The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

ORDER RELATING To RAILWAYS.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the "order of the 30th
day of April last be extended to all private Bills relating to
railways brought from the House of Lords.—Agreed to.
BURNLEY IMPROVEMENT AND WATERWORKS.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
BANFFSHIRE ROADS.

This Bill was read a second tine, and ordered to be com.
mitted.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY.

The report on this Bill ( Hareeastle to Sandbach, Churnet
Valley Pottery line), w•as brought up, the amendments
and alterations agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be engrosed.

ELECTRIC TALEGRAPII COMPANY.

The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and
.he Bill was ordered to be er2grosed._

RAILWAY BILLS.

Mr. HUDSON then rose to propose the insertion of a clause
in all railway Bills of the present session by which new com-
panies are to he incorporated. At the time when he gave
notice of his intention to bring forward this motion, he was not
aware of the intentions of the Government with respect to the
number of schemes which had been introduced into Parlia-
ment during the present session. Since the introduction of
that Bill the Government had introduced and passed cer-
tain resolutions on the subject ; but as these resolutions would
not reach the parties whom he was originally anxious to
relieve from the responsibility which they had, in many cases,
thoughtlessly incurred. The clause he intended to move was
to enable those parties to review and consider the position in
which they were placed by calling a meeting of registered
shareholderi; and dissolving the project, if they found them-
selves unable to proceed with it. Now, the Act of Parliament
compelled the company, before they could enforce the powers
of their Act, to have the deed signed for the whole amount
subscribed, and if they did not obtain signatures of the full
amount their Act became inoperative, because many persons re-
fused to sign on account of the Act rendering them responsible for
the proportion of the whole amount of capital necessary for the
construction of the works. Now the House could not fail to
condemn this anomalous state of things, when the excitement
which had taken place with respect to railways was borne in
mind, and the desire entertained by many of the parties
to withdraw from them altogether.—( Hear, hear.) The
main object of his clause was to afford them an opportunity
of considering their position and the ceurse, under the circum-
stances in which they were placed, they ought to adopt and to
compel them to complete their registration within four months.
The parties concerned should have an opportunity, during a
period of at least six months, of calling meetings, to determine
whether they should proceed with their works or not. There
was an anxiety in that House to limit the amount of capital to
be employed. He (Mr. Hudson) had always held that the
shareholders who had raised the necessary funds would go on,
and the powers given by the House would, in that case,
be executed. He was perfectly satisfied that the passing
of such a measure as the one he proposed would not take
away from bona fide undertakings the opportunity of executing
their works, but to the undertakings not based on the solid
foundation of capital an opportunity would be given of re-
viewing their intentions. When he gave this notice he was
not aware that the Government had any intention of
taking any part in this matter, but he had since
seen the Bill proposed by Mr. Dalhousie, and it did not seem

to affect the parties who were most interested in these under-
takings—viz., the original shareholders, and he, therefore,
hoped that the Howe would accede to the present measure.
Sir GEORGE CLERK rose for the purpose of taking an
objection to the motion on a point of form. From the state-
ments made by the H6n. Member it was quite apparent that
it was a most important question, and one which, if carried,
would introduce a new mode of legislation with regard to rail-
ways. Instead, therefore, of moving it as a clause, he would
suggest to the Hon. Gentleman the propriety of introducing
i. into the Bill of which he had charge, or of moving
that it should be inserted in the Bill which would shortly come
down from the Lords relative to railways. At any rate it
wc.uld be a much more expedient course to make it the subject
of a separate Bill rather than a sessional order.
Mr. LABO UC ERE quite concurred with the
Honourable Gentleman who bad just sat down, that

the present course was most inexpedient, unusual, and
extremely inconvenient. The motion was one which was
more properly the subject of an Act of Parliament rather than
a clause. He, therefore, agreed with the suggestion made,
that the motion should be brought forward in the shape of a
distinct Bill, or should be inserted in the Bill introduced by the
Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Hudson), or in that brought
forward in the other House of Parliament by Lord Dalhousie,
when it should come down there.

Mr. HUDSON, agreeably to the suggestions thrown out,
would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion; but
he begged to state that his only object in introduing it was to
protect parties who had signed the deeds, and to prevent the
recurrence of those scenes which took place in 183601838, and
1839.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
POOR-LAW REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. JAMES presented a petition from the poor-law
guardians of the Greenwich Union against certain clauses in
the Poor-law Removal Bill.

POOR LAWS.
Captain POLHILL presented a petition from the Board of
Guardians at Brighton, complaining of the general provisions
of the Poor-law Removal Bill, which they considered favoured
the vagrant more than it did the honest householder. They
prayed, therefore, that the Bill be amended.
THE TEN HOURS' BILL.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the factory workers
in the mills of Mr. M'Phail, of Glasgow, in favour of
the Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. G. HUDSON presented several petitions in favour of
the Eastern Counties Termir.us and other railway Bills.
Lord JOHN MANNERS presented a petition
,against the
union of the sees cf St. Asaph and Bangor.
In reply to Mr. CHRISTIE respecting the case of Mary
Anne Tyler, whose case was detailed to the House in a petition
presented on the 7th instant,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he had fully inquired
into the particulars of the case, and had come to the conclusion
that the decision of the magistrate was illegal. He had also
informed the magistrate before whom the case was heard of
the conclusion at which he had arrived, and that the case
would be specially reported to the Lord Chancellor.—( Hear.)
In conclusion he would say he had not the slightest objections
to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
The motion was then agreed to.
TEN HOURS' BILL.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented a petition from Bath,
most numerously and respectably signed, in favour of the Ten
Hours' Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the clergy of
Dorchester, praying the House not to permit a union of the
dioceses of St. Asaph and, Bangor.—Ordered to lie on the table.
The HoN. GENTLEMAN also presented a petition from the
poor of the county of Dorset, praying that the owners of houses
rated below six pounds should be assessed, and not the residents
of such habitations.
SUGAR bUTIES.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, on behalf of his
Noble Friend Lord Palmerston, that when the questionof_the
sugar duties came befor the House, he would movee admitted n address
a to
to the Crown, that Spinish sugars should be
those countries on the same terms as the moa his intention to
a
t
favoured nations.
s
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it w
bring the subject of the sugar duties before the House
at the earliest possible period. He could not state the
precise day, but he was not aware of any obstacle. to
prevent the question from obtaining an early consideration.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the report of the Committee on this Bill
was brought up. _

On the question that it be read a second time being put,
Mr. C. BURRELL rose and said he must oppose the mo-
tion, because he was convinced that if this Bill passed a great
number of persons would be thrown out of employment in the
agricultural districts, while those who would be able to get em-
ployment would have to put up with very low and miserable
wages indeed. In his opinion, too, the famine in Ireland was
by no means a sufficient reason for the passing of this measure.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read some documents
in support of his arguments, showing the relative
bearing of the prices of corn and labour at
various periods since the passing of the corn-laws.
lie was quite certain that if the present law was car-
ried into effect, it would not be possible for the
labourers of this country to compete successfully
with those of Germany, and other continental nations.
The Hon. Gentleknan proceeded in his address to the House in
opposition to the Bill, but in so low a tone of voice as to render
it perfectly impossible to hear one word-