The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-21 00:00:00

presumed their right to the shares by transferring them to
men of straw. If they omitted the clause there would
be no protection afforded to the honest and solvent
speculator. The moment a call was made it became a debt,
and he, for one, could see no objection why every call should
not be satisfied before any transfer was allowed. At alt
events, if some such provision as this were not made, it
would be hard upon those who had entered into engage.
meats, with every hope and intention of meeting
them in due course, to allow dishonest speculators to.creep out
of their liabilities in the manner he had stated. He really
could not conceive, therefore, on what ground the clause was
proposed to be omitted.
Mr. HENLEY denied that a call became a debt payable
immediately on being made. He apprehended a ,call stood
upon the same principle as rent, for which no distraint could
be made until the expiration of the quarter. So of a call; It
could not be legally demanded until the time allowed for
payment had expired.
Mr. HAWES said that he agreed with the Hon. Gentle•
man opposite that there did appear some reason for altering
the clause. But he would not take upon himself, at present,
the responsibility of introducing the amendment suggested
by the lion. Gentleman opposite into every railway Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET was disposed to think that the clause
might be improved, and at a future time he would be ready
to consider the amendment proposed. But as the clause was
introduced after much consideration and discussion, and as it
had been introduced into every railway Bill fur the last
thirteen or fourteen years, he could not take upon himself
the responsibility ofaltering it at present, or without muels
consideration.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses lea
17, and 18.
On the reading of clause 19, which determines the permit
tt whom dividends are to be paid,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET proposed the insertion
of the words—" or to any of those whose names appear in tlin
register."
Mr. HAYTER did not see the reason why in these case,
there should be any difference between the mode of paying
dividends and that adopted at the Bank, and in all the other
public companies.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the object of the clause was N
prevent frauo.___

Mr. HAYTER did not see how fraud could be more readily.
committed in respect to these than in respect to those or
other companies.
The clause, with the words proposed inserted, .was then
agreed to.
On the reading of clause 20, respecting the payment of
subscriptions when called for (that is by instalments),
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to allow these companies to
pay up their capital by instalments, or by " calls." He would
have the whole subscription paid at once.—(Great laughter.)
This system of calls enabled railway schemes to be taken up,
as was truly said by an Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hayter),
by " men of straw." They got up those schemes without
a shilling in the world, and then they went over the
country under the pretence of making surveys. He himself
could not endure to have his property entered upon and his
trees cut down by these marauders.—(Great laughter.) Ho
would say that at least two-thirds of the capital ought to be
subscribed at first.—(A laugh.) lie knew how the schemes
were got up. People who knew nothing about these things
were humbugged—(A laugh)—yes, humbugged—that was
the word—(A laugh)—by engineers and attorneys. Now
he did not want to make a sweeping charge against all en-
gineers and attorneys ; for he knew that many of them were
very respectable men in their way. If the public saw
a sum of money, such as 20,0001., paid down at once
in a new company they would, have some confidence.—
(A laugh.) No one could be more inclined than himself to
forward any project that would be useful to the country, but
he never would encourage or have anything to do with these
schemes, which he believed to be delusive land dangerous --
The clause was then agreed to.
The other clauses up to 35 were then agreed to.
On clause 35, relating to the liability of directors, being
proposed,
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether this clause did not clash with clause 99, so as to involve a contradiction.
Lord G. SOMERSET said his impression was that direc-
tors would not escape from their general liability as share-
holders.
Mr. HAWES said they certainly ought not to be more re-
sponsible than shareholders.
Mr. lIENLEY had great dottbts whether, under this clause
a director would be exempted from that liability with respect
to his own property from which shareholders were exempted.
After some further conversation, the clause was ag,eed to-
Clauses from 46 to 98 inclusive were then agreed to without
discussion.
Clauses 99 to 110 were then agreed to.
On clause 111, empowering the company to imprison their
servants for detaining their documents, being read,
Mr. HAWES made some objections to the clause, on ac-
count of the nature of the remedy provided by it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the clause was the usual one, and
the best defence of it was, that no complaints had ever
arisen from its operation. The case of a company requiring
its servants to deliver up books, papers, vouchers, and so on,
which were its own property, was not at all analogous to the
ordinary case of a dispute between two parties in a court of
justice, where the presumption was equally in favour of both
antecedently to the investigation. He could conceive of no
justification for detaining the property of the company.
Mr. SPOONER said, as the party was to be imprisoned,
in the absence of bail, until he had made up his accounts,
facilities ought to be afforded to him for that purpose.
Mr. HENLEY could not see why these new compa-
nies should have any powers, as regarded their servants,
which the old companies did not possess, The Right Hon.
Gentleman said there could be no possible justification for de-
taining books and papers. Why it might be that that was
the only way in which a clerk could prove that the
Company were indebted to him. The observation of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham was a very striking one. By
this law they imprisoned a man because he did not give up
books, and then they kept him in prison because he did not
make up his accounts, although no facilities were provided
for such a purpose.
Mr. FOX MAULS did think that the clause should bo mo-
dified, and that a power should be given to ascertain whether
the offence was one for which they might take bail, as in
ordinary cases.
Lord G. SOMERSET quite concurred with the Hon.
Member, that the clause admitted of modification. But with
regard to the observations of the Hon. Member for Bir-
mingham, upon another part of it, it did appear to him (Lord
G. Somerset) that a public audit of the accounts would not
be necessary. However, he would suggest that the clause
should?be passed now, and when the Bill was brought up he
would have a modified clause prepared ; but if he attempted
to do so now he might do too much or too little.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND—The clause in question was the
same as that which he was aware existed for the last twenty
years on fifty different private Bills.
Mr. HAWES concutTed in the course suggested by the
Noble Lord ; but lie should object to local Bills of termer
times being taken as precedents.
The clause was then agreed to.
Upon clause 112 being read,
Mr. HENLEY said he thought it would require some
alteration. It was quite right that the Company should lay
hold of any man in their employment whom they had reason
to believe was about to abscond; but provision should be
made for bringing him at once before a magistrate; fqr if he
were to wait for the petty sessions he should be held over
for a fortnight, or let go.
Lord G. SOMERSET concurred in the Hon. Member's
observations, and would have the clause modified.
Clauses 113 to 122 were next read, and agreed to without
observation.
Upon clause 123 being read,
Mr. HENLEY begged to call attention to its formation,
and compare it with clause 144. Each gave a power to make
bye-laws, but care should be taken that those laws did not
extend indiscriminately to all her Majesty's subjects; if so, a
person charged with an offence under the bye-laws, if that
were not an offence connected in some way with the Com-
pany, the magistrate inflicting a penalty for it might be liable
to an action. There was great vagueness in the wording of
the clause.
Lord G. SOMERSET believed there could be no doubt
that the clause applied only to the Company, and did not in • any way interfere with the laws of the land. The object was
to prevent smoking in the carriages, or the commission of any
other nuisance or offence.
Mr. HENLEY—His only object in calling attention to it
was, that it should be made clear and plain.
Lord G. SOMERSET—Of course, care would be taker that the clause would not admit of any doubt.
Clause 123 was agreed to.
On clause 124, which provides that no Company shall re-
duce the capital stock, being put,
Mr. HAWES wished to be informed how they were to
determine what was or was not capital stock. What
might have been the capital stock of a Company in 1835
might be very different to the capital stock of 1845. The
capital stock of a Company was constantly varying. It might
be reduced at one time, and added to at another, and he was
inclined to think it was important that they should not in-
terfere with it.

(LEFT SITTING.)

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
ON RAILWAYS.-(THIS DAY.)
Sub-Committee, No. 3, assembled this morning. The Committee•
cosisted of Mr. Aglionby, Chairman, Mr. T. Egerton, Mr. ilittneby.
Captain Jones, Mr. Standish, and Mr. Clive.
The Committee had the following petitions before them ;
Caledonian Railway—Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle—Moaktand
and Kirkintilloch—Edinburgh and Glasgow—Great Grimsby and
Sheffield—Huddersfleld and Manchester—Manchester, South JUnction
and Altrincham Railway—Shrewsbury and Birmingham.
The Committee took the Caledonian line first. It appeared that
the length of the line was 135 miles—its cost 2,100,000/., and that it
was without tunnelling. The necessary forms having been proved to
have been complied with, the Committee decided that the standing
order had been complied with.
The Committee also decided ill favour of the Glasgow, DiMilbegs
and Carlisle Railway.

BY the death of the Marquis of Westminster the two
following horses are disqualified for the ensuing Derby, Oaks,
and St. Leger c Falstaff, by Touchstone, out of Decoy,
and b fby Touchstone, out of Laura, besides many valuable
two-year old horses in other great stakes.
GOLD MINES IN RUSSL&.—An account has been
laid before Parliament of the produce in gold of the washings
of the mines in Siberia and Oural, carried on upon account
of the Crown and of individuals, from 1830 to 1842 back-
sive. In the years mentioned the total produce of mines be-
longing to the Crown was 2,053 pouds (one pond being equal
to 36 pounds avoirdupoise). The produce of mines belonging
to individuals was 4,118 ponds. The grand total shows the
produce in gold of the washings of the mines in Russia to
have been, in the years mentioned, 6,171 ponds, or about
13,770,0001. The increase latterly has been enormous
in the
amount raised by individuals--the average annual am' mint
having been about 250 ponds; while, in 1842, it reached 740
ponds, or 1,650,000/.
Circuit held
AaßZNetinPgLlaAsTt PLATT,--ekT,
ath the chanheibei
Channel, at which it was resolved that the Learned
is held by o f
Baron3l .
should Sergeant
te
esteem
md magiiiflectit
ient, as a mark of the high
bar. The Learned Baron has ac-
cepted the invitation, and the dinner will the Albion consequently take place at
Tavern, on Friday evening next. Mr. Russell Gurney is
to preside reside as chairman, in his new capacity as leader of the banquetcircuit._ will be of the most Costly description, and the tickets are
two guineas each.
Tn WINDOW-TAX.—On Wednesday an adjourned
Meeting of the metropolitan delegates assembled at the Court-house.
Marylebone, for the purpose of flirther conferring with Lord Duncan,
the Member for Bath, upon the subject of the window duties. Mr.
George Daniell, of Marylebone, havirr, been called to the chair, Lord
Duncan said that since lie had last had the honour of meeting the
delegates, the assurances of support he had received from Member,
of the House of Commons when he brought his motion forward fora
repeal of the window duties, were cheering in the extreme.—(Hear.)
Gentlemen of all shades of politics had declared their intention of
supporting him. He had received letters from Leicester, Brighton.
Sunderland, and other large provincial towns, stating that meetings
were about to be held and petitions presented to Parliament, praying •
for a repeal of this tax. Mr. Crouch, of St. Pancras, Mr. Ewen. or
St. James's, Westminster, Mr. Trillium and Mr. Gomm, of St. Mary-
lebone' and several other gentlemen, having addressed themeeting„
resolutions were passed, thanking Lord Duncan, and for calling meet-
ings, and the meeting separated.
11 ing is a
FORBIDDING TILE BANNS.—The following'

lite;alCO;3ofa—lette;;;;lvedtty A clergyman through the post-
office :—" Reverent Sir, I forbids the Bands of Marriage between
Edward Blewitt and Mary Ann Howells, the Reason is he is under
age, and she Have got a husband a live, and She is went away from
him ; ho is in the Itanney, and she his with her Hunkell, so you
vent mat2/0 them, f. 414 nor Dursent."--Great Western Advertiser,