The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. FITZGERALD took his seat for Tipperary, in the
place of the late Mr. Otway Cave, deceased.
HUDDERSFIELD WATERWORKS BILL.
This Bill was read aR third time and passed.
AILWAYS.
Mr. GREENE moved " That it be an instruction to the
Committee on the York and North Midland Railway
(Doncaster Extension), and London and York Railway
Bills, to receive and consider petitions from the proprie-
tors of land on the north of the river Dun, against the
London and York Railway Bill, and against the York
and North Midland Railway (Doncaster Extension)
Bill," which was agreed to.
Mr. W. PATTEN then moved, " That the Report of
the Sub-Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, on the
Great Western (Ireland) Railway Bill, be printed,"
which was agreed to.
Mr. W. PATTEN also moved " That it be an In-
struction to the Committee sitting on the Railway Bills
comprised in Group G and G 2, that they entertain and
consider the petition of the Company of Proprietors of
the Parrett Navigation, which was presented to this
House on the sth day of May instant, against the:Bristol
and Exeter Railway Branches Bill."
Mr. GREENE said that this question had been re-
peatedly asked him—viz., whether petitions against a
railway project should be presented three clear days
before the first reading, or three days before the consi-
deration of the Committee. It was important that a
decision should be made on this subject, as it would
materially affect the interests of many parties.
The SPEAKER said that if the petition was against
the project of the Bill the petition should be presented
three clear days before the first reading, but if the oppo-
sition was only to a portion of the project the petition
should be presented three clear days before the Bill went
before the Select Committee. _ _ _

......___ _.
Mr. W. PATTEN said that as the petition had only
been presented on the sth of May he should withdraw
the motion.

GLASGOW BRIDGE TRUST.
Mr. P. M. STEWART, in moving the recommittal
of the Glasgow Bridge Bill, said, that the object of this
Bill was to incorporate the trusts of three bridges over
the Clyde. On one of these bridges there had been an
outlay of 20,0001., and there was a surplus revenue of
1,8001. a year. On another there had been a similar ex-
penditure, but there was an annual deficit of 1501. Both
these bridges had been built for the purpose of improving
the private property in Glasgow. The Bill had been passed
through Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman,
six of the Committee being for the Bill, and six against
it, and there were ten of the proprietors of one of these
bridges who wished to be heard on the Bill, and on these
grounds, he moved that the Bill should be recommitted.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought that his Hon. Friend
had stated a very bad case very well.—(A laugh.) But
the House ought to bear in mind that all the six Mem-
bers who voted in favour of the Bill were locally inte-
rested, whereas the opposing six Members were the
selketed Members.
Mr. HASTIE thought that a fair opportunity had not
been given to certain parties to be heard in Committee
on this matter, and he should, therefore, support the
motion that the Bill be recommitted.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 27
Against it 52
Majority
The Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension-Bridge Bill
was read a third time.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND).
Mr. F. FRENCH moved for leave to bring in the
Gr. tr. Western Railway (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON said that this Bill was one which
the Standing Orders Committee had reported against, and
the Hon. Member for Roscommon had induced the House
to go against the Standing Orders Committee. It was
proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed
to inquire how far the existing standing
orders with respect to Irish Railway
Bills should be dispensed with. It seemed to him that,
when the Standing Orders Committee had reported
against a Bill, and a Select Committee was
appointed to consider the subject, they ought
to have the report of that Committee before they pro-
ceeded further. He should therefore move that the sub-
ject should be adjourned.
Sir G. GREY did not see why the standing orders
should be dispensed with. At the proper time it was
his intention to move for the appointment of a Select
Committee to inquire whether any, and which of the
standing orders in force with respect to railways in Great
Britain were unnecessary, and ought to be dispensed with
with respect to railways in Ireland. He thought
that the House ought not to adopt the pre-
sent Bill until the notice he intended to give
had been considered, and the Committee had come to
some decision upon the subject. He thought they should
read the Bill a first time, and then postpone the second
reading to a future day.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that all he wished was that the
subject should be fairly considered ; and for that pur-
pose he was anxious to introduce the Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it desirable that the
House should have the Bill before it. It was absolutely
necessary to ascertain whether or not the standing
orders which were applicable to English railway Bills
were alse applicable to Irish railway Bills. Nothing
could be so absurd or so unjust as if there were standing
orders applicable to Irish railway Bills not to adhere to
them. Under all the circumstances, however, he h >pea
that his Honourable Friend would not press his notion,
but would permit the Bill to be read a first time, and
then the second reading could be delayed until after the
report of the Committee, to be moved for by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Devonport, should be presented.
Mr. WARBURTON had no wish to give unnecessary
trouble, and he would, therefore, not object to the first
reading of the Bill, but before the second reading came
on, he hoped the House would exercise RI jurisdiction
over it.

Mr. GREENE thought that great inconvenience
would result from delay. He thought it was hardly fair
to the promoters of the Bill to keep this threat of oppo-
sition hanging over them. He would rather that the
House should vote that all further proceedings should
be suspended until the report of the Committee to be
moved by the Hon. Member for Devonport should have
been made. He thought it would be much better to ad-
journ this debate until after that report should hare been
made.

Lord G. SOMERSET could not see how any incon-
venience could arise from permitting this Bill to be read
a first time. But he hoped the House would seriously
consider the subject before they consented to
the second reading of the Bill. Before they
did that they should have it determined how far the
*landing orders which applied to English railway Bills
applied also to Irish railway Bills, and the second read-
ing should be delayed until the report of that Committee
should have been made. If it were attempted to press
forward the Bill to a seconi reading until that report
should have been made, he should feel it his duty to op-
pose any such motion.
Mr. WARBURTON wished to be again permitted to
address a few words to the House. Suppose the Com-
mittee should report that certain standing orders did not
refer to Irish railway Bills, would it be regular in that case
to refer that Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee
to see if the modified standing orders had been complied
with. lie wished to ask the Speaker if it would be al
luwable to refer this Bill back to the Standing Orders
Committee after it had been read a first time. He
apprehended that it would be too late to do so,
and the he thought it would be better to suspend
the further progress of the Bill until the report should
have been made.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought that if the Bill was read
a first time, they would be precluded from referring
it back again to the Standing Orders Committee. Ile
thought the proposition of the Honourable Member
for Devonport was hardly sufficient, and was
not Of general application to Irish cases as
far as the standing orders were concerned ;
and he gave notice that in case the Right Honourable
Gentleman should succeed in obtaining his Committee,
he (Mr. Wortley) should move that the report of the
Standing Orders Committee on this Bill be referred to
that Committee.
Lord G. SOMERSET apprehended that it would be no
breach of the orders of the House to refer this Bill back
to the Standing Orders Committee after it had been read
a first time.

Tbe SPEAKER said that after the Bill had been
read a first time it might be referred back to the Standing
Orders Committee.
The motion of Mr. WARBURTON was then withdrawn.
Mr. ESCOTT said that he believed it was not right
for such a cliff', rence to be made between railways in
Ireland and England. A great error had been coin-
ni'ved by the House, which was likely to work very in-
jui i .usly to many proprietors on this side of the Channel,
and he should therefore wait for the second reading of
this Bill before he offered it any opposition.
Sir G. GREY said that there was a material diffe-
rence between the two cases, and there was a something
peculiar in the Irish railways, which entitled them to a
special reference to the consideration of the House. From
the general nature of Irish railways, it was impossible
they
be regulated by the same standing orders a.
English railways.
Sir R. PEEL said that he would not by any means
vote for this Bill, if by so doing he was likely to throw
the slighest reflection on the Standing Orders Com-
mittee. Ile thought a general impression
An both sides of the House that the standing orders
Gin this Bill should be with. There were
cortain circumstances connected
t)ul with this Bill, which
made it necessary that the rules not be strictly
sipplied. lie would be the last man' should not
House to
throw any reflection on the Standing Orders Committee,
for he thought they had done their duty with respect
to this Bill in the most praiseworthy manner,
and he should, therefore, support them.
But
le thought that in respect to Irish railways,
some of those standing orders should not 3e
strictly construed. Many which worked well in this
country would be entirely inoperative and injurious
when they came to be applied to the projects
of Irish railways, and which would under the
circumstances of Ireland, work great injustice
to many parties there. Ile had understood
the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the peculiar po-
sition of Ireland should be considered, and that the ad-
vantages conferred upon them should be bona fide,
and if that were to be the case, this Bill
should enjoy the benefit of an exemption from
the standing orders, and was entitled to the
ecnsideration of the House. If this Bill worked any
particular mischief in consequence of the disregard of
the standing orders, it would be easy to oppose its
further progress at some future stage. It was a great
work
for Ireland which this Bill sought to ef-
feet, and he thought, therefore, it would be a great
injustice to its promoters, and, opposing the general
eense of the people of Ireland, if they threw this
Dill out for a non-compliance with the standing