cussion has arisen during the present Session (1846). In the case of the Ayrshire, Bridge of Weir and Port Glasgow Junction Railway petition, an objection was taken, before the sub-committee (No. 2) on petitions for private bills, to the contract, on the ground that the trustees therein named were also shareholders to the amount of a certain number of shares in the proposed company. On this point the committee came to a resolution, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with in that case. When Sir J. Y. Buller (Feb. 9th) presented that report to the House, Mr. Hodges called attention to the subject, and elicited the following opinion from the Attorney-General, after stating that the promoters of the bill had taken the opinion of the highest legal authority both on English and Scotch law, and had reason to believe that the decision of the committee was erroneous.

The Attorney-General said, the facts of the present case were briefly these :-The deed in question had been signed by parties who were themselves shareholders. These signers were trustees to the deed. These shareholders covenanted with the trustees for the payment of their respective subscriptions; and it had been held that it was not a valid document, inasmuch as these trustees were both covenanters and covenantees. He had been informed that this fact of the trustees being shareholders themselves had been decided by the committee to invalidate the deed. Now, he held that they were entirely mistaken in this respect. The real question to be decided by them was not a point of law, but whether or not there had been a proper and valid compliance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. All that the Standing Orders required was, that the parties should bind themselves for the payment of the subscription money. It was alleged, in this case, that there was no remedy against defaulters in a court of law, inasmuch as parties could not sue themselves. But in a court of equity such an objection could not prevail. In equity the parties could be com

pelled, by the deed alluded to, and more especially in the case of a Scotch company, and in a Scotch court, where no such distinctions arose between law and equity. His opinion then was, that in the present instance there was a full and strict compliance with the requisitions of the Standing Orders of that House.

Sir J. Y. Buller conceived that a decision had been arrived at in the course of the last year, on a subject of a similar nature, and the recent resolution of the committee he presided over had been influenced by that decision. The great point which weighed with them was that parties had no remedy in a court of law. On the next day, when subcommittee No. 2 again met, the chairman alluded to the .decision of the Attorney-General. The Standing Orders not having, however, been complied with in other respects, the committee presented a report accordingly to the House.

Another question with regard to the subscription contract has been decided during the present Session (1846), viz., that one subscription contract would be sufficient, even where there were several projects and the promoters sought to obtain several bills. (Vide North British Extension Projects, and South Eastern Projects in sub-committee on petitions for private bills. H. C. Feb. 9th and 11th, Session 1846.)

[NOTE to p. 66.]

In all these instances, however, we believe the Standing Order Committee subsequently allowed the parties to proceed with their bills, notwithstanding their non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House in this respect.

[NOTE to p. 67.]

Amount of Deposit required by the Standing Orders.

In the case of the Glasgow, Strathaven and Lesmahogan

I

(Sub-committee No. 5, Feb. 26, 1846), a question of great importance was raised, as to whether it is requisite to deposit one-tenth of the amount subscribed, or only one-tenth of the three-fourths of the estimate. Standing Order 29, it will be remembered, requires that "a subscription be entered into under a contract, made as hereinafter described to three-fourths the amount of the estimate ;" and the S. O. 39 a, requires that "one-tenth part of the amount subscribed" shall be deposited, &c. The committee decided that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as "one-tenth part of the amount subscribed" had not been deposited. As there was, however, a provision in the contract giving the company power to confine itself to certain works, and one-tenth of three-fourths of the estimate for the works had been deposited, the committee decided on reporting the same to the House.

[NOTE to p. 68.]

[Deposits with the Accountant General.]

The following are the Standing Orders of the two Houses with regard to the deposits requisite to be made with the Accountant General:

(H. C.) 39 a, One-tenth part of Amount Subscribed to be

Deposited.

"That previous to the presentation of a petition for a railway bill, a sum equal to one-tenth part of the amount subscribed shall be deposited with the Court of Chancery in England, if the railway is intended to be made in England; or with the Court of Chancery in England or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, if such railway is intended to be made in Scotland; and with the Court of Chancery in Ireland, if such railway is intended to be made in Ireland: Provided that the above order shall not apply to any railway bills which have been before Parliament during the present

session (1845), and which may be again introduced in the next session (1846), or which are already provisionally registered, or the subscription contract for which may be already executed, or partly executed on the 29th of July; but with respect to such bills, a sum equal to one-twentieth of the amount subscribed shall be deposited as before provided."

The House of Lords Order (224 sec. 4) is as follows:

Subscription Contract to contain Christian and Surnames of parties, &c., one-twentieth, and in the case of railway bills, one-tenth part of the amount subscribed to be deposited.—That every subscription contract shall contain the Christian and surname, description and place of abode of every subscriber, his signature to the amount of his subscription, with the amount which he has paid up, and the name of the party witnessing such signature, and the date of the same respectively; and that, as respects all bills, except railway bills, it be proved to the satisfaction of the committee before whom the compliance with the Standing Orders shall be proved, that a sum equal to one-twentieth part of the amount subscribed, and as respects railway bills, a sum equal to onetenth of the amount subscribed, has been deposited with the Court of Chancery in England, if the work is intended to be done in England, or with the Court of Chancery in England, or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, if such work is intended to be done in Scotland, or with the Court of Chancery in Ireland, if such work is intended to be done in Ireland: Provided that the above order, so far as respects the sum of money to be deposited, shall not apply to any railway bills which have been before Parliament during the present session (1845) and which may again be introduced in the next session (1846); but with respect to such bills a sum equal to one-twentieth of the amount subscribed shall be deposited, as before provided in cases of bills other than railway bills." (See Act. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 117.)

Early in the present session (1846), however, the House of Lords (in accordance with a suggestion in the second report of their Lordships' Select Committee on Railways, presented Feb. 12th) agreed that such portion of the above Standing Order as requires a deposit of one-tenth of the amount subscribed, should be suspended with respect to all such railway bills as shall commence in the House of Lords during the present session (namely, Irish railway bills, and railway bills that compete with or ought to be considered in connection with any bills, the promoters of which shall prove themselves entitled to the privileges granted by the resolutions of the Lords of 7th July, 1845.) Their Lordships further resolved that no such railway bills shall be read a first time in this House unless a deposit of one-twentieth part of the amount subscribed should have been paid (on or before the 6th February); and that no such bills should be read a third time, until a further deposit of one-twentieth part of the amount subscribed should in like manner be paid.

It is unnecessary to point out the important relief afforded by these alterations in their Lordships' Standing Order.

[NOTE to p. 72.]

Signature to Petitions on Private Bills.

In the case of the Colchester and Stour Valley, Sudbury and Halstead Railway, this session (1846) an opposing petition came before the sub-committee on petitions (No. 1), to the reception of which the agent for the promoters objected, on the ground that it was neither signed by the parties whose names were attached, nor was there any proof of their being cognisant of the allegations contained in, or the presentation of the petition. A witness was, however, produced to show that the petitioners had given verbal instructions to attach their names to the petition; but the chairman (Mr. Strutt)