Colonel Percevalbegged to inquire of the noble Lord why the circumstances 876 under which the Commission for forming railways in Ireland had been first appointed had been altered in the commission newly made? The paragraph which had been omitted was to the effect that the commission was appointed in order to ascertain the best lines of railway between the principal places in Ireland which it might be advisable to connect by railway, and in reference to which joint-stock companies hereafter might be willing to apply to Parliament that they might be pleased to give permission that the survey might be made. This sentence had been omitted in the second commission.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that the commission originally granted, stated the grounds on which it had issued, but that upon a new one being framed it was not customary again to set forth the grounds, but only to state, that the commission appointed had expired. In what was essential, namely the points upon which the inquiry was made, the hon. Member would see that the form used was exactly the same as that first used.
§ Sir Robert Peelremarked, that the first commission appeared to recognise the (Need, principle of Joint-stock companies being formed, as a condition upon which public aid should be granted. That this should be omitted in the second commission was somewhat extraordinary.
§ Lord John RussellThe first commission set out that the inquiry was instituted by command of his late Majesty upon the address of the House of Lords; and then it went on to direct them to inquire into certain points not alluding at all to Joint-stock companies. In the second commission, the former inquiry was recited, and it was provided that a new one should be instituted.
§ Subject dropped.