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

RAILWAY BILLS.

Earl DALHOUSIE presented reports on the Corn-
wall and Devon and other railways, which were ordered
to lie on the table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' REFORM.

Lord CAMPBELL said he begged to ask the ques-
tion of which he had given notice, as to when her
liajeity's Government proposed to bring in the Bill for
a reformation of the ecclesiastical courts? A rumour

had gone abroad that one of Ler Majesty's Ministers in
another place had stated that it was not the intention of

the Government to bring in any measure this session
upon the subject of ecclesiastical courts' reform. He
wished to ascertain what were the facts, for he thought
the matter was well worthy of attention. • When the
Ecclesiastical Commission had been appointed the judges
had sat upon it, and they were all unanimous in the
agreement of some measure being absolutely requisite.
Another Commission had been appointed, on which he
had sat. Their opinion was the same. There had been
Committees of both Houses of Parliament, which una-
nimously agreed in the same conclusion. Over one of
these Committees Sir James Graham had presided, and
he believed that there was a full impression of the ne-
cessity of such a measure as that to which he had al-
luded. He had since made an inquiry of that Right
Hsn. Gentleman.

The Duke of WIILLINGTON—But you don't know
what his answer is.

Lord CAMPBELL---That was true ; but he was
alarmed at what was rumoured to have taken place in
another place. No mention had been made of eccle-
siastical reform since its introduction into the Queen's
speech in 1843. and he therefore wished to ask when
her Majesty's Ministers intended to introduce the Eccle-
siastical Reform Bill ?

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if the Noble
Lord would have put a short question he would have
given a short answer. It certainly was not his intention
to bring in any Bill on this subject this session.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that it was not the
custom of that House to make speeches upon asking
questions, unless the speeches were to be concluded by
motions.

The Earl of MINTO said that it certainly had not
been the custom of that House formerly to adopt the
practice assumed by his Noble Friend on the present
occasion, and to which the Noble Lord opposite ob-
jected. But he begged to assure the Noble Lord that
it had now become a habit in that House, though he
must acknowledge that the habit did grow up during
the Noble Lord's absence. It was extremely disorderly
and inconvenient, and the sooner it was put an end to
the better ; yet still, as it was the habit of the House,
he thought his Noble Friend (Lord Campbell) was jus=
tified in the mode of proceeding he had adopted.
Lord CAMPBELL said that ever since he bad had
the honour of a seat in that House, the usual mo-3e of
proceeding had been to state the facts which *ere ne-
ces-ary to render any question or notice of motion intel-
ligible. Such was the custom in the other House of
Parliament, and be begged to refresh the memory of his
Noble Friend as to several occasions on which this prac-
tice had been observed in their Lordships' House. He
was unwilling to subject their Lordships' House to the
opprobrium of neglecting so important a business.
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged to speak to
order. The usual order of that House was to make no
speeches upon a question, without concluding it with a
motion. That when a motion was intended to be made
it was the courtesy of that House to give notice of that
motion. Having explained what was the order, and
what was the courtesy of that House, he must protest
against the Noble Lord entering so fully into a subject
of this kind, and violating both.
Lord CAMPBELL would consider the best mode of
formally bringing forward the question on an early day.
(Hear. from the Duke of Wellington.)
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.

The SPEAKER 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,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET arose, and said be 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 persona 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 'un-
posed to insert words in-clause 142, limiting the liabilities of
a treasurer to debts of a company which did not exceed 20/.
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 to pass, it would be quite impossible for a
company to get a man of property to become its treasurer,
while, on the other hand, 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 51.
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 case,
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 clause, 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 cone' ivied 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 shonkl 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-
mitteeson Private Bills. In many rail Way 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.
➢lr. F. MAULE said that he did not see well how the dill:
culty which had been started would be obviated, in either
case ; but, perhaps, it would be as well to leave them out.
The words xere then omitted, and the clause 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

Lord G. gOSIERSET 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 on one occasion been engaged in a ten days'