the door for fraud and gambling of all kinds, and yet the hon. Gentleman wished to continue the system which gave room to those practices, in order to maintain the price of the people's bread at a higher rate than it would be purchased at did no Corn-law exist.

Amendment withdrawn.

troduced by the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway Company in direct breach of an agreement entered into by that Company with the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company. In 1836, these companies had each obtained an act of Parliament-the Birmingham and Gloucester Company for the construction of a railway from Birmingham to Gloucester, and the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Company, for the formation of a line from Cheltenham, to join the Great Western line near Swindon. The lines of these two

On the motion of Mr. Gladstone, on the schedule with reference to the cities and towns to which the bill referred, the town of Evesham was inserted; Marlborough was struck out; Market Drayton and Chippenham were inserted, and New-railways ran parallel to each other from bury was struck out.

The schedule, as amended, was agreed to. The House resumed. Report to be brought up on the next day. House adjourned.

122.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, April 6, 1842.
MINUTES. NEW WRIT. Montrose District of Burghs,

vice Patrick Chalmers, Chiltern Hundreds.
BILLS. Public.-1. Timber Ships; Fisheries (Ireland).
2o. Indemnity.

Reported. Corn Importation.

30. and passed:-Forged Exchequer Bills,
Private.-2° Liebert's Naturalization.
30. and passed-West Stirlingshire Roads.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Macaulay, from Edin burgh, in favour of National Education, and praying for rand, from a Parish in Glamorganshire, complaining of the extent to which the Truck System was carried. By Dr. Bowring, from Tillicoultry, London, Topsham, Reford, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.-By Sir H. Dou. glas, from the Cordwainers of Liverpool, Devonport, Tynemouth, and other places, against the proposed Alteration of the Import Duty of Boots and Shoes. -By Lord Eliot, from persons connected with the Pilchard Fisheries, that measures might be taken for pro

the Establishment of Parochial Schools.-By Mr. Fer

gent's Park, St. Anne's, Limehouse, Crayford, and Strat

curing the remission of the onerous Duties payable on Pilchards Imported into Naples.-By Sir Robert Peel,

from Roscommon, in favour of the Alteration in the Tariff as regards the Importation of Cattle.-By Dr. Bowring, from Dublin, that the House would interpose duction of certain Documents to the Agents of the

its authority with the East India Company for the pro

Raja of Sattara.-By an hon, Member, from St. Ann's,

Shandon, Cork, Youghall, Kilmeen, and other places,

against the present System of National Education in Ireland. By an hon. Member, from Brailsford, against any further Grant to Maynooth College. From J. Alexander, and others, for Encouraging the Importation of Grain in

preference to Flour.-From the East Essex Agricultural

Society, against the Corn Importation Bill.

CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN UNION RAILWAY.] Lord Worsley brought up the Report of the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway Bill Amendment made by the Committee, read a first time. On the question that they be read a se

cond time.

Cheltenham to Gloucester; and it was
agreed between the two companies that
only one line of railway should be con-
structed between Cheltenham and Glou-
cester, such line to be constructed for the
joint use, and at the joint expense of the
two companies, the Birmingham and Glou-
cester Company being the owners of the
one half of the line lying next Gloucester
and Cheltenham, and the Great Western
Union Company being owners of the half
nearest to Cheltenham. The time granted
by the act to the Cheltenham and Great
Western Union Company for the purchase
of lands, was two years, and for the com-
pletion of the railway, seven years. They
applied for an extension of these periods in
the year 1838. This application was op-
posed by the Birmingham and Gloucester
Company for the purpose of procuring the
insertion of clauses, securing the comple-
tion of the line from Cheltenham to Glou-
cester, a matter of the utmost importance
to the Birmingham Company, inasmuch as
they had no power to form that portion of
the line under their own bill. The com-
mittee on that bill intimated an opinion
that the clauses required by the Birming-
ham and Gloucester Company ought to be
inserted, and accordingly an agreement
was entered into between the two com-
panies, the second clause of which was to
the following effect :-
:-

"If the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway Company do not complete their line between Cheltenham and Gloucester by Midsummer-day, 1840, the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company may enter on the same, and do all such works as may be necessary to complete it, or to concur in completing it for their own benefit, so as to insure its opening at the earliest possible period; but the Cheltenham and Great Western Union

Railway Company to be entitled to re-purchase all their rights under the existing acts, by payment of one-half of what may have been expended by the Birmingham and Glou

cester Railway Company, in the completion of that portion of the line between Cheltenham and Gloucester, 'provided a continuous line of railway from the Great Western Railway to Gloucester shall have been completed within a period to be limited for that purpose by the

bill now before Parliament.'"

decline, unless by order of the Speaker, again sitting on one. He trusted, that the House would support the motion which he had to make, for if they did not, he should not entertain that high opinion of the justness and fairness of the House which he at present held.

their line, so that the communication between Birmingham and Bristol might be complete; and he believed it was agreed that if the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Company did not complete that portion by the specified time, the Birmingham and Gloucester Company were to be at liberty to purchase their portion of the other line, and finish it. It appeared to him, under all these circumstances, that it was not preposterous to ask for an extension of time. He might state, that in the committee, there was a large majority in favour of the bill, and that he agreed with them in their opinion. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not consent to the motion of the hon. Member.

The period fixed upon for the completion Lord Worsley, as Chairman of the Comof the line was the 21st of June, 1845, and mittee on this bill, must say, that he went upon the faith of that agreement the Bir-into the committee-room without knowing mingham and Gloucester Company with anything of the local circumstances of the drew their opposition. In June, 1840, the line of railway, but from hearing counsel Cheltenham and Great Western Union on both sides of the question, he must say Company, not having completed the line, that he came to the conclusion which would gave it over, under the provisions of this have led him, had he been in a position to act, to the Birmingham and Gloucester vote, to have voted in direct opposition to Company, receiving from that company a the hon. Member. When the bill was large sum of money for the works they had before the House, it was considered desiraalready constructed on that line, and the ble that a certain portion of the line should line was completed by the Birmingham be finished at the same time that the Birand Gloucester Company at a consider-mingham and Gloucester Railway finished able additional expense. He held in his hand a copy of the agreement entered into between the two companies, in which it was distinctly stated, that the time for the completion of the railway should expire on the 21st June, 1845, so that they had three years yet unexpired, in which they could complete this railway. Now, by the present bill, which was, in fact, an amendment of an already amended act, they sought not only for a still further extension of the time for the completion of their line, and consequently for the redemption of that portion of it between Cheltenham and Gloucester from the Birmingham Company, in violation of their agreement, but they also sought to have the power of disposing of their line, or of any portions of it, to any other parties or companies they might see fit. Now, as it appeared that the line might be finished in two years, which was within the time limited by their present act, and at a cost under 200,000l., and as they had not raised all the money they had the power to raise under their present act, he was of opinion, that the powers they now sought were totally unnecessary, and therefore he thought the bill ought to be re-committed. As the three selected Members serving on that committee were unanimous against the report, he thought, that the time taken up by the hon. Members employed on that committee had been entirely wasted; if this report were received, he should consider that they had been most unprofitably employed, and he, must say, that if the time of hon. Members on committee were thus to be wasted, be for one must

Mr. Craven Berkeley was a member of the committee, and as such he thought it right to support the motion of the hon. Member opposite. His reason for doing so was, that when they got through the bill, the Parliamentary agents brought in a great number of clauses which were read at the Table, so that it was impossible for Members to ascertain what they contained; that he considered was not a proper way to conduct private bills, and it was very unsatisfactory both to the Members who composed the committee and to the public. When he knew the composition of the committee who sat on the bill, he knew that the interests of his hon. Friends were so preponderating that the bill, no matter what was the evidence brought forward, would pass. One of the clauses to which he objected was that important one relating to money at 6 per cent. That was an imposition on the public, and one that

ought not to be sanctioned by the House. I on the committee which had already invesThe bill was a contest between two com- tigated the matter. panies, and two engineers were examined -Mr. Brunel on the part of one company, and Mr. Wishaw on the part of the other -and when one gentleman stated that white was black, the other said that black was white. He should, therefore, support the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough.

Lord Granville Somerset said, he would pronounce no opinion whatever with respect to the committee which had already investigated the merits of the bill. His object in rising was to propose that the evidence brought before the committee should be laid on the Table of the House before they were called upon to pronounce their decision. He thought neither party could fairly object to that proposal. He would take this opportunity of deprecating the practice of making extensive manuscript alterations, which was now so preva

that that practice should be discontinued. In addition to the proposal for having the minutes of the committee laid on the Table of the House, he should also propose that the bill so committed be recommitted, in order that Members might have an opportunity of looking at those clauses. If it should appear that those clauses were of an important character, he trusted that a strong case would be made out for the bill; on the contrary, if it should appear that they were not of the slightest importance, then he should be prepared to express his opinion with regard to the measure. He thought it his duty, under all the circumstances, to oppose the committal of the bill, and should, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Scott said, that it appeared to him that the company were not in a position to be able to raise the funds necessary for completing the line. It was complete in part, and they were not able to obtain the money necessary for finishing the remain-lent. He thought it was very desirable der. The line was of great importance, as it was to convey goods between Birmingham and Bristol. It appeared to him most important to the public that the line of traffic should not be interfered with. The company were not able to raise more than 20,000l. of the 250,000l. which they sought to raise, and the shares had fallen to 21. 10s. They had, however, declared a dividend of 17. to the shareholders. And what object could they have in so acting, except to raise the shares in the market when the company were actually insolvent, and not able to carry on their works? It was his belief that the company were not able to complete the works. They had already had ample time to bring the works to a conclusion, if they had been enabled properly to conduct the undertaking. The powers of the company would terminate in 1845; and they now asked that those powers should be extended to the year 1848. But the undertaking had first been contemplated in 1836, so that it appeared that a period of twelve years was not sufficient to enable them to finish the work. He was sure that the House would now come to the conclusion that they were not deserving of the powers which they asked for; and for these reasons he should most willingly support the amendment.

Mr. Masters said, that he thought it would not now be advisable to thwart the progress of the undertaking, and he should, therefore, oppose the motion for a recommittal of the bill.

Mr. P. Scrope said, as far as his information entitled him to judge, he believed that motions for recommittal were never made, unless there were some informality which required that the bill should be recommitted and re-argued. He thought that if the House agreed to the motion, they would be casting an unmerited stigma

Lord Worsley hoped the noble Lord would not press his motion, as the adjournment would put the parties to very great expense. He hoped the House would do him the credit of believing that he had done his utmost to give the bill a fair and candid examination, and the committee having come to a conclusion on the bill, he did not think it necessary that the House should put off the committal.

Mr. Scholefield said, he thought the reasons given by the noble Lord for deferring the consideration of this bill, were good reasons. In the committee it had been proved that one party had brought up clauses containing most important matter, which had been introduced, the other party not being aware of them. He should, therefore, vote for the adjournment moved by the noble Lord.

Mr. T. B. Estcourt said, no practice was so much to be deprecated, so far as the public interest was concerned, as the practice of bringing up clauses in a bill in the manner alluded to. The noble Lord had stated that in this case the clauses