The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-20 00:00:00

ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod entered the House,
and having advanced to the table, summoned the House to the
bar of the House of Peers, to hear the Royal assent given by
Commission to certain Bills.
The Speaker, accomi anied by several Members, then left,
the House, and proceeded to the bar of the House of Peers.
After a short absence the Speaker returned, and announced
to the House, that he had been at the bar of the House cf
Peers, and had heard the Royal Assent given by Commission
to a variety of Bills—(for which see Lords' Report).
RAILWAYS BILL.

The Committee on the Railway Bill then resumed, and
Mr. RUSSELL rose amidst loud and continued cries of" Di •
vide, divide." He stated that the stations on the Great West-
ern Railway had been constructed with a view to the locking
up of the carriages on both sides. But he assured the House
that the Company would be most happy to act upon the Bug-
g: scions of the Government, and to carry into effect the inten-
tions of the Hou,e.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER, amidst very loud and importunate cries
of " Divide, divide," opposed the clause.
After a tew remarks from Mr. S. O'BRIEN the Committee
divided, and the numbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause 23
On our return to the gallery we found Mr. PLU3IPTRE
on his legs, who was moving the introduction of the following
clauses :--" And be it enacted, that no railway shall
be used on any part of the Lord's Day."—.l Provided
always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this
Act, contaked shall extend to prohibit the use of any raj--
way on the Lord's Day in cases of charity or neeesrity.' The
consequences of allowing trains to run en Sunday, were most
dangerous to the public, as well as causing the servants of the
different Railway Companies to work seven days instead of six,
thereby breaking the Commandments. The Hon. Member
concluded by Moving fur leave to bring up the clause.
Mr. MACAULAY objected to any further legislation wii.h
respect to Sunday travelling. Why, he would ask, should oce
mode of travelling be prohibited and others allowed, especially
when that mode caused the least exertion both to man and
beast ? (Hear, hear.) He trusted the House would not en-
tertain a proposition so futile as that brought forward by the
Hon. M. mber opposite.
Lord SANDON, with all respect to his Hon. Friend who
had brought forward the question, trusted that the Mouse would
not debate it further, because they never could come to any be-
neficial result.

Mr. PLUMPTRE would leave the subject to the Com-
mittee_to treat it as they might think fit.
Mr. GLADS CONE trusted the Hon. Gentleman would
not press the present clause, if he wished at a future period to
have the subject calmly discussed.
Mr. V. SMITH objected to the arrogant assumption of tl.e
Hon. Member for Kent, that his proposal had the support t f
all who feared God and honoured Him.

Sir It. H. INGLIS: under all the circumstances, would re-
commend his Hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, to withdraw
his motion. _ . .

111 r. Al. GIBSON deprecated the practice of bringing fer-
ward motions in that House on which it was not intended that
the House should divide.

Mr. G. BERKELEY objected to this puritanical legis-
lation which, on a different subject; had the effect . f
causing the assassin's knife to be used as a substitute fcr
the manly practice of boxing.
The Committee then divided. The numbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —97
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR then brought for-
ward the following clause, of which he had given notice :
" And be it enacted that when two or more railway
companies, whose railways have a common terminus, • or
a portion of the same line of rails in common, or
which form separate portions of one continued
line of railway communication, shall not be able to agree
upon arrangements for conducting their joint traffic with
convenience 'to the public, so far as the same relates to
the booking of passengers, the running of carriages, or
the removal of luggage and passengers, it shall be lawful
for the Lords of the said .Cominittee, upon the applica-
tion of any of the parties, to take cognizance of the
questions in dispute ;- and if they shall find that any
one of the said companies has granted to any other
of, the companies any accommodation in regard to the
booking of passengers, the running of carriages, or the
removal of luggage and passengers, and has refused to
permit the same accommodation- on the same terms, as
nearly as circumstances will permit, to any other such
company, it shall be lawful for the Lords of the said
Committee to order the same to be granted to the
company complaining of such refusal, and to
order and determine whether the whole or what propor-
tion of the expenses attending on such arrangement.
shall be borne by either of the parties respectively ; and
if any-railway company shall refuse or wilfully neglect
to obey any such order made upon or against such com-
pany by the Lord:: of the said Committee pursuant to'
this provision, such company shall forfeit to her Ma-
jesty the sum of 201. per day for every day during
which such refusal or neglect shall continue ; and every
such penalty may be recovered in any of her Majesty's
Courts of Record." _ _ _

Mr. GLADSTONE did not deny that there might
be cases of the kind to which the clause re-
ferred, in which difficulty and inconvenience might
result to the public ; but he thought the remedy
proposed was one which the country would not bear.
This subject involved very serious questions of pro-
prietary rights, and he did not think that the Board of
Trade was at all a suitable tribunal to adjudicate on such
rights. However, he did not say that it was not de-
sirable that the House should take into its consideration
thepropriety ofconstituting some tribunal for the purpose.
He hoped the Noble Lord would not press the clause on
the Committee, because the power was one that could
not be exercised by the Board of Trade, with satisfac-
tion to the country.

Mr. JARVIS aid not think the Right Hon. Gentle-
man looked at the clause in its proper light ; he admit-
ted the importance of the clause, but he said the Board
of Trade was not a competent tribunal to exercise the
power, bat he admitted it was a competent tribunal to
decide between conflicting railways. He should support
the clause of the Noble Lord.

Mr. DARBY said there were many cases in which
the clause, if carried, would operate most injuriously
with regard to the public. Jf the Noble Lord grounded
the clause on the inconvenience that was felt on a parti-
cular line, it ought to be limited to that line, and not
extended generally.
Mr. J. PARKER supported the clause.
Lord SANDON opposed the clause, on the ground,
that having prevented the Board of Trade from interfer•
ing generally with railway management, it would be in-
consistent to give them the power of interfering in this
particular instance.
-Lord SEYMOUR opposed the clause.
311.. GRIMSDITCII supported the clause, consider-
ing it to be absolutely necessary that the Board of
Trade should have power to interfer3 in this instance,
such interference being absolutely necessary for the
public safety.
Mr. WALLACE thought that the Noble Lord
had made out a most excellent case, and
that not one word had yet been said in
answer to it. When the Right Hon. Gentleman said—
" 1)00 let us legislate en these small points, the Board
of Trade can do every thing so well, and will have only
to suggest to the Railway Companies what is right,
ould- the Right Hon. Gentleman say that that interrup-
tion should not take place ?
Lord CLEMENTS expressed his approval of the
clause proposed by his Noble Friend (Lord It. Gros-
venor.) He slid not think the Right HUH. Gentleman
should oppose the clause unless he were prepared to bring
in a better in its stead.

Mr. T. EGERTON approved of the amendment. lie
hoped his Noble Friend would press the question to a
division.

Dr. BOWRING said that it was allowed upon all
hands that the present system was defective. At the
same time he thought it better that the House should not
come to a division on the point without further consi-
deration.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that he could not consent to
the proposal of the Ncble Lord. The subject was one
which included various considerations, and he depreca-
ted a hasty decision on the matter. He believed that
the clause of the Noble Lord was one which could not be
carried into abet.