The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN HOTEL BILL.

The Earl of SHELBURNE moved the second reading
of this bill, which he considered, amongst other recommen-
dations, would lead to the removal of Wych and Holywell-
streets—localities perhaps not known to their lordships—
(laughter)—but which were amongst the most objection-
able portion of the metropolis.

Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill, as violating a
principle which had been established in the previous ses-
sion in the case of a similar proposition. He would have
agreed to the bill had the promoters consented that none of
the property which was required to be removed should be
taken by compulsion. They had declined, and he was, there-
fore, under the necessity of moving that it be read a second
time that day six months.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY supported the bill as
being calculated, although a private speculation, to prance
considerable advantage to the public by clearing away some
of the worst parts of the metropolis.
Lord EVERSLEY opposed the bill, and he hoped their
lordships would pause before they sanctioned this bill, be-
cause it would be a precedent for many others of the same
tlevription.

Earl GRANVILLE said he was not convinced by the
arguments which the house had heard from the two noble
lords, who were great authorities in that house, and who
opposed this measure. He saw no objection to such a
scheme if it were connected with public utility. The title
of the bill did not contain all the information which was to
be found in its provisions. He understood from the Chief
Commissioners of the Board of Works that he considered
this bill of great importance in its furtherance of metropo-
litan improvements, and it would widen the streets in the
locality of the new courts of law.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and preparations
were made for a division, when

The Earl of DERBY rose and said that in all his experi-
ence in that house he had never known a question brought
forward in which two Cabinet Ministers had successively
taken an active part in promoting a private bill, and that
had been done on this extraordinary occasion, against the
opinions given upon public grounds of authorities so high
as their chairman of committees and the noble viscount the
late Speaker of the House of Commons. He hoped tie prac-
tice of bringing the support of the Government to bear upon
these private schemes would be condemned by their lord-
ships. (Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was another Cabi-
net Minister who supported this bill ; but if he had consi-
dered it a private bill he should not have taken any part in
the discussion. This bill was, in fact, one of a public nature,
upon which the health and comfort of many of the inhabi-
tants of the metropolis would depend. He entirely agreed
with the principle laid down by the noble chairman of com-
mittees and the noble viscount on the cross benches (Lord
Eversley), but though this bill was of a private nature it
would provide great public advantages. It would not merely
widen the Strand, but it would purify the locality in the
neighbourhood of the contemplated new courts of law.

Lord TAUNTON said he thought the question was pri-
marily and essentially one in reference to a private specula•
tion. (Hear.) He had not the least doubt that the bill was
of a private character, to promote a private speculation, and
under those circumstances he thought it would be danger-
ous to sanction the second reading. (Hear.)
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said he came down to
the house to vote against the bill because he agreed with the
principle which had been laid down by their noble chairman
of committees, but having looked into the provisions of the
bill he found they would confer public advantages towards
which not one shilling of public money would be required.
He should therefore vote for the second reading of the bill.
Earl GREY said if this bill were really required for the
improvement and widening of the streets, for the purpose
of obtaining a more convenient access to the new courts of
law, it ought to have been proposed to Parliament by those
who were responsible for those courts. If the Government
or the local authorities had brought the measure forward
the house would have been ready to grant the required
powers, but were they to allow a joint-stock company to
have these compulsory powers to take private property ?
He could not undertake to grant such powers until they had
received evidence that there would be some public advan-
tages. If they sanctioned this bill, it might lead to most
dangerous consequences hereafter. (Hear, hear.)
The, Earl of SHE4BURNE replied.
Ther lordships divided—
Contents

Non-contents
Majority

The bill was consequently rejected

The North London Railway (Widening) Bill, and the
West London Extension Railway Bill, were severally read
a third time and passed.

THE NORTH LONDON RAILWAY (BRANCH TO
THE CITY) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, who had a notice on the
paper to move a resolution, with a view to its becoming a
standing order, " that this committee on any bill respecting
which a statement had been deposited in the office of the
Clerk of the Parliaments in pursuance of Standing Ord
No. 191, should inquire into and report upon the number of
houses and of inhabitants likely to be removed by the
works proposed by any such bill, and whether any provi-
sion had been made or was required to be made for
provid-
ing other dwellings for the inhabitants set to be displaced,"
said that since coming down to the house he had deter-
mined upon simply moving, " that any such statement" to
which he had alluded " should be referred to the committee
upon the bill, the said committee to inquire and report
thereupon." His object was to give permanent application
to the motion recently made by the noble earinear him (the
Earl of Derby), which was granted for a special occasion.
His amendment was not intended as an obstruction to
public improvements, nor was it adopted for that purpose.
All he asked was the means of obtaining accurate and cor-
rect information of the number of houses to be displaced on
every occasion, in order that they might see how best they
could reduce the evils consequent upon public improve-
ments, and which pressed most heavily upon great masses
of the people.
Lord REDESDALE had no objection to the proposition
of the noble lord. One of the bills came before him that day,
and he had made a report upon it at once ; but it was very
difficult to get at the truth in these matters. The state •
meats made before him differed very materially as to the
character of the population of this district ; it was said that
it was largely composed of a population of a migratory
character, Irish and other strangers, who cams from diffe-
rent parts ; and if a return were made three years hence
not more than one-fourth of them would be found to re-
main in their houses. If so, they would not suffer so much
as might be supposed by the removal of their houses. The
noble earl said that the railway companies took the best
?_',11t65! in the district ; but this must be entirely
take matter of necessity, for their own interest was to
thanTrueberworofst and cheapest property. As to the returns of
that thenuabrople who would be displaced, he believed
would not be half that named in the return,
because where land
or e thenwho
was so expensive the companies would
not take
Was necessary, and the returns included
all the people
companies. lived within the limits of deviation al-
lowed to the
to
which es. With the perfect concurrence of
the company
he had referred he had introduced
two clauses into the bill, to theo effect that they should run
Ithooe event' °n cheap trains, and in
conveyed
an average of six months,
of there not bf:ing
trains, such trains should be discontinued,
by each of those
quently he thought it better to leave Itahneed. But übse-
eontintiance to the Board 'ef Trade. The Other
of dis-
that the company should make provision theturselrvo:si;oorw as
th
residences of their o servants and theiress so thate
they might not press on the Overcrowded parti. _
Earl GRAN VILLE thought the noble earl had an
exaggerated view of the subject, under the most betievolent
feelingo. He might mention that when the Prinee'Consert,
.went to see some of the property of the Duchy of
'Me found it to be in a state that was disgrFfukto the:pre.:
Terty of his son. He caused fresh houses iolie built,
but
when he had done so he found it impossible to persuade the

people to leave the old houses which they had been in the
habit of living in. He saw no reason to object to the amend-
ment proposed, as he thought it would lead to further in-
quiry ; and:he suggested that it be referred to the stioiding
orders committee.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY agreed to the proposition
of the noble lord.

After a few observations from Lord REDESDALE the
motion was agreed to, and the bill was read a third time.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Lord LYVEDEN said he was not going to oppose the
third reading of this bill, but he hoped the circumstances
out of which it arose would be a caution to the Government
not to enter into future engagements of this kind without
submitting the matter to Parliament. He hoped the Go-
♦ernment would take no steps, or encourage any expendi-
ture for recovering the cable or setting the company on their
legs again.

The Earl of CAITHNESS said he did not wish to pro-
long discussion on this subject, but still he wished to bring
shortly under the notice of their lordships the great danger
incurred in giving guarantees to companies of so precarious
a nature as electric telegraph companies, especially when
connected with submarine operations. As a director of an
electric telegraph company he could speak on the subject to
his cost, and the cost of the company with which he was
connected. It was thought that the wire when covered
with a coating of gotta percha was quite safe, but expe-
rience showed that the cable was very destructible. He
held a statement of the late Mr. R. Stephenson in his hand,
in which he said :—" I have no doubt the experience which
we have now acquired with regard to the durability of marine
cables is very unfavourable, that is, as regards their pre-
sent form and shape ; but with greater lightness and less
gravity I have no doubt that submarine cables will even-
tually be extended over a large portion of the world. The
vitality of the cable is the great question. Some are worn
out and decay in five or six years, some endure for 10 years,
and some extend to 12, 14, or 15 years." He thought it
was unwise, therefore, to guarantee for 50 years such a com-
pany as the Red Sea Company, unless that company was
also bound to keep the line in good and effective working
order. He certainly should have desired a large guarantee
for his own line, because when the works were stopped, and
there were no outgoings, the company would have nothing
to do but to receive and pocket their money. (Hear, hear.)
There was a great difference in the cost of overland and
submarine telegraph lines. The cost of construction of an
overland telegraph was £3O per mile, of a submarine tele
graph £3OO, and of an underground one £l2O. The cost of
maintaining an overland telegraph was £8 per mile, and of
a submarine telegraph £25. But the matter was still worse
when there were no telegrams and no profits. (Hear,
hear.)

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the subject of the
bill was to cure an omission is the original contract. With
regard to the conditions of the contract, they remained as
they originally stood. The Government would not be dis-
posed to give a guarantee to any company in future without
previously submitting the terms to Parliament. He agreed
with his noble friend who last spoke as to the serious prac-
tical difficulties which stood in the way of submarine tele-
graphs, and that till they had more knowledge on the sub-
ject they could not be sure of their practical working.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.

LAW OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of this bill, said the object of it was to obtain,
through the Foreign Secretary, an authoritative exposition
of the law of foreign countries when it was required,foraign
countries getting a reciprocal advantage from this country.
The motion was agreed to.

CHARITABLE USES BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT BILL.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in moving the second read-
ing of this bill, said its object was to remove doubts which
existed as to the authority which the Legislative Council of
Queensland possessed. The order in council constituting
the new colony of Queensland was issued in 1859, and it
gave to Queensland the oonstitution which previously ex-
isted in New South Wales. But in 1858 a local act was
passed by the Legislature of New South Wales which al-
tered their constitution to a considerable extent, as it ex.
tended the franchise and made other changes. It appeared
that this local act arrived here in the beginning of 1859,
but it escaped the attention of the Government up to
the time of the issuing of the order in council. Now, it
appeared that the principal judge of Queensland gave
it as his opinion that everything that was done under the
order in council was illegal, and the law officers here coin-
cided in that opinion. The principal object of the bill was
to cure that defect. It also contained a general clause,
providing that on the division of the colony the new colony
should take with it the constitution of that from which it
was separated. There were other minor provisions in the
bill respecting the boundaries.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

In committee on stamp duty,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the following re-

solution :—" That, in addition to the ordinary stamp duty,
there shall be charged an ad valorem stamp duty of 7s. upon
every £lOO of property comprised in every trust or other
deed or instrument required to be registered by any act of
the present session for amending the law relating to bank-
ruptcy and insolvency in England." The learned gentleman
explained that the object of the resolution was to fix the
maximum of duty, but that its precise amount would be
open to discussion when the clause was brought up to be
added to the bill.

After a short conversation the resolution was agreed to.
The house then resumed, and the report of amendments
on the bill were considered.

Mr. BRISTOW moved the following new clause to follow
clause 138 :—" No bankrupt shall, after an adjudication in
bankruptcy, be liable to any action at law or suit in equity
(whether commenced prior or subsequent to such adjudica-
tion) for the breach or non-performance of any covenant or
agreement entered into by such bankrupt in any existing
lease or agreement for a lease."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the state of the law
upon this subject was that if a bankrupt had a lease it was
competent to the assignees to decline to accept it. The re-
sult was therefore understood to be that the lease remained
in the bankrupt, and that he would still be liable to all
claims that might arise out of the covenants of the lease.
That was rather hard. (Hear, hear.) The clause, however,
was imperfect, because if the assignees rejected the lease it
ought to be surrendered to the lessor. (Hear, hear.) He
(sir R. Bethell) would take care that the subject should be
considered in another place if the hon. gentleman would
agree not to press the clause at the present moment.
Mr. HENLEY hoped that a provision would be made for
i the surrender of the lease, otherwise he was not sure that
a bankrupt might not occupy the premises without paying
any rent for them ; for he supposed that the payment of
rent was one of the covenants of the lease. (Hear.)
Sir F. KELLY thought the subject might be fairly left
in the hands of the Attorrey-General. There was, how-
ever, another omission which he wished to point out. A
man might borrow money, give a bond to secure its pay-
ment, and afterwards become bankrupt. But he might also
by way of collateral security have entered into a contract
with his creditor to insure his life and to indemnify him
for the payment of the premiums. After the bankruptcy,
ps the biffstood, it would be competent to the creditcr to
keep the policy alive, and the discharged bankrupt would
still remain liable to pay the premiums on a policy which
had really been entered into for the mere purpose of secur-
ing a debt that no longer existed. (Hear.)
The clause was not pressed.
Mr. MALINS then moved the following clause to follow
clause 163 :—" With respect to all persons heretofore bank
rupt, and whose certificates of conformity shall have been
refused, it shall be lawful for the court, at any time after
the expiration of three years from the time of, and notwith-
standing such refusal; to hear and determine the application
of any such bankrupt for an order of discharge, and there-
upon, if the court shall think fit, to grant an order of dis-
charge, either absolute or subject to any condition or
tctiomnies-
. aAd
etit i,ahc, s ZrEhn
vhteahncle same
ea
kat': nmeapniamraitted a manner as if the bankruptcy of such
p
coeeeftettheccerinimmeentheeermeewhats a of
this
aant which his
piroptietc
in
nnahme
coenntdceased,
businessand he
shouldcould nboet se ewh
followedy
by a perpetual disqualification for trading.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
as we
ERA Lsll as aidthep
extremelyA T
reasonableT O It NEY
and just,mercifulnro o. saanl
and he
had no hesitation in giving it his assent. (Hear.)
The clause was therefore added to the bill.
Mr. L. GOWER moved the following clause :—" The
court, out of the estate and effects of the bankrupt, shall
order payment of all such parochial rates as may be due
from him at the time of his being adjudicated a bankrupt."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to the clause, if
the following words were added to it "provided such rates
shall have become due in the year immediately preceding
the bankruptcy."
Mr. HENLEY said he thought taxes and rent ought' to
go together. If six months were given to the landlord, the
same period should be allowed to the parish. He must say
he thought six mon
the would be a much fairer time than
twelve months ; because no parochial rates ran on for more
than twelve months, at least they ought not. lle moved
to substitute " six months" for "a year."
Afte, some further conversation, Mr. Henley's amend-
ment was withdrawn, and the words "provided such rates
shall have become due during the twelvemonths preceding
the bankruptcy," were added to the clause, which was then

agreed to.

Mr. HADFIELD moved the following clause :—" The
trustee or assignee, under any deed authorised by this act,
shall have power to sue in his own Time for the debts and
demands of the bankrupt or insolvent, and the production
of every such deed shall be evidence of the due execution
thereotwithout further proof."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the object he
.sought to be obtained by the former part of the clause pro-
posed by his hon. and learned friend was already provided,
for by a preceding section, the 203 d. 'With regard to the
ytter,part of the clause, he certainly thought it W4lB far
14Yand ,tii*; eQmpetency of tho House of Commons'to enact
that the production of every such deed should be evidence
of the due execution thereof without further proof. (Hear,