The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAsT EVENING.

Mr. DonsoN,:owing to the indisposition of the SPEAKER,
took the chair at four o'clock.
___

---- --- --- -- -
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY AND THE INDUS-

TRIOUS CLASSES.

Mr. T. HUGHES moved the resolutions whiCh stood on
the paper in his name to compensate the labouring classes
for the inconvenience and losses they might sustain in con-
sequence of their houses or residences being required for
the purposes of a railway. He said the subject had
assumed a very serious aspect, and it was to
alleviate the inconvenience that he took the liberty
of bringing the matter under the attention of the house.
By his resolutions tenants at will were made entitled to
compensation as much as the rich landowners, and
he could not see that any great objection could
be entertained to his proposal, because it was only a
matter of justice that the labouring classes should
be considered in the wholesale destruction of houses
which was threatened by the railway projects now before
the Parliament. He proposed that railway companies
should, prior to the demolition of small houses, construct
dwellings of a similar description to those destroyed, that
all tenants at will and lodgers should be compensated just as
much as the rich man,because the loss occasioned to them by
being driven from their homes was much more serious than
the same inconvenience was to those who had ample means
at their command. If something was not done they might
as well give up the metropolis to the promoters of railway
schemes, and convert it entirely into one large and general
railway terminus.

Mr. PATTEN said it was not a fact to say that the
affairs of the labouring classes were not cared for in that,
house. He thought the session was now too far advanced
to alter the standing orders for the present year. He sug-
gested that the hon. membershould withdraw his resolution,
and that a committee should be appointed to consider the
whole matter. He thought the resolutions were not at all
calculated to effect the object he desired. The right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had a bill
which he had brought forward, and perhaps he could in-
duce him to adopt the principlo of compensation he had in

view.

Sir F. GOLDSMID said without something was done,
and that very speedily, the greatest suffering would be
entailed, as there were two railway projects which
would unhouse and turn adrift a large body
of poor persons, whose loss by such a proceeding would be
absolutely ruinous.

Mr. M. GIBSON said he could not give the hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth any hope that he could embody the
principle he had in viow in his bill. The hon. momber
proposed that the railway companies should build large
model lodging houses, but then some one would have to
be removed to clear the site for such a building, and
somebody would be sure to be inconvenienced. He
said that every person who could show a loss should be
compensated, but he could not go the length of saying
that the whole of the law of the land should be altered by
making such extensive alterations in the standing orders
of Parliament.

Mr. HENLEY said he was quite convinced something
ought to be done to protect those Rho could not protect,-
themselves.

Mr. SCOURFIELD said he should like to know,
taking the right hon. gentleman, the President of the
Board of Trade's view of the matter, what was the good of
being entitled to compensation if you could not get it ?
(hear, hear.) The poor were told they should be amply
compensated for loss and inconvenience, yet when the
matter was put into practice the theory was all that was
found to exist. .
Lord STANLEY said ho sympathised very much with
the hon. member for Lambeth, but he thought the resolu-
tions embodied a dangerous principle in a one-sided and
incomplete manner. He thought, however, that the matter
was one that should be thoroughly investigated in COM-
rnittee.

Mr. HUGHES said he could not agree with his noble
friend in the view he had taken of the matter; and as for
the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of
Trade saying he would not give him any countenance, ho
begged to say he did not want it, because he had the coun-
tenance and support of six or seven of the largest railway
companies in existence, that they were perfectly willing to
take upon their shoulders the burdens he was desirous
of imposing. lie hoped the house would not now say there
was no necessity of their doing so. He felt that the sub-
ject was one of the greatest importance, and as he could
not induce the house to agree to the resolution, he would
accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant gentleman
opposite, and introduce his resolutions on the understand-
ing that the matter should be considered in committee.
THE NEW REFORM BILL.

The CHANCELLCR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
the papers relative to the election returns for boroughs
and counties.

ELECTION PETITIONS.

Mr. DODSON intimated that letters had been received
stating that it was not their intention to persevere with
the petition against the return for Sandwich. The re-
cognisances of the Galway petition had been found suffi-
cient.

RIFLED GUNS.

In reply to Lord ELCHO,

The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he had no objec-
tion to produce the papers referred to in the first portion
of the noble lord's question, but he could not give him tho
other, as the matter was still unsettled.