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

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aug. 4.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quartet: to Four
o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod atteride'd at the
bar to summon the House to the House of Lords, to
hear the royal assentgiven by commission to several Bills.
The SPEAKER, attended by several of the Merat27s,
left the House.
On the return of the SPEAKER, he informed the
House that the royal ass:nt had been given to a num- ,
ber of private Bills (fur which see Lords' report).
The following private Bills were read a third time
and passed :
The Birmingham Blue-coat School,
Sir Robert Keith's Estate,
. The Severn Estate,
The Lutwidge Estate,
The Earl of Powis's Estate,
The Duke of Bridgwater's Estate, -
The North Walsbam School Estate,
Marsh's Estate,
Bowes' Estate,
Boileau's Divorce Bill,
The Winchester College Estate,
Sampson's Estate,
Marquis of Donegal's Estate,
Moly th ux's Etitate.
GRIMSBY DOCKS.

The Lords' amendments to this Bill were brought up
and agreed to.
THE SHOULDHAM DIVORCE BILL.
_ _

This Bill was read a second time. ---
RAILWAY FRAUDS.—TfIE LONDON AND

YORK LINE,

Mr. IIAW'ES rose to present a petition from the
Chairman of the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway Com-
pacy, who stated that his attention had been called to
the subscription list of the London and York Company,
and by the aid of himself and agents he had discovered
that the names who had subscribed half a million to the
contract deed represented persons that were not living,
or whose places of abode were wrongly given. In
addition to which were many names of paupers,
or persons who had no visible means of meeting their en-
gagements. The petitions is inquiries were not yet
ended, but the petitioner expressed that he had no doubt
he would be able to discover many more frauds and
forgeries in addition to those already set forth. If a
Committee of inquiry were appointed, he was prepared
to establish these allegations before it. The peti-
tion contained the names of many parties who,
upon inquiry, would be found altogether in•
competent to meet the demands made upon them.
As he would have a chance of speaking on the third read-
ing of the Bill, all he would now do, would be to move
that the petition be printed with the votes to morrow.
To-morrow it wai his intention to make a motion upon it.
Mr. B. DENISON said he had been allowed to look
over the petition before it was presented, and saw one
name attached to the petition as a party who was repre-
sented to be incoupetent to meet the amount for which
he had subscribed. Now, he knew that gentleman to be a
most respectable solicitor, and also that he was compe-
tent to pay six times the amount he had subscribed for.
They might judge from this fact what the peCtion was
worth.

An HoN. MEMBER inquired the name of the party in
question.

- Mr. B. DENlSON—Michael Thomas Baxter.
The SPEAKER asked if it was the intention of the
lion. Member (Mr. Denison) to object to the printing of
the petition.
Mr. DENISON—Yes, he most certainly objected
to the printing of it. He should not try to stop
the progress of the Bill by objecting to the third
reading, neither had he any objection to have the
petition inquired into, but he wished to allude to
this circumstance—a paper headed urgent, dated
August, and signed Joseph Croucher, Parliamentary
agent—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—(Parliamentary
agents were, to a certain extent, under the control
of the House, and surely it was a breach of privilege of
a person following such an occupation so to act)—
and directed to the postmaster of Reigate (so we under-
stood), inquiring whether Edward Foster and Mr. Chap-
man—(Hear, hear)—(who he believed was a director of
the Company) resided in that neighbourhood, and asking
for information respecting them. It also appeared that
such circulars were sent to almost every town in
the kingdom, in which it was supposed any person
who held shares in the London and York resided. He
also understood that persons had been going about Lon-
don, for the last four-and-twenty hours, making inqui-
ries respecting the residences and occupations of those
who held shares in the Company. lie also believed that
the petition had been got up for the purpose of stopping
the progress of the Bill, and was of a similar charac-
' ter to the objections made with respect to the sections.
The promoters of the Bill were taken by surprise by
this allegation, and they sent down their surveyors to
ascertain if there was any truth in it, when it turned out
to be all fudge, but not until they had been put to a
great deal of trouble and expense. lie only men-
tioned this to show what had already been done
for the purpose of wearying the time of the Committee
and Directors, in order that the London and York Bill
might not get the benefit of the resolution which the
House had lately passed ; and the present petition, he
believed, had been brought forward with precisely
the same object He should certainly, therefore,
oppose the motion for having the petition printed.
Mr. B. HAWES knew nothing of those who were
promoting the line, nor had he had any sort of com-
munication, either directly or indirectly, with the
parties to this petition. It was brought to
him by a most respectable man, and it was
signed by a gentleman no less respectable,
the chairman of the Cambridge and Ely line. He was
informed that the petition included the names of persons
who represented 658,0001. in the Company who were
quite unknown ; 200,000/. was represented by fictitious
subscribers ; and 145,0001. by parties wholly irrespon-
sible. Now, whatever the Honourable Member
might say of the conduct of those who opposed the Bill,
he could assure the House that he stated these facts upon
the best possible evidence, and be was satisfied in his
own mind that they ought to be inquired into. There
was one gentleman who was represented to be residing
in Finsbury-square, and who had subscribed for 130,000 L,
but on inquiry no such person could be
found. There was another person, who stood for
500,0001, who was receiving alms from the Charter-
house, and whose name stood on the Parliamentary list
as a railway subscriber for 51,000 L He had not
the slightest interest directly or indirectly in
the line, and it was perfectly immaterial to him whether
the House passed it or not, but he thought,
nevertheless, they ought to inquire into these abuses.
He thought the House ought not to refuse receiving a
petition brought forward by respectable parties, and
containing allegations of such a character. But he had
done his duty in laying it before the House. He had
stated his belief in the respectability of the parties who
had signed it, and from the inquiries that had been made
by himself he was of opinion that the allegations in the
petition ought to receive the attention of the House.
Mr, BERNAL said that he knew nothing of the
parties connected with the Cambridge and Lincoln Rail-
way, but he knew quite enough of railways to be aware
that all the care the House could take would not put an
end to stock jobbing or gambling speculations, with the
mischiefs which must arise from them. He had no wish to
complain of the parties who had signed this petition. He
did not complain of his Hon. Friend—he had no doubt of

his sincerity , but he did complain that his lion. Friend
should characterise any refusal of the House to receive
this petition as unjust, and as depriving those parties
of a remedy. Why, they were well aware that there
was another tribunal, even if they refused his Hon.
Friend's motion. They were not shut out from an after
tribunal, and he might ask his Honourable Friend
if these circumstances were of so novel a character
that he must come down to the House on the third read-
ing, like a thunderbolt, to shake the merits of this case.
As he had before said there was another tribunal, even
if the House refused to consider the motion of his Hon.
Friend.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. Member who had
last spoken had compared the presentation of this petition
t 3 a coming down to the House like a thunderbolt, and
he thought proper to find fault with his Hon. Friend the
Member for Lambeth for presenting it. But what did
the petition allege ? Why, that a fraud had been prac-
tised upon the House of Commons. It was not that a
fraud had been committed upon the Lincoln and Cam-
bridge Company, but the assertion, was that a fraud had
been Committed on the House of Commons. But had
they not a precedent of this character ? Some time ago
they had passed a Bill respecting Ireland. That was
taken to the House of Lords ; and, after being subjected
to a searching ordeal, they discovered that after that
House (the Commons) had performed their duties —du-
ties performed to no purpose—one half of the list was
fraudulent. As the common saying had it, what was
sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and
what was applicable in the north of Ireland should be
applicable to the north of England. They turned out
the Dublin and Galway Bill for a fraud on the House
of Commons. The fi and was indeed proved in the
House of Lords, and this was proved in the House of
Commons.

An Hoist. MEMBER--Not proved yet.
Asierein.ReOd Et Bo UhCi
In K —t
that
t theproved:t
o House, by
be certainly. t al ri
refusing Wthhyi s,
it
inquiry, got rid of their functions neutralised their
own powers. To the searching inquiries of
Noble and
Learned Lord, in the other House, was the country in-
debted for the discovery that 5 or 600,000/. was sub-
scribed by persons who were almost literally paupers,
and now they seemed about to send up a similar case to
the same .House—a case, too, involving a fraud on the
House of Commons.
Mr. WARD was opposed to the London and York line,
but he had ono objection to the motion of his Hon.
Ft iend, arising from the peculiar circumstances of the case.
The effect of this motion would be, if applied in future,
that no railway Bill would be enabled to pass at the close
of the session. He granted that it was discreditable to
any Committee of that House to pass over such an error,
but the case was very different to the Dublin and Galway.
Thealiegation of such an error was made by Mr. Cockburn,
and the Committee desired to see the share list, which was
not produced, and finally the objection was withdrawn. fie