The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-04 00:00:00

MANCHESTER AND BUXTON RAILWAY.

Mr. PARKES took an objection to the plans of the pro-
moters of this railway, on the ground that the datum line on
the plan did not refer to any fixed point. The datum line on
the plan referred to the top water of the Macclesfield Canal.
It was also objected that this datum line was not as near to
one of the termini of the railway as was required by the
standing order, the distance in the present case being be-
tween two and three miles.

Mr. GRAHAME, fur the promoters, contended that the top
water of a canal was as good a datum level as they could
obtain, and that it was sufficiently near to one of the termini,
seeing that there was no other prominent point from which
they could take the level.

Evidence for and against the allegation having been ad-
duced, the room was cleared, and, after the Committee
had deliberated fur about ten minutes, the parties were
called in, and

The CitmumAN said that the Committee were of opinion
that the datum line had not been taken from a fixed point
near one of the termini, and that the standing orders had not,
therefore, been complied with.
This is a most important objection, and one which is likely
to prove fatal to the Bill.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SriAKEn took the chair at Twelve o'clock.
COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Lora GRANVILLE SOMERSET arose, and said he had
taken an opportunity of considering the amendment proposed
on a former day by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth, to
the 120th clause, and he was now disposed to insert words to
meet the views f the Hon. Gentleman. The clause related
to the capital stock; and he proposed to insert words making
it necessary for a company to obtain the consent of its mort-
gagees, and other persons who had liens upon the funds of
the company, before any reduction should be made in the
capital stock.
The clause, with this amendment, was agreed to.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said he had another
amendment to propose before the Bill was passed. He plc)
posed to insert words in clause 142, limiting the liabilities of
a treasurer to debts of a company which did not exceed 201.
For debts under this sum the treasurer would be liable, whe-
ther he had money in hand or not; but for any debt above
that sum he would not be responsible.
Mr. ENTWISLE objected to the amendment. If the
House suffered it ti.) pass, it would be quite impossible for a
company to get a man of property to become its treasurer,
while, on the other' band, men in insolvent circumstances, and
living almost entirely upon their salaries, would be placed in
these situations, not only to the disadvantage of the parti-
cular company, but also to that of the public. The liability
of a treasurer ought to be limited to debts under 54
After a few words from Mr. GREENE, the amendment was.
agreed to.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.

On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, the House went
into Committee on the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill.
On the 15th clause being put,
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that after a good deal of con-
sideration he had come to the determination to leave out from
the words " such lands" to the end of the clause, if the House
would permit him. The clause, as it would then stand,
would give everything to which either the company or the
parties with whom they had to deal might feel necessary for
the preservation of their respective rights. The power of
deviation would be sufficient for the purposes of any company,
and if there were any peculiar circumstances which would
affect the proceeedings of any parties in a particular C 986,
they could easily be provided for by the private Bill for the
institution and government of the company. On these
accounts, and especially as the clause would then be sufficient
to answer the purposes of a consolidation Bill, he thought it
better to yield to the opposition offered to the cliuse, and
strike out the words "such land" to the end of the clause.
Mr. HAYTER said that he regretted the Noble Lord had
expressed a wish to leave out these words, for he believed
that they were necessary, in order to define the limits of
deviation. If not forming part of this clause, they must be
introduced into some other clause ; and if not introduced into
this Bill, must be introduced into every other Bill that came
before the House. • Now, the expressed object of a consolida-
tion Bill was to obviate all this reiteration; and, therefore,
he conceived that it would be better to give the power at
once in this Bill, especially as the same power must be allowed
to every railway, company that should hereafter be formed.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that the observations of the
Hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) with respect to the
power were perfectly correct ; but the feelings of opposition to
this clause on both sides of the House were very strong, and
although he believed that it was very desirable to introduce
the power into this Bill, yet there were difficulties about it
which, perhaps, might be obviated quite as well in the Com-
mittees on Private Bills. In many railway Bills there would
be very peculiar circumstances to be considered which would
greatly affect the operation of this clause, and on this account
he thought it would be better to strike them out.
Mr. F. MAULE said that he did not see well how the diffi-
culty which had been started would be obviated, in either
case; but, perhaps, it would be as well to leave them out.
The words were then omitted, and the elause was passed
as amended.

On the 17th clause being put,
Mr. ENTWISLE said that he thought the restriction
upon the canal companies was too strong, and that, in fact,
it did not apply.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that a canal was .a navigable
river made by art, and if the Hon. Member had had as
much experience of the opposition of canal companies,
as he had, and he was aware that he had had a great deal,
he would not think the restriction too stringent. He remem-
bered having ou one occasion been engaged in a ten days'
discussion with one of these companies, and lie thought that
there was as much reason f r altering the course of a canal
as the course of a navigable river.
After a few words from Mr. FOX MAULE, who wished
the expression of the clause to be rendered more precise, the
clause was passed, as were also the 18th and 19th clauses.
On the 20th clause being read,
Mr. SI'OONER said he did not think the clause afforded
sufficient protection to gas companies and water companies,
or the consumers of gas and water. All the houses in a town,
say Birmingham, were lit with gas; and if a railway com-
pany, in their operations, should interrupt the supplying of
gas or water for a day, see what a serious inconvenience it
would be to a whole town. The clause gave 201. a day com-
pensation for "any unnecessary interruption ; but he would
ask what compensation would 201. be for the stoppage of gas
or water for a day to a manufacturer or tradesman ?
Mr. HAWES concurred with the Hon. Member for Bir-
mingham, for he presumed that he only wanted to guard
against a railway company doing anything of the sort wan-
tonly or unnecessarily. It would be much more just tt)
provide some remedy of the sort than to put parties
to the expense and trouble of taking an action.
Mr. SPOONER would propose that, instead of 204 a day,
the penalty be made 501. ; either that, or substitute the word.
" hour " for " day;" for, he yfolgd again repeat, that 294.