strictly
Private Bill, and therefore he should oppose the con-
sideration of the report:

The SPEAKER.said that the Bill, in his opinion, was
strictly a Private Bill, although it gave extended power
to the Company promoting it.
Mr. ROEBUCK contended that notice ought to hafe
been given to each Member of that House who repro-

rented a borough of the provisions of this Bill. What

had been the effect in London ? The Corporation
London had carried a clause to be inserted which ex-
empted them from the operation of this measure. He
thought that similar justice ought to have been done to
Bath and other cities.

Lord MORPETH observed that he had been re-
quested to interfere with the progress of this Bill, so far

to ask that the evidence upon it be printed. Ho
would ask that some Hon. Member who bad been on the

Committee should state whether
.he thought, that in

justice to other parties who might be interested, this
ought not to be done.

Mr. HAWES said, if the Mouse thought that the
powers were too large, he, on the part of those interested
in the Bill, would consent to any proper limitation of
them, but he asserted that no public inconvenience would
result from the passing of this measure, as several Acts
were already in existence which gave similar extensive
powers. _

Mr. ROEBUCK contended that as this Act gate
powers to enter into contracts with all railway compa-
nies, it was decidedly a first or second, and not a third
class Bill. He could instance a case in point,
where the same objection was entertained by the
Standing Orders' Committee of the House.
The Railway Guarantee Incorporated Company was
introduced into the House as a third class Bill,
but as it gate powers to treat with all railway companies,
it was held to be a first, and was therefore thrown out
as a third class Bill. This Act, in a similar manner, gave
the Company power to contract with the railways in the
kingdom._

The SPEAKER said, that in his opinion, the Bill was
strictly a third class Bill.
After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, which
were not audible in the gallery,
Mr. HAW ES said he should have been better able to
discuss the technical objections of his Hon. and Learned
Friend, if he had given him notice on Saturday, that it
was his intention to wake them. But after what had
fallen from the Noble Lord and the Speaker, he should
postpone the further consideration of the subject until
after Easter.

Lord MORPETH also postponed his motion for the
printing of the evidence adduced before the Committee
until the same period.
NORTH KENT RAILWAY.

Mr. HUME said he had a petition to present from
Sir Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, the chairman of the North
Kent Railway, which was of a peculiar nature, but be-
fore he presented it he wished to ask a question. It
stated that a petition had been presented by the Hon.
Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) against the
Bill, and expressing a wish that it might be takes
from group 14. and referred to the Com-
mittee to be appointed in the City of London.
He believed the line was not intended to cross the
Thames, but to run to Camberwell, about two miles from
the river, and was to have a terminus in Union-street,
Southwark. He wished, therefore, to ask whether, when
the Bill had been classified with another, which proposed
to make a line from Union-street to Southwark-bridge,
it was competent for the House to take it from the Com•
mittee and to refer it to the Commission to which he had
referred ?

The SPEAKER was understood to say that it was
competent for the House to order a Bill to be so referred.

WIGAN ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The following Members, appointed to serve on this
Election Committee, appeared at the table of the House,
and were sworn:—Sir W. Heathcote, and Messrs. E.
Denison,Trotter, Botfield, and Lambton
LONDON AND NEW WINDSOR RAILWAY.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of the city of Westminster, in favour
of this line of railway; also one from the parish of Sr.
Mary Abbot's, to the same effect.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time :
Eastern Union and Hadleigh Junction Railway.
Maldon, Witham, and Braintree Railway.
London and Brighton Rail way (East Grinstead Branch).
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway
Amendment and Branches (No. 1).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Raile
Amendment and branches (No. 2).
South Eastern Railway (No. 7) (Extension of statioes
at Ashford).
Brighton and Chichester Railway (Bognor and Little,
hampton branches).
Scottish Grand Junction Railway.
The Manchester Markets Bill was read a second time,
on the motion of Mr. MARK PHILIPS.
The third Reading of the London and Brighton (E tEt
Grinstead Branch) and Brighton and Chiche;:tef
Branches Bills were postponed till to-morrow.
ST. GEORGE-THE-MARTYR RECTORY BILL,
Mr. KEMBLE moved that the second reading of S&•
George the Martyr (Southwark) Rectory Bill be post'
poned until Monday, the 27th day of April. No one
regretted more than he did that there should be an}'
rause of division between the rector of St. Georg' !:
Southwark, and so respectable a body of people as 11,17,
parishioners. If the postponement of the Bill would
tend to have a good elect, as he apprehended it woul(1
he hoped the House would concur in his motion.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH opposed the postponerornt'
some valid grounds ought to have been stated for such 5
course, and as that had not been done he did not See
why they should violate the standing order of the House'
that there should not be more than 21 days bettyeell
the first and the second reading of any private Bill"
This Bill was to exempt the rector of the parish fronl
the payment of rates. To show the excitement whicij
the Bill had produced he (Sir W. Molesworth) hao
received a petition from the ratepayers, signed by 2,th:
out of the 2,500 ratepayers composing the entire pariso
against the Bill. i'he petition was also signed by &1,1
churchwardens, with all the parish officers. He shout
therefore oppose the motion by the Hon Member.
Mr. ANTROBUS supported the motion. a
Mr. HAWES considered, that as no valid reason ha
l
been assigned for the postponement, the House should
not depart from its own standing orders.
Sir DE LACY EVANS was of a similar opinion.
Mr. KEMBLE thought that the House was not el
bably aware of the precise effects of the motion vihied
he had made. He would ask whether he was not boah
to present a petition which had been signed by the thaii
jority of his constituents ? The rector hitst
e
had not the slightest apprehension that te"
second reading of this Bill would be broug"
on before Easter. As regarded the sessional 00'11,5;
he would remind the House that they had several time
been set aside; and in this case of this Bill he ought ",.,f
observe that it was only introduced on the 19th :„
February, and he thought, therefore, that the
would not refuse what appeared to him se reasonable
request as its delay.
Mr. HUME thought that no reasonable grounds hi 0
been made out for the delay. If an Hon. Member ha'l4o
duty to perform to his constituents, he had 9,:at
a duty to perform in obeying the orders of 1,711
House. The rector came before that House with a it
to serve his personal interests, and as was allovve(h_e.
was quite opposed to the feeling of his parishioee,'ir
What reason was there, therefore, for the suspensimi as
the standing orders ? If the business of that House lie
to be satisfactorily conducted the suspension of t ,
orders was not to be lightly made, and he hoped thercd,
fore that the object of this motion would not be grahtebt
Mr. SPOONER thought the orders in this case mig4
be very well dispensed with, and there was sonietl'„
of a claim for that request, as although the rector,%;
peered as a single party, yet there were several otli;;
individuals of influence who were anxious respecting
thd
There was sufficient reason for the suspension 01,.00
standing orders in the fact that. acceding to this moa0;
would allay much angry feeling, and lead to no injarl°
results.
se use
Mr. WARBURTON submitted that if the ee°ole
assented to the validity of the reasons assigned Kee
Hon. Member for bringing in this Bill, Hon. Meunog
would be in a worse position now than before the Paa'„o,
of the standing order that existed against such a loril
sition.—(Hear.) By the order being strictly setheotie
to, Hon. Members were aware that it' it were not 049
plied with there was an end of every Bill in the 9,%re
predicament; but if the rule be departed from t"
wo
Mr. uld be an end to all certainty. jae,
J. COLLETT, amidst loud cries of "
divide," said he would oppose this Bill upon its hle;.00
for he considered it nothing more nor less than a g__,o4
attempt at jobbing, and if any additional instance ,e
wanted, this would supply it, of the grasping and get
christian spirit of the clergy, who now sought t°,.s
themselves exempted from any liability to the supr'oold
the poor.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds, he w
give the Bill his most determined opposition. 4141
Alderman HUMPH ERY hoped his Hon. Friend 100
withdraw the Bill, as it was quite clear that it would 5t
pass the House even after Easter, and he had not h`
tbo
any one say a word in favour of it, while it appeared
all the parishioners were against it. 0:1
Mr. WILSON P A.TTEN, amidst loud cries of
e,„if
vide," was understood to say he hoped his Hon. •
would bring the question before the House at once'( al"
- vi.)

Mr. LAIIOUCIIEIZE hoped that the House

not for one moment listen to the proposition of the 'tier
Member opposite, but adhere to the sessional ordoi
What were they asked to do ? Why they were ‘,ll
to postpone the second reading of a Bill, not 4;4 tb"
merits, but because of its demerits. He hoped, '''ool'
sake of maintaining the dignity of the House, r
Members would not sanction such a proposal, bets,
Mr. GREENE suggested that the motion Inwhe
be withdrawn, and not let the House be put to t
necessary trouble of a division. golige of
Mr. KEMBLE was the last man to put the
~iOOlO
unnecessary trouble, and, after the strong exPre'ot
opinion on both sides of the House with real"
the Bill, he should withdraw his motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn. pg
th
Mr. HUME understood that, in withdravil
motion, the Bill dropped. too-1
Mr. KEMBLE said his motion was for Pos filothe
the second reading of the Bill till the 27th inst"',
course it would be competent for him now 0:1 :fit;
second reading within the twenty-one days. oenoo
hended, however, that the promoters, acting ll' of
own advice, would withdraw the Bill altogether:,pitice,
Viscount SANDON embraced that opport;:tioeype
asking the question, of which he had givell4, ?
lative to the manner of treating railway "" ;_(113i0
occasion which the Hon. Member for for-
.00;
presented was a fitting oppportunitT pre° fig
to do so. He would now therefore, 011fe
a petition from merchants, bankers, ,a;',AtO.er
of Liverpool, praying that Parliament would to 000 be
for postponing the passing of any considerable so, t 0
of railway Bills this session ; and, in (I°l;parefoe
would ask Sir Robert Peel, whether he was Le,. 00
advise any course which should have that en „ore
petitioners stated that they had heard tha
great depression in all branches of coreiner,e,eii, vor'-fot
Truman and Cooke, brokers, stated that the
branches of commerce were severely dept' bat 1%10"
only had there been a great fall in prices, [le,
_;,0111
"ddmand for goods in the Indian and Chin tr o 0
00"
principal cauao a this, they said, W 1414

amount of railway undertakings which bad sprung up,
and which were absorbing the capital of the country..
It had been proposed that Parliament should not pro-
ceed with the railway Bills before it without hav-
ing a meeting of the shareholders of the various lines,
so that no Bill should be gone on with till the
sanction of the great majority of the shareholders was
obtained. He would propose that no sanction should
be given to any railway Poill where, after a meet-
ing of the shareholders, the House was petitioned by
a majority of that meeting, not to allow such Bill
to proceed. This would prevent many of the schemes
which were not likely to turn out good speculations,
from being paased. lie hoped her Majesty's Govern-
ment would give this important matter their fullest con-
sideration.
Sir R. PEEL said there were few persons in that
House who could not at first have seen that many of the
railways which were sought to Lie sanctioned were not
profitable speculations. There had been a spirit of spe-
culation for some time past, but he,thought it could not be
checked by that House. The speculation in railways was
the same as the speculation in South American Bonds, and
the interference: with one would be an interference with
the other. The experien,:e of time would prevent
[ these railway speculations from being too largely
indulged in. He thought that there was no
greater right to interfere with this question
than in the ordinary commercial speculations,
for he went on the principle that every person was the
best judge of his ow:. concerns, and was best competent
to manage his own affairs., At the same time, consider-
ing the extensive powers the House had in railway spe-
culations, it was in some measure a party to them.
Speculations of this kind differed from
the ordinary run of speculation in the respect that the
Legislature was called upon to take away and interfere
with private property for public purposes, and it ap-
peared to him that the House might, therefore, inter-
pose with respect to that specie's of speculation. As
far as the individuals themselves were concerned,
he had no pity for them, for this sort of speculation
would never he corrected except from the per-
sonal suffering of the party—(Hear, hear)—for
many of the speculators diverted their money from
their ordinary courses, and from the trade from
which they derived their subsistence. At the commence-
ment he, on the part of her )Majesty's Governmet, gave
it as his opinion that it might be possible to interfere with
this habit by putting a check upon some of the railway
Bills. He spoke with considerable hesitation on this
subject, as it might be unwise for the Howe to in'adere
on this subject. His Hon. Friend the Member for Liver-
pool called the attention of the House to this subject.
It would be for the House to consider whether it had the
power to interfere indirectly in putting a stop to those railway
speculations. It would be in the recollection of the House
that a vast number of Bills were projected last year, but after
they had been prepared a great change of circumstances took
place; for instance, the amount of capital became greater than
had been anticipated. It appeared that the profits were not
likely to be what had been anticipated ; the difficulty of pro-
curing money had been increased. The hope was entertained
during the railway fever that money could be had at two and a
half per cent. ; but when it came to be applied for it was
found impossible to be had even at five per cent. ; and all these
circumstances had acted very powerfully to deter many from
engaging further in railway speculation.—( Hear.) As the law
now stood in reference Sc railways, he apprehended the
case to be put thus :—a railway was projected—parties took
shares and held scrip, and they appointed a provisional com-
mittee and directors. Well, a great change took place, such a
change as made it desirable on the part of the subscribers to
dissolve the company ; and if it was found that the line would
not be a profitable one, or that it would not be for the benefit
of the public to make it, he could not see wh7 there should
not be a power in the legislature to dissolve it. In such a
case he would ask what test should the House apply in order to
ascertain that it was desirable to dissolve the company ? He
should say the test would be the feelings of the subscribers.—
( Hear.) If a majority of the subscribers were of opinion that
the company should be dissolved, he could not see why this
House should not lend its sanction to such a proceeding. He
was aware of some Scotch companies in which the shareholders
were a good deal alarmed, when they had heard that their Bills
had poised the Standing Orders' Committee, and they came to
the resolution to dissolve the company.—( Hear, hear.) He
knew another case in which 100,000/. had been subscribed,
10,0001. of which• had been expended in preliminary proceed-
ings, so that 90,000/. remained vested in Exchequer-bills ;
but the directors and subscribers having become convinced that
the line would not be a profitable one, they came to a resolu-
tion to dissolve the company ; but then there was 90,0001.
still invested, and in the meantime a few of the
subscribers objected to the dissolution of the company.
Even supposing the Bill were to fail in the present session, the
directors would not be relieved from their obligation to do all
their power to tit the scheme sanctioned by the Legislature.
He was not aware that the directors had power to dissolve the
company, or the shareholders the power to absolve the directors
from their obligations, even supposing the Bill had failed to
pass the Standing Orders' Committee; and yet it was mani-
festly for the advantage of the public that such a company
should be broken up, and the balance of their subscription
divided among the shareholders but a single shareholder
Might file a Bill in Chancery, and prevent this course being
adopted. Now he thought the House ought, with a, little
delay as possible, to pass a Bill enabling the majority of the
shareholders to dissolve the company in the event of their
ascertaining that the scheme would not, in the end, prove a
profitable undertaking. He should propose, however, that the
liability of the directors and the parties to the original agree-
ment should still remain, and they should become j ,intly liable
for the debt of any creditor of the compoay. It might be
necessary to have some kind of an official assignee, to see if
the balance of the funds were properly appropriated, and the
claims of creditors fairly and honourably liquidated. If the
House would sanction a bill of this principle, they woald en-
able the majority of the shareholders to break up the company,
and prevent the public from 'new-ring the inconvenience of
establishing undertakings which held out us prospect of public
advantage, or of yielding any profit to the parties promoting
the undertaking, and prevent the majority ..f the shareholders
falling a sacrifice to a few surveyors, solicitors, and engineers,
and be at the same time of incalculable advantage. He thought
they ought to make some provision that a majority of sub-
scribers in point of number, and in point of amount of shares
held by them, should be taken as a fair and full representation
of the opinion of the subscribers at large, and he thought that
the parties ought to be allowed to present a petition to Parlia-
ment, expressing their willingness to withdraw the concern ;
and he thought also that Parliament should give the
power to the parties to make that representa-
tion. There would be no principle of selection or
interference, and he believed that if they were to pass such a
Bill, it would effectually relieve the money market. He hoped
that in the course of to-morrow a full explanation would be
given with respect to the subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had always been of opinion that this
Matter should be taken up by the Government, and he had
felt great disappointment, when the Committee upon this sub-
ject was appointed at the commencement of the session, that
some proposal
_ was not made by the Government to that Com-
mittee. He regretted very much that the question had not been
taken up before by the Government, as an earlier interference
would have been more effectual than an interference now.
As far as giving facilities to those parties who had embarked in
these undertakings to get rid of them, he would have no ob-
jection, and he thought such a measure would give universal
approbation, bust if they attempted to go further then they
would pursue a course full of embarrassment. It seemed to
him that if. they rejected a Bill on the ground that it was not
right the capital should be so applied, it would be an interference
with capital which he thought objectionable. He would not,
however, be so wadded to abstract principle as not to consider
the subject, on good cause being shown to that effect. He
thought that something was required to be done, but he was of
opinion that the scheme proposed by the First Lord of the
Treasury was not calculated to have the effect intended by the
Right lion. Baronet.
Sir
G. CLERK said, with respect to the Committee
appointed by the House to fixthe amount of capital,
that Committee was Bills to not authorised to limit the number
of railway
taken this session. The Right
Honeurable Baronet had
interfere in properly said that it would
be very impolitic to in
degree with the applica-
tion of capital, and that nothing any
, ttnestion of the greatest
necessity would justify the Government an interfeeence.
He coulikassure the Right Hon. Baronet,inatell:otmhemmit;tebea; hef had re-
ttbaissheo
eeived any encouragement from
before them
should have
been prepared to put this case b
, however, was
re-
ceived no encouragement, he did not think it worth hisades
to raise any discussion on the subject. The case
that .some
now in a different position, for in various parts of the ee,j„
trays
especially in Liverpool, there was a strong feeling
facility should be given to persons who, in the course of last
autumn, had embarked in those schemes, and who were now
convineed of their folly, of withdrawing tram them, care bring
taken that all agreements entered into by them, and all ex-
penses incurred, should be discharged. He trusted that the
measure alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet would. be of
such a nature as to csrry out the object the petition hat in
view, while no injustice would he done to the promoters of any
of those schemes who might have been actuated by a wish to
further the publia good.
Mr. WARD said that he thought that the Right Hdn. Ba-
ronet hadtaken the right view of the subject, and, with all due
deference to his Hon. Friend near him, it WiS material ii. the
present state of the public mind,' that the option should be
given to the majority' of the shisreholders, that on their applica-
tion the Committee should not proceed wi•h their thtl. His
Hon. Friend had spoken of provisional directors. lie (, Ir.
Ward) did not believe that in three years such an animal as a
live provisional o director would Pilot in the three
kingdoms. The Committees of the House would be willing to
act on the wishes of the shareholders, when a majority of them
expressed their opinions that the Bill should not be proceeded
with, and he thought that it would have a happy effect on all
those large classes of witnesses now connected with the railway
interest.

,
Mr. W. PATTEN said that he agreed with the Hon.
. Gen-
tlemane who had just spoken, but it must be recollected hat the
Measure would only give power to the company majority of to dissolve
itself on the vote of its shareholders. A great
these Bills were under consideration, or in the course of being
committed, and an enormous amount of expense was incurred
without any power on the part of the shareholders to preventit The proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet was well worthy
of the attention of the House. He thought it of great
importance that it should he known to the country, that any petition presented to the House requesting the withdrawal of
Bills would be referred to the Committee on the Bill ; and it
would then have its due weight on the consideration whether
the Bill should be proceeded with or not, and that if the share-
holders wished to withdraw a Mil a petition to that end would
have due effeet.
Mr. P. BTEW ART said that the only consideration was,
that although it had been suggested that
it should be compul-
sory cn scrip holders to report their opinion of the lines with
which they were concerned
law to the construction of the before permission wasiiven by
e
scheme, the proceeding
would
and compared, it would r
be attended with diffieulty. If
these opinions were gathered
sibility, and also tend elieve Parliament of a great respon-
veronsiderably to remove a weight
from the money market y c
Mr. BA RING should feel very strongly disposed to hesitate,
unless a very strong reason indeed were t;iven, before he con-
sented to limit the capital for railways. ' Mr. B. DENISON was of opinion that, were the share-
holders resided in different parts of the country, the introdtte-
tion of the clause would occasion great inconvenience; for
instance in the case of the London and York line, the share-
holders were spread all over the kingdom, and it Would be pre-
posterous to call them together at a meeting in order that they
might give in their opinion that the Bill ought to be pro-
ceeded with. It would be the interest of existing railways for
the promoters of them to induceparties who had taken up with
new lines from going on with them.
Mr. BERNAL was of opinion that it was perfectly possible
for any shareholder to vote by proxy. The shareholders might
go before a magistrate and make an affidavit, in any distant
part, and it might be transmitted as his vote to any place, how-
ever distant, where the meeting should be held.
After a few words from Mr. HODGSON, who briefly ex-
plained the manner in which the affairs of railway companies
were wound up,
sir It PEEL observed that he was before unacquainted
with the mysteries of winding up. He would defy any man to
'Peal with any confidence at this lament of what ought to be

adopted with respect to railway affairs; and the .Government
incurred no blame in acting in the combined manner they did
with respect to these subjects. It would not be wise to inter-
fere too early, or before the fever had abated. What he pro-
posed was, that the original shareholders, and those who had
sold their interest, should have no voice whatever in the choos-
ing whether this scheme should be proceeded with or not. He
was of opinion, that if a certain number of share-
holders should present a petition to Parliament set-
ting forth that it was their opinion that the scheme, if
carried out, would not be beneficial to the public ; in that
case he should think it advisable that proceedings in that
House with respect to the Bill ought not to be carried any fur-
ther. It should, however, be clearly understood, that the peti-
tion so presented should receive the signature of the majority
of the shareholders ; and that, at whatever stage of the Bill the
petition should be presented, all further proceedings should be
immediately stopped, so that it would be unnecessary the Bill
should be read a third time. Of course, the original share-
holders, who had parted with their shares, would not be
allowed to have a voice in the matter. It must be observed
that the directors of the company had no certain knowledge
who the shareholders of the company were, and therefore, to a
great extent, any collision between them would be prevented,
and each would act as'a check upon the other. It appeared to
him that all parties would carefully look after their own in-
terest. They would also have a lucus peniteatia, by which they
would be enabled, if they thought proper, to be relieved of
their responsibility of carrying the project to a termination.
He should be very sorry to express any objection against the
principle of the clause; but some restrictions with respect to
the regalation of the majority of shareholders should be
introduced.
Mr. Eaaxs and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQIIF:R made
some observations. but in so low a tone that they were quite
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. COLLETT eorsidered that it was incumbent bn the
Government to lay down some definite plan by which railway
affairs might be regulated. The same difficulty l,ad occurred
with reference to gauges, and no distinct plan had been decided
on. An important Commission had been investigating this
matter upwards of three months, and their report had not yet
been produced. He thought that it was highly desirable that
Hon. Members should have an opportunity of perusing that
report during the Easter recess, and hoped that it
would be very shortly laid upon the table. He
was very glad that the Right Hon. Baronet had
drawn a proper line between shareholders and scripholders.
He looked forward to this as a measure which would afford
great relief to a considerable ,portion of the public, and 14
trusted it would prove to be such. It would also be very
important if it afforded relief from responsibility to those
who had signed the deed of register ; of course, after due
regard being had to all the just claims of creditors.
Lord MORPETH said, he looked upon this Bill as a most
prudent and proper measure ; but it would be well that
care should be taken, in all cases where companies were
to be dissevered, that the scrip holders had expressed a wish
to that effect.

Mr. RUTIIERFORD said he quite agreed with the Right
Honourable Baronet that this was a very necessary measure,
but he thought it would be defective unless it contained a clause
protecting all parties who had fair and just claims on the Com-
pany, and to take care that those claims were satisfied before
the company could be dissolved. There was also another point
of importance to which he would wish to call attention ; it was
this—suppose that while a Bill was under investigation before a
Committee a number of shareholders should send in a petition
praying that the proceedings should not go en any further,
what difficulty could this House have in declaring in favour of
that petition, before this Bill had passed? This course might
be adopted without affecting the liabilities of the parties.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET gave notice that he
would postpone the third reading of all railway Bills until after
Easter.

Mr. RICARDO hoped the Bill would provide against men
of straw signing the deed of register, and thereby prevent a
great deal of fraud.

Mr. C. BULLER said be hoped that the House, before it
broke op, would adopt a resolution by which the public would
be made aware that it was the intention of the Government to
propose such a measure as this, in order that parties might be
prepared to act upon it.
In reply to an observation made by Mr. JOHN ABEL
SMITH, which was inaudible in the gallery,
Sir R. PEEL said it would be better to abstain from en-
tering into those details at present ; but it would be advisable to
have a clause in the Bill, empowering the Standing Orders'
Committee to dissolve a company under the circumstances
already stated ; and also a clause requiring that a meeting
should be held, at which a majority of the shareholders should
declare in favour of dissolving the company.
Lord SANDON hoped that no delay would be given to the
measure.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL would wish to observe, that in refe-
rence to Irish railway Bills, though a great desire had been
manifested to facilitate the passing of them, with a view to
giving employment, yet many Bills had been passed towards
the carrying out of which not a single step had been taken.
He, therefore, hoped that some measure would be introducesl
by which parties would be compelled to complete a line in a
given time after the Bill had been passed.—( Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to.

Lord SANDON presented a petition from the merchants,
bankers, and brokers, in Liverpool, praying the House not to
encourage the great excess of railway speculation which had
arisen this year. He also presented, on the part of one •f the
Members for the city of London, a petition signed by every
member of the Stock-Exzhange praying that, with a view of
benefiting the general commercial state of the country, those
persons who had embarked in railway speculation should have
facilities afforded to them of withdrawing from the schemes.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—ECCLESIASTICAL RE-
VENUES IN IRELAND.

Mr. ELLIS gave notice of his intentioi to ask the Right
Hun. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, whether it was the intention of Government to take any
steps to restrain the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland
from expending the capital of sums of money arising from the
ecclesiastical revenues derived from land in that country.
Mr. W. COLLETT (who was very imperfectly heard) gave
notice that it was his intention, on going into Committee on
the Protection to Life Ireland Bill, he would move for a
clause to give compensation to the tenant farmers who might
be injured by the passing of the Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he would postpone his motion for
a Select Committee to inquire into the organisation and admi-
nistration of the coestabulary force in Ireland, and of
the Dublin police ; and also his motion for a Bill to
amend the laws relating to grand juries in Ireland. He
also gave notice of his intention of moving, after Easter,
that an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, urging on her consideration that not one
of her Majesty's advisers or Ministers of State. was, by a re-
sidence in the country or in auy other way, acquainted with
the Irish people, and also that the executive ()facers of the
local Government of Ireland were perfect strangers is Ireland,
and-yet held situations of the highest responsibility. And
under these circumstances it was not surprising that it should
be found that in the conduct of those officers there was a disre-
gard of Irish interest and of Irish feeling ; and also a total
want of confidence in those officers on the part of the people.
He also gave notic, of his intention to move on Thursday next
that, with aview to diminish the expense of the railway projects
of Ireland, all inquiries into the merits of Irish railways,
which had hitherto taken place in this country, should after
the present session be allowed to take place in Ireland.
PROTECTION TO LIFE IN IRELAND.

Sir R. PEEL said that he did not know what probability
there was of the House coming to a division that evening, on
the first reading of the Bill for the protection of life in Ireland,
but supposing that it did net, he would ask of those Hon.
Members who had notices for to-morrow to allow the debate to
proceed. He did not wish to interfere with the full discussion
of the measure, but if the House would allow him to take the
discussion on the Corn Bill, a considerable amount of good for
the nation might be effected, and if Hon. Members could con.
elude the discussion that evening, and permit the discussion of
the Corn Bill to be proceeded with to-morrow, they would
render the nation a most essential service.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he could assure the Right
Honourable Baronet that every one of the Members on
his side of the House felt as deeply as he did
the inconvenience suffered by the country from the course
taken in the conduct of these Bills. The Right Hon. Baronet,
however, had it in his power to move the adjournment of the
debate till after Easter, and to continue the discussion on the
Corn Bill. As far as he himself was concerned, he would give
way to the discussion on the Corn Bill, bnt would not in any
way facilitate the discussion on the Coercion Bill.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Gentleman should de-
fer his speech until after the motion for the readiug of the
order of the day.
On the motion that the order of the day he read.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said he did not wish to adopt any con-
cealment in the course he was about to take. It was the
bounden duty of the Irish Members to take care that. the dis.•
cussion on the Coercion Bill should be a discussion in which
the misgovernment of Ireland should be fully canvassed, and
that every opportunity should be given for the exposition of the
wrontigsilolf the country, and for the suggestion of such measures
as would conduce to the removal of those evils which the op-
posite Party so utterly denied.
Nl' R.
tPoEhEat.resaadid
athat in permitting, after due!discussion,
of the Right Hon, the
hwa:setrta.ini:.
opportunity( ~
of firstspeaking
nt
gimoen,
itthientlitosn .suGbesnegtlue
subsequent would
stages.
asrltepoa r
t question
tha tit
NBEarosaniedt. that.
aHtehehawdishheeadrdtoa
Gough from
India,
of the Government to recall Sir Hugh
litheatwh°euiddi dw
ni
nt
know
knowv,
o f a whethern
y such
u c h such
repo
rat
report was true? •
t
as the Sir
oint.e aPilEudEeLd said
tobLt Hon. M. mber. He had just ad-
visedproceeding would not show any inten-
tion a peerage on Sir
1 ugh her
Bough, u‘gl stY
andt t'
that
ti°antor.f Jre.-o"'iChnogNhNin'ELL saidtht.h..atliWnituhurregard to the Coercion
it was a measure which he believed would be injudicious
for the ends it was inters'ed to answer ; it would increase these
thed Irish ple,t.pwleasalal Beth! la
nwhich
outrages which it proposed t o put
would banish from the minds ofo".
any feeling for any sympathy which had been showe'n, to them.
This Bill would never reconcile the differences b
two countries, but would produce re..ults of a most ("ties'asutru
the
nature to the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland saw
that during the seven centuries of the connexion b.stween
of
fouoludr
Government.
elrontenbta.ck
tt any but a
was time that
therbthiissesbctioaeutveloi
otisietienrgtahsteioysnhould be changed. He believed that the
interest of the two countries was bound up in the connexion
between them, and in the wish to preserve that connexion he
would rather that this measure were postponed ; and he did not
believe that the Government would lose anything by the
delay,
Had the Special Commission sent out by Government failed,
fthoer
was there anything to encourage anything like a renew al o
experiment? Any expense was better than increasing the
bad
feeling of the country. If the Government proceeded with the
Corn Bill, and adjourned the present measure, they would be
able to try the force of their hands. When the
Government at some future period could say that it had
tried every remedial measure, and that they had failed, it
would find a support from his (Mr. O'Connell's) side of the
House that it had never calculated on. He was sorry that an
accusation had been made agaiost the opponents of the Coercion
Bill by a leading journal of that morning, as having offended
public opinion. Whatever accusation might be made against
them, a great heat of feeling had arisen and would continue,
throughout the course of this debate, and he had himself been
betrayed into some warmth on the question. He certainly
could not consent to give up this measure so as to facilitate the
Gum Bill. It was his country to which he had to look, and
it was for the welfare not of one but of both countries, if this
Bill were well considered before it was allowed to pass.
Sir R. PEEL said that ho was not aware that, on any occa-
sion, he had been betrayed into any heat on the subject. He
had asked the Hon. Members on the other side of the House
to allow the orders of the day to have precedence, and had re-
ceived an answer. He hoped Hon. Gentlemen would proceed
to the orders of the day without further delay.
Mr. COLLETT would ask the Right Hon. Baronet to what
period the House would adjourn for Easter? The state of the
public business required that such an adjournment should be
for as short a period as possible.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that he thought that the perti-
nacity of the Members for Ireland was excusable. Considering
the extraordinary nature of the Bill, it was wished to bring
inbeforeethe House, he thought that Hon. Gentlemen had not
his Hon. Friends on this side of the House,
_, ad it clear what the determination of the House was as to
e emir, e to be
pursued. According to the
sure underdetermination
beitbertbemeao!
at all.discussion, nor the Corn Bill, would be advanced

After a few words from Mr, C. POW ELL, which did no'
reach the gallery,

Lord MORPETH said, that while this subject was before
the House, he could not refrain from reading a letter which be
had received from York. It did not bear immediately on the
question, but it related to it in some degree. It stated, that
pending the decision on the Corn Bill and tariff, trade and
commerce were in a state of extreme depression, and that a
large body of operatives of a respectable class were in a state
of destitution, and depending on charity, The question of
priority of discussion was not in the least interfered with in
this measure ; but he must say, that on the other hand, he
ho
debate.pedthat ample means would be given for the termination of
the
Sir R. PEEL said that be would inform the House of the
length of time for which he would adjourn the House, from
Tursday next, to-morrow (this day).
Mr. P. SCROPE could not see any reason' why the Coer-
cion Bill should be proceeded with at once, and the Corn Bill
adjourned over Easter.
Sir Pt. PEEL said that it was clear that the House would
make no progress if it took the Corn Bill to-morrow; it would
be of great advantage to the nation if it was proceeded with
at once. He had asked Hon. Gentlemen to pospone their
motion for that purpose, and he had received his answer—he
did not wish to press the question further.
Sir J. GRAHAM said,that he had offered to Hon. Members
that the Bill should be read a first time as a mere matter of
courtesy to the other House.
Mr. WARD said that the Right Hon. Baronet was under a
misconception as to the words be had used, for he had said that
he did not ask this first reading as a matter of courtesy between
the two Houses of Legislature, but the time was arrived when
it was necessary that the opinion of the House should 'decide
what was to to done on this question.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it had been remarked that he
had wished the first reading of the Bill under protest, but he
thought that such a precedent was one from which considerable
inconvenience and disorder was likely to arise, and he could not
encourage such a principle.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, if the determination was
come to to adjourn the debate, it should be adjourned till some
time after Easter. They might then go on with the Commit-
tee on the Corn Bill to-morrow night. In such a case, they
would get through with that Bill before the holidays. If the
Government would go on that night, on them rested the re-
sponsibility.
After a few worts from Mr. BROWN, in concurrence,
Colonel RAWDON suggested that if her Majesty's Govern-
ment would go on with the Corn Bill, and if Hon. Members
who had motions for to-morrow night would give way, as he
had no doubt they would, there would be no difficulty in going
on. They would then have a free stage before them. If they
would persist in going on, he would move the order of the day
for the adjourned debate be read that day three months.
Mr. C. POWELL inquired whether certain returns, re-
lating to the outrages committed in the disturbed districts of
Ireland, had been received, and were ready for production?
Slr J. GRAHAM said he had not yet received all the re-
turns.

Colonel RAWDON said he would move that which he be-
Keyed was more regular than that he intimated to do. He
begged leave to move that the other orders of the day be pro-
ceeded with

Lord 111ORPETH hoped the Hon. and Gallant Member
would not press his motion, but would allow the debate to pro-
ceed.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said, though opposed to the measure, he
could not consent to meet it in such a factious and unusual
manner. If the Bill was not taken new, the Corn Bill would
not be proceeded with that night, and the evening would be
lost. He hoped they would proceed with the debate at once.
Mr. J. COLLETT said he should wish to hear the case of
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. It must be a bad one else they
would not seek to meet the Bill in this unbecoming and left-
handed manner.

Sir R. PEEL was not to be provoked by the course taken.
There had been a full understanding on all sides that they
should that night proceed with the discussion of the Irish Pro-
tection of Life Bill. He did hope therefore they would be
allowed to proceed with the adjourned debate at once.
Colonel RAWDON, in deference to the feelings expresssed
by Hon. Members, would withdraw his amendment.
On the order of the day being then read,
Mr. CHRISTIE asked a question of the Home Secretary
about the poor-laws, the purport of which did not reach the
gallery.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied that he had not heard of
the matter referred to, and could not give any answer about it.
If notice of motion was given, then ha would be prepared to
meet it.

Mr. M'CARTHY presented a petition from the city of
Cork against the Irish Coercion Bill. It was agreed to at
a meeting presided over by the Mayor, and signed by about
3,000%m05t respectable persons. It deplored the state of
Ireland, but attributed the outrages that prevailed to
agrarian causes and the social condition of Ireland, especially
the law relating to landlord and tenant. As the petition was
one of great importance, he would give notice that to-morrow
he would move that it be printed with the votes.