The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-06 00:00:00

IMJ ER lAL PARLIAMENT,

110 USE OF LORDS, Atty. 5.
Their Lordships assembled at the usual hour.
THE PRESENT HOUSES OF PARLIANIENT.

Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from an architect a
the name of Bernard, who stated that he could render that
House—in which it appeared they were doomed to continue
for scrim time to come—wholesome and commodious. He
( Lord Campbell) was not. very cont Went in this an-
ticipation, as he believed Dr. Reid had been as
successful as any man in his line, but although he had been
successful in improving the House of Commons he had utterly
failed to improve that House. 110 stated that he could effect
chat he stated without expense or inconvenience, and prayed
that it might be referred to a Committee befixe which he
might disclose his plan. At that late period of the session.
however, he would not move for a Committee, but would
simply call the attention of the Government to it. He would
hand it to the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who would
no doubt give it all the attention it deserved.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord MON TEAGLE moved for a return of the number of
private Bills before the House, the number of Peers who had
sat in Committee upon them, and the number of days which
each had sat. He was perfectly persuaded, that if the same
amount of private business occurred in the next session, their
Lordships would find it necessary to adopt some other plan
than that hitherto adopted, and by which the business of the
House might be more proportioned. Then with respect to the
deposits, he apprehended that they ought to be increased
from b/. to 101. per cent., in accordance with the resolution
to which the other House had come.
The Dtke if WELLINGTON was understood to say that
he hoped the Noble Lord would bring forward the subject on
Thursday.

Lord lEDESDALE said there was not one Bill which had
not had its Committee, and which had not been decided upon,
with the exception of the London and York, which had only
come up yesterday.
Lord MON TEAG LE only meant to say that there was not
a fair distribution of labour amongst the Members of that
House with respect to the business which came before it.

Lord BESBOROUGH said he should move an Thursday next
that, next session, a letter shou'•d be written to every Member
of the House, requesting to know when he will be able to at-
tend on the Committees of that House.
The Alerehant Seamen's Bill was read a third time and
passed

BOROUGH RATES BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BILL.

This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on 'I hursday.
TURNPIKE-ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL-FUND BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY BILL.
The Marquis of CLA N RICARDE then rose to present two
petitions, of which he had given notice, against the London
and York Railway Biil, and to move that one of them be re-
ferred to a Select Committee. After the course their Lord-
ship, had pursued in the case of the Dublin and Galway Rail-
way, they could not refuse to refer the present case to a Com-
mittee. The first petition was from a Mr. George Pyne, a
landed proprietor residing near to Huntingdon, whose pro-
perty would be interfered with by the progress of the proposed
railway, who alleged, and he believed correctly so,
that the original capital of the Company was estimated
by Mr. Cubitt at tire millions, but had since been increased to
six millions and a half. This was a matter, however, which
, was within the jurisdiction of the Standing Orders Committee,
and he did, therefore, propose to refer this petition to a Select
Committee. The second petition he had to present to their
Lordships was from the same gentleman, who alleged that the
contract deed was entirely fictitious, in as far as it contained
the names of parties who represented upwards of half a million,
s.,me of whom were fictitious, and others were incapable of
paying such a sum. In the petition which was presented yes-
terday a mistake was no doubt made with respect to Baxter,
but there were other cases of far greater consequence
than that, and infinitely greater than any that had
occurred in the Dublin and Galway Railway. He
would not trouble the House by going over all the names.
He would merely refer to one or two of them, and he was
sure that lie should make out a sufficient case for further in-
quiry. Their Lordships might remember, that by their
standing orders the residence, as well as the name of the sub-
scribers, should be given in the contract deed, and the grounds
on which many of the names on the Dublin and Galway deed
were objected.to, were a non-compliance with that order. He
hoped they would carry it out also in the present case. There
was one person, named John Theohald, Esq., who was down
to the amount of 25,000/. Now, he was informed that there
was no such person in existence. A person who had figured
in the Galway case, William Shackwell, held scrip to the
amount of 5,0001. According to the reports before Parlia-
ment, this person now held scrip in different railways to the
amount of 41,500/. Another person, named Edward James
Durham, of 90, Watling-street, was down for 12,500/.
Henry Daw for 2,0001., a messenger in the East India House
1,000/., and a person of the name of Banks 12,500/., who did
not reside at the residence affixed to his name. He was found
out to be a clerk in the Australian Trust Company. It was
quite impossible, however, that a person in this station of life
could he responsible for such a large amount. A curate in the
county of Kent was a subscriber to the amount of 25,0001 in
various railways, and in this one he held shares to the amount
of 10,000/. There were different other parties with whose
names he would not trouble the House, who were subscribers
to the amount of 2,000/. and upwards, and who had no existence
whatever. These names he had himself compared with those
on the contract deed, and he had found them quite correct.
Another person was a subscriber to the amount of 52,000/.
There were two individuals of the name of Gurney, who
were the sons of a charwoman. One of them was a clerk to a

stock-broker, and held shares to the amount of 12,5001. His
brother Charles was porter to Mr. Hitchcock, a wine mer-
chant, and was a subscriber to the extent of 23.000/. Now
every one knew that the income of these persons was about a
guinea and a half, or, at most, two guineas a-week. Charles
Gurney said he never applied for any shares; so that the per-
ssns who procured the scrip in his name traded on it
for their own benefit, without any responsibility, and
never gave him a single farthing of the gains. He would
say no more. He thought he had stated quite enough to induce
their Lordships to investigate these charges. Now let it be re-
collected that these cases were all discovered within the last
week, and were the consequence of the decision which had
been come to on the Dublin and Galway case. The clerk of
the county. too, had shares to the amount of 5.00 Q/. One indi-
vidual gave 22, Norfolk-street, as his address, but it appeared
that Francis Ommanney and Sons lived there, and of course
there was no such person in existence. Taking the whole case
in all its details, a grosser piece of fraud and imposition was
never heard of. The Galway ease was nothing to it. He was
decidedly of ~pinion that the Bill should not proceed till those
allegations were investigated, and he would therefore move
that the petition be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord MONTEAGLE begged to present a peti-
tion referring to the same subject. He did not mean
to vouch for the accuracy of the statements it contained, but it
came from a respectable man, who was agent for the Bill
under consideration. He was induced to petition their Lord-
ships in consequence of the statements which had been made
on a former occasion in that House, with respect to the res-
pectability of the parties whose names were on the subscription
deed of the Company. The Noble Lord then proceeded to
read the petition, which stated that the parties who repre-
sented a subscription of 20),t 00/., and whose names were
alleged to be fictitious and false, were bond fide shareholders,
and it was utterly untrue that they were fictitious personifica-
tions. They were all respectable men, and from their property
and standing, fully equal to the responsibility which they in-
curred. The petitioners stated that they would abide by the
decision of the House.
The Earl of WICKLOW said though as strong a case as
the Dublin and Galway had not been made out, yet he thought
that a strong enough case had been made out for them to grant
the Committee of Inquiry ; he apprehended, however, that
they had a competent body in the Standing Orders Committee
whose duty it was to investigate cases of the kind before the
House. On this ground he should oppose the motion of his
Noble Friend, yet at the same time he was willing that the
allegations contained in the petition should be fully inquired
into.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY said the Standing Orders
Committee could only inquire whether the contract deeds
had been properly signed, and that the standing orders had
been complied ; but they could not inquire at all into its sub-
stance.
The Earl of DEVON said the contract deed ought to be
a safe instead of an unsafe guide to the public.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bill had undergone a full inquiry in a Committee of the
House of Commons. The report only was brought up yes-
terday—by their Bill it appeared that they were empowered
to borrow a sum of money, which supposing the frauds set
forth to be true, would enable them to carry out their works.
He was opposed to the course which they took with reference
to the Dublin and Galway.
Lord BEAUMONT agreed with his Noble Friend with re-
spect to the Dublin and Galway. They had, however, esta-
blished a precedent which he believed they could not well de-
part from in the present case. If, however, they continually
adopted similar steps to that taken with regard to this Bill,
they would put a stop to railways altogether.
Lord REDESDALE thought, in common justice, they
ought to agree to this Committee. They ought to do so in
every case where errors such as those alleged had been com-
mitted.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that during the present morning he
had had his opinion canvassed on both sides, but he had deter-
mined to keep his mind clear of both sides, and having done so,
he was inclined to think this application could not possibly be
42 refused.
The Earl of WICKLOW having heard the explanation of
the Noble Chairman of Committees, he thought the Committee
ought to be appointed.
After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
the petition was ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE was not prepared to name
the Committee at present.
Lord ISIONTEA GLE thought the Committee ought to b_e
appointed at once. Whether they were able to get throug
• the case in the present session, depended on circumstances
which they could not controul.
•
• Lord LOVELACE presented a petitionprayi
BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY.
•-Railway Bill,
Lord-
ships to recommit the Brighton and Chichester
mitted.nigLWtheAirYL.ord-
- The Duke of RICHMOND intimated
make '
- he Noble Lord should it.
and gave notice of his intention tomovheisthinattenittiobneofre
oppo-
singc o m
the motion whenever t
et Yfrosamid
Cthhiieshewsatesr ntoot aye:: s--
mouth.
petli'nhge
line—it was
viSasll,AinFilTly Saß Viol
- The Duke of RICHMOND said that the result of the mo-
tion of last night would be to prevent these companies from
- giving such instructions to Counsel as they would not dare to
carry out before any of the Judgs s—viz., to conclude without
- hearing both parties.
The Karl of WICKLOW said that the Noble Lord had as.
signed no reasons whatever for his motion, and though he had
last night voted for the recommittal of: the Bill of the
. Direct Portsmouth he should, unless some reasons were as-
signed, as this was an independent line, vote against the motion.
• Lord BEAUMONT conceived that the lines were not the
- projects of the same company.
_ Lord REDESDALE explained the particular positions of
- the several lines, as they have been repeatedly before the
_ public.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that this was one of the most
_ whimsical cases that had ever come under their notice. They
had last night dealt with this Bill as a competing line, and they
had recommitted the Bill for the Direct Portsmouth, which by.
change of circumstances had become a competing line, and t!
was but justice that it should be recommitted. He could not
rid himself of the impression that this was a competing line,
_
uis of Clanricarde, Lord
andAsfhteorualdfethwerreefmoiacikbse
from r e co mt
hnei i
At tleadr.ri
- Redesdale, and the e arl of Haddington, the motion was nega.
fiver', and the Bill
SwMALLas read
DEBTS a third time
BILL. and passed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from the
bankers, merchants, and traders of Liverpool in favour of the
Bill, and also one to the same effect signed by the principal
mercantile men in England. He then called the attention of