The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-23 00:00:00

BILL.

Mr. SPOONER moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said he had that morning received a request
from his constituents to take a last division upon this obnoxious
Bill. It would operate most unjustly upon his constituents, and
he therefore moved that the Bill be read a third time that day
six months.
Mr. SPOONER said only two alterations had been made in
the Bill, but they were not of such a nature as to give his
Hon. Friend a right to say that it had come from the Com-
mittee in a more defective sate then when it was referred to it.
Mr. BROTHERTON said there were seven boards within
the borough of Birmingham, many of which were self-elected,
often causing much useless expense to the inhabitants. The
objections to the Bill were so various, that he could not con-
ceive what had induced the House to place it in its present state.
Sir C. BURRELL said that there had been no good ground
shown for reversing the decision of the Committee. He sup-
ported the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. HUME said it was proposed to pass a Bill which would
prevent union of action and economy of system in the town
which it affected. The amount paid for the collection of rates
would pay for all drainage. He knew nothing of Birmingham
personally, but was well aware that the principle of the Bill
would affect most injuriously the interests of that town.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill
Against it . . 52
Majority —26
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. BECKETT DENI SUN sail the select Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the merits of this Bill had this day come
to a decision, after a protracted sitting extending over a period
of 73 days, and with the exception of two branches to Wake-
field and Sheffield, the Committee had declared that the whole
Bill was proved. He had now to make an application to the
House to divide the London and York Railway Bill intu two
or more Bills.
Mr. MILES seconded the motion.
Alr. WARD did not rise to make the slightest opposition to
the decision of the Committee, but he merely wished to make
a statement on behalf of the proprietors of a competing line to
one of the branches, who had been put to considerable expense
during the 71 days, in securing the attendance of witnesses
and Counsel before the Committee. The promoters of the
Sheffield and Lincoln line, he believed, was a competing line to
one of the branches omitted by the Committee, and they con-
sidered that it was extremely unfair that this motion should be
allowed to pass without a previous notice, and iu fact before the
report of the Committe had been laid before the House.

Lord COURTENAY wished to state the grounds which
had induced the Committee to strike the two branches out of
the preamble of the Bill. The 'Committee had done so simply
upon the ground that there were other lines before the
Committee which might be considered as competing
lines with those branches to which the Honourable Member
had referred, and in justice to the promoters of those lines, the
Committee did not think it right or fair that they should come
to a conclusion upon those branches until these lines had been
under their consideration. With regard to the proposition of
the Hon. Member, he could state that the Committee had
no possible objection to it.
Mr. BROTHERTON suggested that the proposition had
better be postponed till to-morrow.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON said there was not the
slightest wish on the part of the promoters of the London and
York scheme to prevent the fullest possible discussion
taking place in Committee upon the two branches and the
lines mentioned by the Honourable Member for Sheffield. The
only object they had in view in making this proposal was to
enable the Committee to go on with parts of their Bill, the
preamble of which they had that day proved, in order that it
might not be kept back or thrown over to the next session.
After a few words from Mr. WARD and Mr. ESCOTT, which
were quite indistinct,

Lora G. SOMERSET wished to know whether his Noble
Friend would state his opinion to the House, whether or no