Private Bill Office; and Standing Order No. 139, requiring one clear day's notice in the Private Bill Office of the day proposed for the report of every private bill, and also for the consideration of the report; and Standing Order No. 123, requiring the reports on railway bills to be discussed every Tuesday and Thursday; and Standing Order No. 142, requiring one clear day's notice of the third reading of a bill; and Standing Order No. 124, prohibiting any private bill from passing through two stages on the same day, be suspended with respect to all bills entitled to the privileges granted by the resolutions of the House on the 7th day of July last. “That such bills may be read a second time on the day following the first reading of such bills. “That the committees on such bills may report, and such report may be considered on the same day with that on which the committee sits. “That such bills may be read a third time on the following day." [NOTE to p. 100.] Classification of Railway Bills. The classification committee, in their second report recommended that there should be added the following bills to group, No. 1, viz. :-Manchester and Lincoln Union Railway; and Chesterfield and Gainsborough Canal; Lynn and Ely Railway (Extension to March); Huntingdon and Wisbeach; Wisbeach, St. Ives and Cambridge, York and North Midland enlargement. The following bills were also recommended to be added to Group No. 2, viz.:-Cornwall and Devon Central Railway (Hayle, Lelant, St. Austell and Bodmin branches); West Cornwall Railway. [NOTE to p. 103.] With regard to unopposed railway bills, before committees on railway groups or bills, the following resolution was this Session (Feb. 26, 1846) adopted by the House of Commons, on motion of Lord Granville Somerset :-That all select committees on railway groups or bills be empowered to refer (if they shall so think fit) to the chairman of ways and means, together with the members ordered to prepare and bring in each such bill, any unopposed railway bill submitted for their consideration, and that such bills be severally dealt with by the said chairman, and those members respectively acting with him, as other unopposed bills are to be dealt with. [NOTE to p. 113.] Division of a Railway Bill into two or more Bills. The following are the official details of the splitting of the London and York Railway Bill into several Bills. 25th July, 1845. The instruction of the House of the 24th July, "That the committee have power to divide the London and York railway bill into two or more bills, in order that they may report, from time to time, on so much of the said bill as they may determine upon, and proceed separately with the consideration of the remainder thereof," was read. Motion made (Mr. Poulett Scrope,) "That so much of the resolutions of the committee as relate to the amendment of the preamble of the London and York bill by the omission of the words 'Wakefield and Sheffield,' and the passing of the preamble as amended, be rescinded." Amendment proposed, (Mr. Darby), To leave out all the words after the word "That" in order to insert these words : "The committee, after hearing the whole of the evidence on behalf of the London and York bill, and having, after an application made by the counsel for that bill, decided on the preamble with reference to a scheme of thorough communication between London and York, as compared with the competing scheme of the Direct Northern, the Cambridge and Lincoln, and Tottenham and Farringdon Street extension, do not feel themselves empowered to restore the branches which have been struck out of the London and York preamble, by dividing the London and York bill into two or more bills, in virtue of an instruction which they have received from the House." Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part." Committee divided: AYES (3). Lord Courtenay. NOES (1). Mr. Baring Wall. Mr. Poulett Scrope. So it was resolved in the affirmative. The main question was then put and agreed to. Motion made (Mr. Pollett Scrope)—"That the chairman be instructed to inform the parties that the committee, having received from the House an instruction empowering them to divide the London and York bill into two or more bills, in order that they may report from time to time on so much of the said bill as they may determine upon, and proceed separately with the remainder thereof, having found it necessary to rescind so much of their proceedings as relate to the amendment of the preamble of the London and York by the omission of the words 'Wakefield and Sheffield,' and the passing of the preamble, as amended, in order to place themselves in a position to carry that instruction into effect, the committee require that the parties will take immediate steps to carry the objects contemplated by the instruction into effect." Question put. The committee divided: AYES (3). Lord Courtenay. Mr. Baring Wall. Mr. Poulett Scrope. NOES (1). So it was resolved in the affirmative. Parties were called in and informed of the resolutions of the committee. The resolutions of the previous day, with respect to the clauses of the bill, were reconsidered and rescinded. The committee adjourned for a short time in order to enable the parties to divide the bill, in accordance with the resolution of the committee. On the committee again meeting, Mr. Paget, on behalf of the London and York company, submitted the first bill, with which they proposed to proceed for the formation of a railway from London to York, excluding the Wakefield and Sheffield branches. The preamble was read and agreed to. The committee proceeded with the clauses of the bill, &c. [NOTE to p. 119.] This section of the Order has been rescinded this Session by a Resolution of the House of Commons, adopted March 5, 1846, on motion of Mr. Greene (chairman of the committee of Ways and Means). The following is the Resolution of the House : Railway bills,-Paragraph 20, of the Standing Order, No. 87, read, as follows:-"That in the case of a railway bill, the committee report specially: : Whether the calculations proved in evidence before the committee have satisfactorily established, that the revenue is likely to be sufficient to support the annual charges of the maintenance of the railway, and still allow profit to the projectors." and repealed. Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9, had been previously repealed. [NOTE to p. 121.] The following extract from the official records of the House of Commons, (Sep. 1845) is given, as showing (better than any description could possibly do) the mode of procedure and the course of preliminary arrangements in any committee on railway bills, to which various competing lines have been referred. The example chosen is that of the select committee on group (X) of railways, comprising,-1. LONDON AND YORK. 2. CAMBRIDGE AND LINCOLN. 3. DIRECT NORTHERN (No. 2). 4. EASTERN COUNTIES (CAMBRIDGE AND HUNTINGDON). 5. EASTERN COUNTIES (ELY AND WHITTLESEA). 6. EASTERN COUNTIES (HERTFORD AND BIGGLESWADE). 7. MIDLAND RAILWAYS EXTENSION (SWINTON AND LIN COLN). 8. MIDLAND RAILWAYS EXTENSION (LINCOLN AND ELY). 9. SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE JUNCTION. 10. YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND AND DONCASTER EX TENSION. 11. TOTTENHAM AND FARRINGDON-STREET JUNCTION. Proceedings of the Committee. LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY. The following petitions were referred to the committee :- E. J. Copley. |