The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-19 00:00:00

TES Ts BILL.

The Earl of HADDING TON presented a petition
from the Synod of Scotland, stating that they heard with
great regret that it was proposed to abolish the Test
Act, and calling their Lordships' most serious attention
to the subject..

The House then adjourned at five minutes past Six
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments on this Bill were read and
agreed to.

SHEFFIELD, _ ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, AND

MANCHESTER RAILWAY.

Mr. WARD moved, on the consideration of the report
on the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester
Railway (Barnsley Branch) Bill, that the Bill be re-
committed to the former Committee : that the Commit-
tee have leave to sit and proceed on Monday, at twelve
o'clock. The promoters of the Bill felt they had been
hardly dealt with, as they had not been permitted to
proceed with evidence before the Committee.

- Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., thought if the House was to
decide on re-committing Bills after they had already
been disposed of in Committee, Hon. Gentlemen who
served on those Committees had better at once refuse to
attend. It would be useless to legislate at all it the re-
gular business of the House was to be interrupted by
the suggesticns of interested parties,andasystem of canvass
permitted which was highly discreditable to the House. It
was but two nights ago that a similar motion was male,
and HO3. Members vtere actually dragged from the
streets to vote in the house. Upon these grounds, he
should most decidedly oppose the re-committal of the
Bill, as it would be impugning the decision of the Com-
mittee.

An HON. MEMBER observed that the case had been
fully investigated by the Committee, and he saw no
reason that would justify the interference of the House.
Lord SEYMOUR wished to state that, as chairman
of the Committee, he felt satisfied that the merits
of the Bill had been fairly decided on ; and he
certainly thought there was no occasion whatever for the
motion of the Hon. Gentleman for the re-committal of
the Bill. It was cruel to refer back the Bill to the Com-
mittee in the present hot weather, without the slightest
prospect of the Committee coining at any other opinion
than that to which they had already agreed.
Lord G. SOMERSET opposed the motion.
Mr. SPOONER and M. CAVENDISII supported the
motion.

Mr. G. LEGH said that material injury would be
done to his constituents by the decision which had been
come to. Evidence which ought to have been received
by the Committee had not been received, and under all
the circumstances he thought the House would act per-
fectly right in re-committing the Bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT saw no reason whatever for re-
ferring back the Bill. The Committee had come to
their decision after a most careful examination of the
evidence brought before them, and he would therefore
support them and vote against the re-committal.
Mr. HUME said the Hon. Gentleman had stated that
his constituents were disappointed ; but it would seem,
from the statement of the Committee, the whole matters
brought before them were fully considered. Were they
to content to the course now proposed, they might as
well give up Committees altogether, and toss up which
companies should have their Bills allowed.
Mr. F. FRENCH affirmed, as a member of the Com-
mittee, that they had fdrly and fully investigated the
claims of the Bills before them, and come to the decision
objected to after the most careful deliberation.
Mr. ENT WISLE said a few words in support of the
decision of the Committee.

Mr. AGLIONBY thought the House ought to sup-
port, in the main, the decisions of their Committees ;
but, he did not say that in all cases the
House was bound to confirm them. He was
afraid the House was too apt to release itself of
all trouble of inquiry by leaving such matters entirely
in the hands of the Committees. There were many
cases in which the House was bound to interfere with
the decisions, and the question before them was, whether
the present decision was of such a character. Was
there sufficient reason for interfering ? He considered
that, on these grounds, they ought to refer back the
case to the Committee, not because they had come to a
dishonest opinion, but because they might be mistaken,
as the judge, often were, 'and then there was a new trial
always granted.
Mr. GREENE objected to the course proposed. It
would he a very inconvenient thing if every
which the promoters thought favourably should
th
of
erbeefore
re-
ferred back to the Committee, and he
if the House came to a division, vote atainosutetptieonmoctaiornne.
Lord MORPETH said, that itfort
teh e question
a division he would "e
of the Bill, first bocau,ehte
dan next bause they
elieved the decision
of the Committee to be wrong,
cut short a great deal of evidence tenderedtothem
had
.
fir. PARKR E considcredthatthe
the evidence
tendered to them, and Committee
acted injudiciously in cutting short
be would therefore vote for the
re-committal of the Bill. 5 ioro than one-half of the in-
habitants of Lancashire were in favour of such a pro.
ceeding, and there was a very strong impression
on the minds of the promoters of the Bill, that they
had an irresistible case.
IZ():11 THE TIOUSE OF LORDS
The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table,
and summoned the Speaker and the House to attend the
louse of Lords,

The Speaker then left the House, attended by several
Members.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had
been to the House of Lords to hear the royal assent
given to several Bills, for which see Lords' report.
SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.
The debate on the Sheffield and Manchester Railway
Bill was then resumed.
Mr. PARKER, in continuation, remarked that
ha could only attribute the loss of the Bill
to the multiplicity and complicated nature of
the measure with which it was grouped. By
means of this decision of the Committee the people
of Manchester and Sheffield would be cut off from all
communication with that district, which in a great
measures supplied them with coals. And he came to
this conclusion, that the members of the Committee who
voted for the rejection of the Bill had not had sufficient
local information to qualify them to sit on the Committee.
And really such a defeat as that was a very serious
charge against the Committee of the House. He be-
lieved the Noble Lord opposite was perfectly right in his
decision, and that the conclusion to which this same group
had eetne, with respect to another Bill (the South York-
shire Bill), which was before the House the ether day,
was a. most erroneous decision, and in that case, too, the
members of the Committee were totally devoid of local
information. The decision in the case of this Bill was
not unanimous ; and he had a right to say that as long
as two of the fire were in favour of the Bill, and
those who voted against it were not acquainted
ith the varied wants of this populous district,
the Bill should be recommitted for a full consideration
by such Members as were acquainted with Yorkshire
and Lancashire. He would repeat that the Committee
had not had sufficient information laid before
them ; and such facts as these, he thought,
ought to justify the House in departing, in this
instance, from its usual course. He believe d that if this
decision of the House was confirmed, the important town
of Barnsley would he cut off from the other towns
to which its produce would otherwise be transmitted,
and that 10,000 people would be entirely
cut off from all connexion with the west. He was bound
to say that he believed that if the decision in this case
were sanctioned the !louse would coma to a more er-
roneous conclusion than it ever had since it first sat.
Mr. R. YORKE said he was most desirous to put an end
to the very indecent scenes with which the House had
been afflicted during the last week. It had been his
misfortune, with every other thing, to hear a second
speech from the Honourable Gentleman, the Member
for Sheffield, on these subjects. That Honourable
Gentleman insisted that in these matters
the Members should be locally interested, or have
local knowledge, in order that they might come to a
proper conclusion with regard to these Bills. Now
really it was vain at this time of day to talk upon such
a subject. For many years the House had tried
that system, and it was a manifest failure. He
admitted that in some instances, where Members had
not local knowledge of the districts brought under their
consideration, they had come to unjust decisions ;
but he believed that every one must admit
that the business of the Committees during the last
two years had been conducted in the most just and im-
partial manner ; their decisions had given manifest sa-
tisfaction. This Bill was no new Bill before
he House. It had already occupied its, attention
the last three years, and on each occasion the
House decided that it ought not to pass.
After giving the subject a fair and full consideration, he
telt bound to say that he must concur with the decision
of the Committee.
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY,
Mr. PROTHEROE said that, in his opinion, the
Committee on Private Bills, a few months ago,
were prolonged somewhat unnecessarily, and that
had given rise, as he was inclined to think, to a
disposition to cut short the proceedings.—(Hear.) He
had sat on one of the longest Committees this session,
and during its sitting he had heard many Members ex•
press great surprise that they were still going on. He
had been asked why they did not shorten the
proceedings, by Members who said that they
had given the counsel due notice that they would cut
them short in their proceedings. All this had given
him reason to suspect that according to the present
constitution of Committees just decisions could not be
obtained. On the present occasion he suspected that
there had been a little hastiness on the part of the
Members of the Committee, and certainly some mis-
understanding on the subject before the House. Be
was, however, disposed to support the decision of the
Committee, as the decision of the Committee to which
he belonged had been kindly supported by the House
the other night.
Mr. HINDLEY said that the effect of this Bill would
be to reduce the price of coal Is. 6d. per ton less than it
cost as now brought from Barnsley. If there was a
company ready to form a branch which would
produce such an effect, he did not see why
it should not receive the sanction of the House.
He was told that the Committee to whom the Bill had
been referred had carefully examined into the evidence
adduced in support of it, and he had every desire to bow
to their decision, but he was at a loss to know the grounds
on which they rejected it. Not one single reason had
been given by any of the members of the Committee
to show why the Bill had not been passed. He
considered they ought to give some reason why
the coals of Barnsley should not be conveyed
at a cheap rate to Ashton-under-Lyne and other
districts. He was fully satisfied, if the facts were in-
quired into, that the House would reverse the decision
of the Committee.
Sir G. GREY would not support the motion, as he
could see no valid reason why the Bill should be
remitted to the Committee for reconsideration, because
if they had listened to all the evidence that had been
adduced before them, there could be little doubt that they
would arrive at a similar decision and reject the
Bill. With respect to the ignorance of Committees
in reference to the localities through which lines were
projected, he ought to state that the practice of examin-
ing the Members representing such localities had become
very prevalent in the present session.
Mr. WARD drew the attention of the House to the
118th standing order, which set forth that the report
on every private Bill should be laid on the table of the
House, and to the 123 d order, which was passed
in order to afford an opportunity of discus•
sing such reports every Tuesday and Thurs-
day. They ought not to sail under false co-
minors. Now, if this order was to be rendered nugatory,
by preventing discussion, it ought to be rescinded, for
now the Pope was dead Committees of the House might
be infallible—(Laughter)—as they might act on the
principle that no Committee in this hot weather ought
to sit a second time. But in this case he considered the
House would do great injustice if they did not refer the
Bill back to the Committee.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wanted to know what was the
benefit to be derived by sending Bills to the Committee,
where the parties were put to enormous expenses in
prosecuting the Bill, if the reports of these Committees
were to be disreearded? He thought they would have
every disappointed railway compel:), coming before the
House, praying it to reverse the deeision, if such a course
was persisted in. He should, therefore, vote on the
present occasion as he always had done, and always
would 00, unless some special circumstance were
brought forward against the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the re-committal 54
Against it
Majority —44
FRILFORD (BERMS) INCLOSURE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE