The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

TEM

the Hon. Member for Dover wt s disposed of no adjudication
could be Insole as to the inquiry.
Mr. JARVIS conceived that the ease of the South- Eastern
Railway had not been fairly dealt with, and that the North
Kent ought to be thrown out. It appeared that it was it
standing order of Parliament, that no one connected with the
railway should have the power of voting for it. He conceived
that the report ought to be amended, and that the North Kent
line should be beyond the rower of opposition. Hon. Members
after speoding thirty-six days in inquiry without any personal
interest, hail come to an imperfect decision, and he therefore
conceived they ought to have the power of amending the report.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the recommittal
Against
Majority
Mr. PROTHEROE then moved that the Bill be re-com-
mitted to the former Committee, for the purpose of considering
the copies of correspondence and reports on the subject of
a railroad passing through Greenwich Park (which have,
by order, been submitted to this House by the Admiralty,
subsequent to the bringing up of the Report of the Commit-
tee), and the expediency or inexpediency of sanctioning any
of the alternate lines proposed by the Soush-Easteen Rai:way
in substitution for the line through Greenwich Park.
After a few words from Mr. PLUM PTRE,
Sir R. H. INGLIS shook' vote for the recommittal of the
Bill, because he was anxious that the South Eastern Company
should be placed in the same podtien as they were before
the assent of the Admiralty was given to the North Kent line
passing under she park.
Mr. AGLIONBY would vote for the reeemmittal on the
same ground, hut he hoped the Bill would b.. cent to a different
Committee to that which gave power to the Admiralty
to stop u• 7 a railway on a certain ocntingeney.
He intended to vote for the recommittal of the South-Eastern
Bill ; and he should, if he had the opportunity, vote also for
the recommittal of the rival line, the North Kent. If he bad
the opportunity he should also vote that the Bill be referred to
a distinct Committee, in order that the four members of the
present Committee shculd nit have the same decision to come
to; or if it were referred to the same Members, that the Com-
mittee should be constituted as they were when the Bill was
originally referred to them.
Mr. ENTWISLE (who rose amidst loud cries of " Oh,")
asked, what Hon. Member ha:l moved for the recommittal of
the Bill ?
The SPEAKER said, that it was on the motion of the
Hon. Member for Dover.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared :
For the recommittal ... 135
For the postponement to that day six months... 6S
Majority
Mr. PROTHEROE must then movethat the Bill be re-
committed to the former Committee,. with copies of the cor-
respondence which had passed between the Committee and the
promoters.
Mr. RICE must then move as an amendment that the Bill
should be recommitted to the Committee as formerly con-
stituted.
Mr. PROTHEROE said, that this would render it neces-
sary for the Hon. Member for Worcestershire, who had for-
merly been a member of that Committee, to attend for
two months, to repeat the evidence which he had formerly heard.
He thought this was too great a hardship to impose
upon any Hon. Member, especially as the Committee
could dispose of the Bill without any such imposition.
Mr. HUME conceived that this would be a great injustice
to the parties engaged, and inflict a great expense, which was
quite unnecessary, as the Committee might dispose of the
Bill without either the cost or the delay.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place,
Mr. RICE having consented to withdraw his amendment,
The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted to the former
Committee.