The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-27 00:00:00

BILL.

The second reading of the London and South Western
Railway Bill (No. 1) having been moved,
Mr. WALLACE protested against several of the
clauses of the Bill, which enabled the Company to act
as general traders, as Custom-house agents, as hotel-
keepers, as wharfingers, as steam-boat proprietors, and
in several other capacities totally inconsistent with their
office as railway proprietors. He thought that this Bill
ought not to be. allowed to proceed further till the ob-
jections he had adverted to were removed.

Mr. ANTROBUS hoped the Honourable Gentleman
would allow the second reading of the Bill to take place,
and defer his opposition till the Bill went into Committee.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said that the clausesomplained
of by the Hon. Member for Greenock had, he believed,
been omitted by the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would not oppose the second
reading of the Bill, but he thought if the objection of
the Hon. Member for Greenock was well founded, it
might be pointed out upon the bringing up of the report.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the question was one
for the Committee,.and, they had every security that the
question would not be overlooked there. The Com-
mittee would report specially whether or not the Stand-
ing Orders had been complied with. The House might
feel, assured that the matter would not escape the fullest
investigation. The principle was one of the very greatest
importance. There was a general disposition on the
part of all joint-stock companies, who were intrusted
with certain powers for certain purposes, to em-
ploy those powers for other purposes. He
hoped the attention of the General Committee
on Railways would be directed to that point,
and he hoped the House would do its utmost to check
that disposition on the part of all joint-stock companies.
There were cases in which an exception ought to be
male. He was not.prepared to say whether or not the
case of the harbour of Folkestone was of that nature, but
in every case in which it was necessary to make an ex-
ception, the matter should be subjected to the most mi-
nute investigation. _ _ _

Mr. HUME considered that it was of the utmost
importance that the principle laid down by the
Right, Honourable Gentleman as the one by which
the House was to be guided in its dealings with
joint-stock companies should be known by the whole
country. • If they once departed from the principle, they
would be open to all kinds of abuse. If the Committee
did not strike out all the words enforcing the proposed
powers on the company, he was satisfied, that the Bill
would be rejected.
Mr. AGLIONBY agreed that great caution should be
exercised in all these cases. The public ought to be
carefully guarded, and they had many safe-guards. In
the first place there was the Committee on Petitions—
then there was the Standing OrderS Committee—and
then there was the Committee on Bills. In the present
instance all the provisions not strictly analagous with
the first application for the Bill were ordered to be
struck out.

The Bill was then rend a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

MANCHESTER IMPROVEMENTS.
On the motion of Mr. M. GIBSON, the Manchester
Improvements Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
NOTICES OF MOTION—THE SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. M. MILNES begged to give notice that he would
on Friday next, move an amendment on the
motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Tiver-
ton (Lord Palmerston) relative to the slave
trade, to the effect 'that it is the opinion
of this_ House that the treaties between
this country and foreign countries for the purpose of
suppressing the slate-trade by means of a mutual right
of search, should be considered as part of a temporary
experiment, to be at all times under the control of the
two Governments.

POOR LAWS.
Mr. MUNTZ gave notice that, in Committee on the
Poor-law Amendment Bill, on clause 56, he would move
as an amendment that " It is not lawful for the said
Commissioners to interfere with the management of
the poor in any . parish containing more than 20,000
inhabitants, where relief had hitherto been Oven
under provisions of local Acts, without first obtaining
the consent in writing of at least two-thirds of the
guardians, or of a majority of the rate-payers.
Captain PECHELL wished to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department
whether he 'would have printed Pith the Votes the
amendnients relative to local Acts ? It would be very
convenient during the recess for Hon. Gentlemen to
know the sentiments of the Right Hon. Baronet relative
to local Acts.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had last night stated his
intention of posponing the Bill till after Easter. Previous
to the Bill going into Committee, he would take care to
have the amendments in the hands of Hon. Members.
CATHOLIC JURORS.
In answer to a question from Mr. BELLEW,
Lord ELIOT said he had received a communication
with respect to the Catholic jurors who were challenged
by the Crown in a case at the assizes of the county of
Monaghan, that had perfectly satisfied him, that
those jurors, were not excluded because they
were Catholics, but that in every case there were
valid grounds for the exclusion. He also stated that the
Crown Solicitor, acting on the informations, could not
have taken any other course than he had done. He
was prepared to go into the details of all these
cases ; but the House would see that it could
not be done without exceeding those bounds within
which it was advisable he should confine himself.
' SCOTCH BENEFICES.

Mr. FIUME, seeing the Lord Advocate of Scotland in
his place, begged to ask him when he proposed to pro-
ceed with the Scotch Benefices Bill ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said he had postponed the
Bill till after the 30th of April.
THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
Sir R. PEEL said, he last night gave notice that he
should more the adjournment of the House for the Eas-
ter holidays on Wednesday next. But he found that
last year he had moved the adjournment on the Tuesday
evening, and unless he had reason to believe that his
moving it on the same . day would cause inconvenience
to Hon. Members whO had Bills to bring forward, he
proposed to move the adjournment on Tuesday next.