The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-18 00:00:00

IMPERIALPARLIAM ENT

THIS DAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 18.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The gallery was opened at a quarter past twelve, at
which time there were abaut forty Members in the House.
Captain DUNLOP brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the Kirkintilioch Railway Bill.
Mr. J. C. COLQUHOUN said that be under
stood there would be an opposition to one of the
clauses introduced in Committee, which he thought
would be acting very unfairly. The report of the Com-
mittee ought to be taken entirely as it stood, or the Bill
should be recommitted. He could not understand why the
decision of the Committee should rest good in one clause
and not in another, and as a member of the Com-
mittee, he hoped the House would sanction the report
as it stood.

Captain DUNLOP said it was necessary that he should
give an outline of the case, in order that the House might
be able to come to some decision upon the merits. The
railroad in question was one of the oldest in Scotland,
and originally consisted of a single line of rail, by which
goods were sent down to Glasgow. The .Kirkintilloch
line had to pass over part of the railway of the Garnkirk
Company for a distance of a mile and a half, and as it
was found that continual injury was done to the steam
carri tges of the Kirkintilloch Company by the drivers of
the horse trains of the other company, the former de-
termined to lay down a second line over the mile and half
in order that the locomotive engines of the Kirkiutilloch
Company might no longer be injured, by coming in con-
tact with the horse trains of the others. A clause had,
however, been introduced into the Bill, by
which the trains and carriages of every de-
scription would be compelled to move in one
direction over one of the railways, and in the opposite
direction over the other. To this clause, which deprived
the petitioners to the Bill of the right of using the line
they had been put to the expense of laying down,
they naturally objected, as their object in laying it down
was exclusive usage ; and he should therefore move that
that clause he expunged.
Mr. STUART objected to the striking out of the
clause.

General SHARPE objected to the chose, which he
said was introduced by the counsel against the Bill, after
the Committee bad come generally to an understanding
upon the principle of the Bill. The clause in dispute
had been cirried by a doubtful majority.

Mr. YELVEIITON stated that the Bill before the
House proposed to extend the line, and why should a
restrictive clause be introduced for the purpose of imped-
ing that improvement? Nothing could tend more to im-
pede•that improvement, where a double line was about to
be made, than to prevent those who were to use it, from
using it in that way which they found most convenient to
themselves. The opposition to the Bill entirely arose
from a rival Railway Company, which formed a branch
railway to this. The Committee declared that
opposition to be nugatory and void, and it was
upon the understanding that that opposition
had entirely ceased, he (Mr. Y.) together with two or
three other Hon. Members, left the Committee. After this
understanding had been come to in the Committee this most
extraordinary clause was introduced—a clause which had
never been introduced into any other Railway Bill that
had ever come before the House. They had heard no
reason adduced by the promoters of the clause, and in
his opinion it ought nor to be sustained unless upon
public grounds; therefore be submitted that this clause,
on public principles, should be exempted, as tending to
create a restriction to the trade and convenience of the
railway.
Mr. HUME thought that a very great principle was
involved in this question, which was, whether, if the Le-
gislature granted powers to a company to make a railway,
the company should be enabled to make it as beneficial to
themselves and to the public as possible.--(Hear, hear.)
He held as a general principle that the interim core
of such a clause as the one in ques ion, with the proceed-
ing.; of any company, was highly prejudicial. He should
therefore support its rejection, for if it were allowed to
prevail in this ease, it would be a very bad precedent.
Lord MORPETH was of opinion, from the ignorance of
most of the Members present of the locality of the place to
which the Bill applied, that the House was a very in-
competent tribunal to decide upon it, and, therefore, he
would either suggest a postponement of any discussion
until the third reading, in order to allow time for the
parties to the Bill to effect some compromise, or that the
Bill should be recommitted to that Committee, which,
from a knowledge of the locality and of all the facts of the
case, was the most competent tribunal.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel DAVIES thought the case so perfectly clear
that a company wishing to establish a rail-road not merely
for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the public,
should be allowed so to carry on their work in such a
manner as was most beneficial, that he objected either to
postponing the question or to recommitting the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTONE said there seemed to be a mistake
upon the question. As was stated by the Hon. Member
fur Glasgow, the two railway Companies were not rivals,
and as regarded the insertion of the clause, surreptitiously,
it appeared to have been inserted by a previous agreement
between the parties, although afterwards one of the parties
dissented from that agreement. He agreed with the
Noble Lord (Morpeth) that it would be better to defer
the question for the present.
Mr. COLQUHOUN said he agreed with the suggestions
of the Noble Lord, and he withdrew his amendment.
The gallery was then cleared-for a division, but none
took place, and the motion for the rejection of the clause
was carried.

Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition from Inverneot
for the abolition of slavery; the petitioners expressed their
satisfaction at the plan proposed by his Majesty's Minis..
tern, and at the mode of compensation proposed by them.
Major HANDLEY presented a petition from Mr.
Charles Frederick Barber, of Boston, complaining of
abuses in the Corporation of that town, and praying for
the issuing of a commission to inquire into those abuses.
Mr. MILKS supported the prayer of the petition,
trusting that when the question of corporations was
brought before the House, they would not forget the case
of the unfortunate barber.

After some observations from Sir W. Noln' and Mr.
HUME, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. H. DARE presented a petition from Barking, in
Essex, in favour of the Sea Apprenticeship Bill.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from North-
wich against the Beer Bill. The Hun. Member wished
to know whether the Committee on this Bill would
present their report to the House in the course of the pre-
sent session ?

Mr. WILKS said that the Committee had *greed
on the form of their Report, and he had no doubt it
would be presented to the House in the course of the pre-
sent sesion.

Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from a parish
in Montgomery, complaining of the abuses in the dis-
cipline of the Church of Wales.
The Hon. Member also presented eipetition from the in-
habitants of Preston against the East India monopoly ;
also two petitions from parishes in Lowther against the
General Registry Bill.
Mr. BLAMIRE presented a petition from Penritb, in
the county of Cumberland, against the Registry Bill, and
another petition from Cockermouth to the same effect.
Col. EVANS presented a petition from Rye in favour
of the beer shops.

Mr. H. CUR FEES presented a petition from a place in
the county of Sussex against the malt tax. Government had
forfeited in a great degree the confidence of the petitioners
by their conduct on a late occasion. The House ought to
have adhered to their first decision. Also a petition from
Batb, for the abolition of slavery.
Sir W. INGILBY supported the petition for the abo-
lition of the malt tax.

Mr. J. HARDY presented a petition in favour of the
Apothecaries Act, and against the Bill now before the
House, from the medical practitioners of Bradford.
Colonel WOOD suggested that the Bill should be sus-
pended for the present session, and that, early in the next,
it should be fairly referred to a Select Committee. The
whole of the matter should be carefully sifted, and at
the present season it was impossible to do it justice. He
had a petition from the Company, praying that they
might be heard by Counsel at the Bar.
Mr. ROEBUCK supported the measure.
Mr. H. GRATIAN opposed it, and recommended the
House to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He bt-
bered that it had been got up nut in a very creditable
manner.

Mr. HUNIE said it was quite clear the HAL Gentle-
man who spoke last knew nothing at all about the
matter.—(Cries of "Hear, hear," and laughter.)
When he talked of gentlemen educated in Scotland,
only knowing of one thing, he begged to tell him that the
examinations at Edinburgh were carried on with the
greatest strictness upon pharmacy, anatomy, surgery, and
medicine—(Hear)—and the examinations upon pharmacy
was much stricter than that which was carried on by the
Apothecaries' Company here.—(Hear, hear.) All the
Apothecaries' Company wanted was that monopoly.
The Government and the public were deprived of the
services of many of the ablest and scientific men
who Were educated in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and
he hoped his Honourable Friend who bad brought in