The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

Cbtrb Mtittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE RAILWAYS BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

Mr. EN TWISLE said there was now sought in this
Bill a power to regulate railway companies in their pro-
ceedings, even before coming to that House for their Act.
This was a power which might be exercised in a very
dangerous manner, and which, therefore, he should
strongly warn the House to be careful of conceding.
The Bill gave the power to receive the deposits of share-
holders—a thing unheard of before. Again, it was pro-
posed to invest in the Board of Trade a power to pur-
chaee hereafter such railways as might now or at any
future period be contemplated and formed. These
things, he must really suggest, were eminently worthy of
the reconsideration of the Right Hon. President of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. BROTHER TON said he really could not see
why there should be so much hesitation in going into
Committee on this Bill. For his own part, he thought
there had been a good many railway schemes brought
forward in connexion with which there had been more
fraud and felony than ever he had heard of before in
connexion with public matters.—(Hear, hear.) Many
persons were extremely anxious to have railway matters
excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, though he
was aware it was an unpopular opinion, he felt bound
to say they ought not to be excluded.—(Hear, hear.)
There were constantly bubble schemes going forward to
derange the market, and injure the honest bona fide
speculator, that, under the provisions of this Bill, would
never see the light at all.—(Hear, hear.) Let them go
into Committee, and then they might be able to correct
the defects of the Bill, and send it forth to the world a
useful and valuable measure for the protection of the
community.
Sir 3. GUEST explained.
Mr. WALTER JAMES thought the Bill a most use-
ful measure, encouraging, as it did, the trade of the
country on the one hand, and discouraging bubble com-
panies on the other. He approved of the preliminary
investigation which had been objected to by the Member
for Sheffield.' A preliminary investigation was insisted
on in all cases in which companies came to Parliament
for a Bill, and he thought such an investigation ought to
take place in all cases.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS had come down to the House
entertaining considerable prejudice against the Bill, but
the course which the debate had taken had convinced
him of the propriety of going into Committee. He cer-
tainly, with regard to railways, thought considerable
caution ought to be exercised to prevent companies
making an improper use of names. He himself had been
asked some time ago by an Hon. Member to put his
name on the back of the Carlisle and Glasgow Railway
Bill, and, considering that a direct communication be-
tween Manchester and Glasgow would be advantageous,
be had consented to do so. To his surprise, a few days
afterwards he had seen his name in the newspapers as a
member of a provisional committee of a railroad in
embryo. He of course took measures immediately to
rectify the mistake.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY hoped that, while excluding
railroad companies from the operations of the Bill, they
would exclude sham railroad companies. One of
the grossest frauds ever perpetrated had been called a
railroad company. He thought the clause making those
who lent the guarantee of their names liable
it most wholesome enactment. He had no pity
for those persons who thus lent their names
and induced others to risk their property in undertakings
of this nature. He thought the word " promoter" ought
to be more clearly defined. He had himself, before he
had the honour of a seat in that House, been a promoter
of a Railway Bill before a Committee: He thought the
words of the clause ought to be so defined as not to in -
elude those who were professionally employed in
promoting Bills before Committees.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for Lambeth had agreed to the whole
of the resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill
was founded with one exception, a point on which he
divided the Committee. If the resolutions were com-
pared with the Bill, they would be found closely to re-
semble each other.

Mr. HA WES explained. He contended that the Bill
went much further than the resolutions, conferring
powers which the resolutions never contemplated.
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to part of the principle of
the Bill, and stated also that within a very few hours a
most important clause had been introduced into
the Bill. He did not see any objection to
including joint-stock companies and the for-
mation of railways in the Bill. If it was
to prevent fraud, it was as proper to prevent frauds
in railway companies as in any other. He com-
plained that the Solicitor-General was not present on
an occasion of discussing a Bill so important as the pre-
sent one, and objected to the power under the Act given to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was
no less than that of preventing parties from coming before
Parliament for Bills. This was a distinct principle, and
as it had not been discussed sufficiently, he hoped the
Committee would not be pressed.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but
Mr. HAWES having stated that after the discussion
he would not divide the House, his amendment was
withdrawn, and the House went into Committee,

PRINGLE in the Chair.
Clause 1 was then agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. HAWES asked how this Bill was to apply to
incorporated companies?
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Bill would certainly
apply t,) future incorporated companies, as, in some
points, it applied to those already formed. The Act did
not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, but to England
only.
Mr. HAWES said the Bill applied to all Scotch and
Irish companies having agencies in England. Unless it
reached all companies, this would have an unjust and
partial operation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he applied the Act to these
companies simply because they were not exclusively
Scotch or Irish companies, but carried on their opera-
tions in England. After some discussion, the Right
lion. Gentle man suggested that the clause should be
p,'lssecl as it stood, reserving the point, whether it should
extend to Scotland, for further consideration.
Mr, HAWES said he thought the clause ought to be
postponed.
After a few words from Capt. LAYARD and Mr. J. S.
W ORTLEY,
Mr. G ILL moved that the Chairman do report progress.

After some discussion the CHAIRMAN reported pro-
gress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, praying for inquiry into railway charges for
goods and passengers ; also, a petition, agreed to at a
public meeting in Covent-garden, praying for the libera-
tion of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., and his fellow
prisoners.
Mr. WARD presented a petition from certain settlers
in New Zealand, praying that the titles to their property
might be established on a sure foundation.
Mr. BECKET presented a petition from Leeds against
thogoint-Stock Companies Registration and Regulation
Bill.

Lord SANDON wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the President of the Board of Trade at what time
there would be parties in Java and Manilla who would
be authorised to issue certificates of origin of sugar, and
alto whether in cases where certificates could not be ob
tained sugar would be admitted without a certificate ?
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the advices which would
go out by the July mail from this country to Java and
Manilla, would find persons there qualified to issue cer-
tificates as to the produce of those islands. In answer
to the other part of the Noble Lord's question,. he said
that a discretionary power of course would be vested in
the Board of Customs as to the admission of sugar with-
out certificate.

In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that as the matter was not
in his department, he could not distinctly say what the
Post-office arrangements were in respect to communica-
tion with the East India Islands. But he understood
that Manilla was the port chosen for the Philippine
Islands, and that the Dutch Government would not allow
intercourse with any other than three ports in the island
of Java ; tho e were Samarang, Batavia, and another
place.