The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-05 00:00:00

the House to go into Committee on the Bill, when those
features which were beneficial might be adopted.
Lord JOHN MANNERS replied to the objections that
had been made to the Bill, citing several cases of hardship arising
from the present state of the law in support of the reports of
the Committee which had been impugned, and in reply to
the Attorney and Solicitor- General. With all due respect to
those high authorities, he must say, that all their arguments
went but against the details of the Bill. That being so, let
them allow it to go into Committee, and then these might
be fully considered and altered, if it was seen necessary.
If all the evils which the Hon. Gentleman shadowed out were
likely to result from the passing of this Bill, how was it that
the present law did not guard against them? When he saw
his Hon. Friend rise, he expected to hear him say that the
present law worked.most prejudicially. The Lord Advocate
of Scotland had given his opinion that the law as it existed
in Scotland, did not produce any of the evils so much dreaded
by his Hon. Friend. He felt assured that the supporters of
this Bill had made out a case for going into committee, and
he felt assured. above all, that the present wants of the
country were not met by its institutions. He, therefore, with
all confidence, asked the House to give him the second reading,
for he assured them that he would persevere in his efforts--
although he might be defeated this time—yet he would perse-
vere until he effected some sort of alteration in the present
law, or carried his measure.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
SALMON FISHERIES BILL.

Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of the Salmon
Fisheries Bill.—Postponed till Wednesday next,
Sir C. BULLER moved the second reading of the Election
Notices (Ireland) Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time accordingly.
The Roman Catholic Relief Bill was also read a s,econd
time.

Mr. GREENE brought up the .report on the Trent Works
Bill.

BUILDINGS ACT.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act 7 and 8 Vic., c. 84, for regulating the con-
struction and the use of buildings in the metropods and its
neighbourhood by authorising the appointment of a third
official referee.

Mr. HAWES said that he certainly would not give his
vote for the Bill unless he received an assurance that a com-
prehensive measure would be introduced, extending to the
whole Act. He had not conversed with any respectable
builder or surveyor who did not concur with him in saying
that the only effectual measure that could be adopted would
be to repeal the whole Act. He would not oppose the Bill,
but he did it on the distinct understanding that the mea-
sure would be comprehensive.
Mr. H[TME expressed his concurrer.ce in the observations
of Mr. Hawes. He had never known a Bill so fruitful and
productive of complaints. He believed that the only way was
to:repeal it, and thus free the metropolis from the pest and
plague of this Act.
Mr. R. HODGSON said, that he hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet would consult such persons as could give him such
information as would enable him to produce a Bill for the
amendment of the Building Act, at a sufficiently early part of
the session as to enable them to discuss the question at
their leisure.

Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT also expressed his disapprobation
of the Bill, and complained of its inefficient working. He
was glad to see that the Right Hon. Baronet was about to
bring in a Bill to amend it.
Mr. FOSTER thought the Bill ought to be delayed, so
that parties might be consulted who were competent to give
information on the subject, and a perfect Bill brought in.
Mr. PARKER was not surprised at the general expression
of feeling against the Bill, as he had always seen it would
be a most inconvenient measure. The best course would be
to repeal it altogether and bring in a new Bill.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied to the objections that
had been made against the Metropolitan Act, and
said that the measure, when introduced into
the House, had been fully and carefully discussed,
so as to make it as efficient AS possible. He was sorry
from what he had heard en both sides of the House,
as well a from private sources of information
that the Metropolitan Improvement Bill was con-
sidered so objectionable. But this was not the point
at present before the House. The Bill now before them
related to the appointment of another official referee, and to
make some alterations in the provisions of the Act as it now
stood on this subject.
The Bill wa: then read a first, and ordered to be read a
second time to-morrow.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(YES FERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 3

(Continued from our Aftornoon Edition of yesterday.)

SOUTH UNION.

The object of the Bill sought to be obtained by this Company is the
construction of a line of railway between the Manchester and Bir-
mingh m Railway and the North Staffordshire Railway. The pro-
jected line is intended to commence at Colton, a point on the
Trent Valley line, and to run to Roughly, a point on the
North Staffordshire Railway, both in the county of Stafford.
The length is thirty-two miles, and the estimated east is 700,0001.
Messrs: Dyson and Hall arc the agents, and Mr GraTatt is the en-
gineer.
The formal proofs were gone through, and then the Committee
took a number of petitions alleging a number of non-compliances
with the standing orders.

Mr. VENABLES appeared for Mr. Walter Hyde, whose petition con•
dined a number of allegations which were entertained.

The Committee reported that the standing orders hal not been
complied with as respected the crossing of a turnpike road at the
eighth mile of the projected line, inasmuch as the cross section was
not properly shown upon the plan, not being numbered and other-
wise specifletally pointed out as required by the standing order on
the subject.
Various other allegations of a similar character were sustained,
but they were too trivial to be reported in detail. The engineer in
explanation said that the plans were so badly printed as to be
almost illegible, and quite unfit to enable him to reply satisfactorily
to the questions of the honourable Chairman. Had the plans been
better printed, many of the allegations would have fallen to the
ground.

Another alegation sustained was, that two miles of the propos:d
lines had been omitted, a whole sheet of the plan deposited with the
clerk of the peace at Stafford being absent.
The CusinmaN decided that upon the general merits of the de-
posits on the 30th of IC veinber last they were altogether inaccu-
rate, and that the standing orders had not been complied with.
The deposits were worse than worthless, being calculated to mis-
lead instead of giving information to the public. In the course of
the day the Chairman made some pertinent remarks upon the mode
in which witnesses gave their evidence. He complained of the
loose manner In which questions were put, and the very careless way
in which they were answered. Facts were gabbled over in a sin-
gular way, and so little respect appeared to he paid to them that
It was ♦ery difficult to understand them. He trusted witnesses
would for the future be examined in a better manner, so as to enable
the Committee to be able to put a proper value upon their statements.
The Committee took no other case, and at four o'clock adjourned
until twelve o'clock on Friday next.