Sitting of 7 February 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For County of Cornwall (Eastern Division), v. Lord Eliot, now Earl of St. Germans.—For County of Buckingham, v. Charles Robert Scott Murray, Esq., Manor of Hempholme.
ELECTION PETITION.—Dartmouth Borough Election,—Petition of George Moffatt (presented 5th February) read.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Villiers, from Dudley, and Wolverhampton, against the Medical Practice Bill (1844).—By Mr. Christopher, from Wainfleet, and Grantham, for Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Hume, from Tobacco Manufacturers of London, in favour of the Reduction of Duty on Tobacco.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wallace) had a Motion on the Paper for to-night, upon a subject of some importance, namely, for a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of conducting Private Bill Business in the House. Now, considering the immense mass of Private Business, particularly railway business, likely to come this Session before the House, he certainly thought that the appointment of such a Committee—formed of Members most versed in the Private Business of the House, to consider the existing arrangements, and if possible to facilitate the dispatch of that business, would be very expedient. Such an inquiry would be important both as to the cases of unopposed Bills, and also as to important points connected with competing Bills. Even although no formal report might be made, such a Committee would be enabled, taking those points of most pressing importance, to offer very useful suggestions to the House as to that class of Private Business likely to occupy so large a share of its attention. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion for the present, he would take an opportunity of consulting some of those hon. Gentlemen who took the most interest in Private Business, in the course of next week, and he hoped he would then be enabled efficiently to co-operate in the appointment of such a Committee as the one in question.
Mr. Wallacewas much obliged to the right hon. Baronet for his suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman's views of the matter quite coincided with his own, and he would postpone his Motion with much pleasure.

POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).
Mr. F. Frenchrose to put the question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary of which he gave notice yesterday. He was anxious to know whether a statement

209
which had appeared in the Freeman's Journal, respecting executions which had been put on the goods and furniture in some union workhouses in Ireland, was correct. If it were correct, it added not a little to the experience they already had as to the working of the Poor Law system in that country. One statement to which he referred said:—
"We understand that no less than four executions have been laid upon the furniture in the Ballinrobe poor-house; one at the suit of Boileau, Son, and George, druggists; the other three at the suit of contractors; for provisions and fuel. An execution had also been laid upon the furniture of the Castlebar Union Workhouse at the suit of the foregoing gentlemen."
The other statement on which he sought information was this:—
"The goods and chattels of the Tuam workhouse were sold under an execution on Monday last, at the suit of Mr. Thomas Brenan, of Tuam. There was a considerable sacrifice of property—blankets, which were supplied at 9s. and 10 s. per pair, were sold at from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per pair; ticken beds, which cost 5s. 7d. per pair, sold at 2s. 4d. each; and sheets, at 1s. 10 d. and 2s. per pair. It is worthy of remark, that the contractors who supplied those articles are yet unpaid, and are three years out of their money."
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention to put a question to him, merely with respect to the Tuam Union. His inquiries had been consequently only directed to that Union. Of the affairs of the others referred to by the hon. Gentleman he was not cognizant. With respect, however, to Tuam, he could state that it was true that an execution had been put in on the goods in the house. The building occupied as the Union belonged to a private person. The rent was in arrear, and an execution for rent was put in by the landlord. He had also to state what were the circumstances of the Union in question. The Board of Guardians had absolutely declined to carry the act into execution—refusing even to appoint collectors of rates. No rates having been thus collected over the parishes comprised in the Union, the Poor Law authorities, in November last, moved for a mandamus in the Court of Queen's Bench, calling on the Board of Guardians to appoint collectors. The rule had since been made absolute; it had been served collectively and individually on the members of the Board of Guardians, and they must forthwith proceed to appoint
210
collectors; and, as soon as that took place, the effect of these executions would be nullified, the sums paid under them would be borne by the rates, and the law would be carried into effect.

POST OFFICE COMMITTEE REPORT.
Mr. Duncombe, seeing the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool in his place, begged to put a question to him with respect to the appendix of a Report of a Committee of which he was chairman last Session—he referred to the Secret Committee on the Post Office. That Committee made its Report, and also laid on the Table of the House an appendix, which was ordered to be printed with the Report. Well, the Report was printed, but, as yet, they had no appendix. He had sent to the printer's for the appendix, and also to get another copy of the Report. The reply was, that the Report could not be got, because it was waiting for the appendix—that the appendix was waiting for a proof, and the proof was waiting for some Member of the Secret Committee. Now, that Committee's functions ceased when their Report was made to the House, and had nothing afterwards to do with the appendix or Report. He wished to ask now, therefore, why they had not got the appendix? Mr. Hansard said that it was with the Committee. He (Mr. Duncombe) was in possession of a copy of it by the special order of the Speaker, the only way, it appeared, of getting it. The appendix was in type, but not printed for general circulation. He wished to know if it was the Committee, or any Member of the Committee, who withheld it?
Viscount Sandonhad to state, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Report was made last year, just at the close of the Session, when hon. Members were fast leaving London for the country. The arrangement of the chronological part of the Report, contained in the appendix, was left in the hands of the hon. Member for Kendal, who had taken great pains with the subject all through the labours of the Committee. So far as he (Lord Sandon) could learn, the appendix still remained in the hands of that hon. Member. He himself knew nothing further about the matter. He had no doubt, however, but that on this public notice being taken of it, the document in question would soon be laid before the House. Perhaps he had been to blame in quitting London without having seen it in the

211
hands of the printer; but he had thought that it would be quite safe in the charge of the hon. Member for Kendal.
Mr. Duncombeintended to bring the subject of the Post Office before the House, and he did, therefore, hope that no further time would be lost in having the appendix put into the hands of hon. Members.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE INCOME TAX.
Sir Robert Peel: Sir, it may be convenient for the House, if I now state what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in bringing forward the statement of their financial plans. I believe that it would be competent for me—without moving for a Committee of Ways and Means—to adopt the course of moving a Resolution for the continuance of the law imposing a tax upon income. But as that would not be a course which it has been usual of late years to adopt, I propose on Wednesday next to proceed in this way. I shall move on that day for a Committee of Ways and Means, asking in it for the continuance of some tax, and then upon Friday next, in that Committee of Ways and Means, I shall propose a Resolution to the effect, that the laws imposing an Income Tax in Great Britain, and an additional Stamp Duty in Ireland, be continued for a further limited period. Such is the nature of the Resolution which I shall propose to move.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Wallacewished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that an important decision had been come to in one of the Courts of Scotland with regard to the Weights and Measures Act. The decision affected the general understanding of the administration of the law on that Act in Scotland, and it had caused in particular districts a very great degree of anxiety, not to say disturbance. He begged, therefore, to inquire, whether it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to take any steps in the matter.
Sir J. Graham, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, had to state that he was perfectly aware of the decision which had been come to on the subject of the Weights and Measures Act of Scotland, and he was aware that this decision affected a large portion of the community in Scotland. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the decision of a
212
Judge on circuit—a very elaborate and learned decision, and one entitled to great weight—but still only the decision of a single Judge. The same question which had been brought before this inferior tribunal would shortly be brought before all the Judges in the Court of Justiciary, and before the decision of that tribunal had been given he thought it would be premature to discuss the propriety of any alterations.

SUPPLY.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Greene in the Chair.
On the Motion that Supply be granted to Her Majesty,
Mr. Humesaid, that he had no objections to the Supply being granted—that is, he would not divide the Committee upon the subject; but he thought that they ought first to have heard the Government Financial Statement. He was by no means prepared to assent to any increase in the Navy Estimates. On the contrary, he thought that the establishment ought to be decreased. He wished, in allowing the Supply to be granted, to guard himself against being understood to agree in the suggestion for the increase in these Estimates. To the general Motion for Supply being granted, he had no objection; but he was opposed to the addition to the Estimates which was intended to be made. He repeated that the financial statement should be made before public money was voted. The state of the country was such that their efforts ought to be directed to the reduction in every possible way of taxation. If he looked at the Papers laid on the Table to-day, it would appear that 59,000,000 l. would have been received by the Treasury in the course of the year, an amount much larger than in former years, or than it was some ten years ago, when Europe was in an unsettled state, and the condition of America required a large establishment. But now, when every thing tended to security and peace, an increase in their establishment was asked for. He would not ask the Committee to support his opinion by pressing for a division; but he begged leave to enter his protest, for the reasons assigned, against the increase, and he should certainly like to hear from the right hon. Baronet his exposition of the plans he had in view.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that with respect to the protest of the hon. Member, no great

213
harm could ensue from his adopting such a course, inasmuch as he felt quite sure the hon. Member did not mean to intimate his desire that no supply at all should be granted to Her Majesty. He did hope that the hon. Member would not condemn the Naval Estimates until he had examined them, and ascertained the purposes which they were destined to be applied to. Had the hon. Member known what those purposes were, he would hardly have ascribed them to the sole object of increasing the naval steam force. It might be, he would just observe, that some additional expenditure would be found necessary for the construction of new docks for steam-vessels, and the increased trade with China might render some addition to the naval establishment necessary, for the purpose of affording adequate protection to the British ships employed in that commerce. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would postpone, or at least suspend, his judgment until the Estimates were brought regularly before the House; by so doing neither he nor any other hon. Member would stand committed to approve of them. He trusted that the Motion before the Committee, as a mere preliminary form, would be asquiesced in. He must observe, however, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member on the subject of the congratulations offered in Her Majesty's Speech, that the ground on which those congratulations were offered, was not that of increased taxation having produced an improved state of the revenue, but because the existing taxation had been productive of so prosperous a state of the finances as to leave a large amount of surplus; and he must confess he thought that all who viewed the matter correctly, would join cordially in the expressions of satisfaction uttered by Her Majesty in consequence of this surplus.
Mr. Humeknew, by his experience of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and First Lords of the Treasury, that the existence of a surplus in the revenue was always a strong incentive to them to be lavish in the expenditure of the public money, and therefore he was of opinion that a surplus was a bad thing, and that the best way to control expenditure was by keeping the Chancellor short of money. He, therefore could not join in the congratulations of the Speech. The reason however, which had prompted him to rise on the present
214
occasion was in order to express his dissent from the proposal to increase the steam vessels of the Navy.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the House would no doubt be very soon in possession of the specific grounds upon which the increase in the Navy Estimates was based, and he should await the knowledge of those reasons in the full belief that they would be found valid and satisfactory. The hon. Member for Montrose had made an observation respecting the course which the right hon. Baronet proposed to pursue with regard to his financial projects. The right hon. Baronet had intimated his intention to bring forward his financial scheme at a very early period, and to state what taxes he should be prepared to reduce. He thought nothing better suited to public convenience, could have been devised or acted upon. But, at the some time, he did not understand the right hon. Baronet to intimate that he had adopted the alteration with the intention that it should be persevered in upon all future occasions. On the contrary, as he understood, it was an exception expressly adapted to the exigencies of the moment. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that, in his opinion, the course proper to be followed with respect to finance was to settle first what the amount of the Revenue was calculated to be, and then to apportion the expenditure to that sum. The view which he and others of his own Political Colleagues took of the matter was directly contrary to that laid down by the hon. Member, for they had always maintained the necessity and expediency of settling the amount which would be required for defraying the expenses of Government, and for providing for the national defences first, and then provide, in a Committee of Ways and Means, for the mode of raising that sum. He therefore rose for the purpose of saying that, although the right hon. Baronet had adopted the course of stating what his financial views were at so early a period in the present Session, he by no means understood him to intimate that such a course would be continued in future years.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had resolved upon taking the course which he had given notice of his intention to take, in consequence solely of the special circumstances which marked the present Session, because the moment it became known or suspected that Her Majesty's Ministers

215
were resolved upon submitting the necessity of continuing the Income Tax for another limited period to the consideration of Parliament, there had arisen many speculations in the city as to what reductions in the existing taxes were to be proposed by Government, and these uncertainties were productive of extreme inconvenience as well as of positive injury to trade and commerce, by throwing a damp upon all transactions until the intentions of Ministers were made public. It was solely on this account that he had determined on taking the course of making an early statement; and he must explicitly state that it would not be followed on any future occasion.
Mr. Humewas sorry to hear the objections urged by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London to the continuance of the plan adopted by the Government, because he was sure such a sentiment was in direct opposition to the practice of the noble Lord with respect to his own private expenditure. Every man possessed of discretion would endeavour to ascertain as nearly as he could the amount of his income before he regulated his expenses, and he saw no reason why so wholesome and prudent a rule should not be adopted and persevered in when dealing with the public money. He was, however, glad to have the example set for one year only, and he trusted it would be found to be productive of so much benefit as to induce the right hon. Baronet to persevere in its adoption on future occasions.
Mr. S. Crawfordwas extremely glad the right hon. Baronet had at length seen the propriety of adopting the course he had suggested two years ago by an amendment which he then proposed. On that occasion he had moved for the suspension of the Estimates until the amount and the sources of the Income of the year had been ascertained. The hon. Member for Montrose had seconded his Motion on that occasion, but it was rejected. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Baronet had at length taken his advice, and he was only sorry to hear that the course adopted was only for the present year.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed. Resolution reported. Committee to sit again.

GILBERT UNIONS—POOR LAW.
Mr. M. Suttonmoved,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to
216
inquire into the administration and operation of the Law for the Relief of the Poor in Unions formed under the Act 22 George III., c. 83 (Gilbert's Act), and to report to the House their opinion whether it is expedient that the said Unions should be maintained."
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, that he did not then rise to oppose the re-appointment of the Committee, but simply to express his profound conviction that the perseverance in such an inquiry was a mere useless waste of time of the gentlemen who were engaged in it. If the Government were determined that the Gilbert Unions were to be done away with, they had better not institute any inquiry, for the time of the Members, and the Report, would be altogether thrown away. He had witnessed some proceedings with respect to this matter in Rochdale, the Borough with which he was connected, which had convinced him of the truth of what he asserted. In that place the Poor Law Commissioners lately had determined that the Guardians of that Union should no longer relieve their own poor. The Guardians were unanimous in their determination against this interference. They resolved not to act under the control of the Poor Law Commissioners. The people of the Union, and all connected with it, were all unanimous in the same view, and the Guardians and Magistrates refused to assemble under any such orders as had been issued. Was it, therefore, right that the Poor Law Commissioners should be permitted, or even encouraged, to force themselves in this manner upon the Union? The Guardians had been threatened with a mandamus, but, if he was rightly informed, no such mode of proceeding against them could legally be taken. At the same time, when he witnessed such a pertinacity on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to thrust the New Poor Law into operation in the borough with which he was connected, he could not but consider that the Government was determined that no other law should be in force there, and, consequently, he looked upon the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry moved for by the hon. Gentleman as an entirely useless and unnecessary proceeding, and one which would not repay the trouble. There was a great difference between the working of the Poor Laws under the Gilbert Unions, and under the law as administered by the Somerset House Commissioners: and the advantages in his opinion were all

217
on the side of the Gilbert Unions, both with respect to economy, the feelings and comforts of the poor, and the inhabitant ratepayers. He could not therefore omit to avail himself of the present opportunity of impressing these views on the minds of Ministers, more especially on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who had expressed his sentiments the other evening in relation to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury. But what must be the nature of a law which could sanction such sufferings as were described by that hon. Member? If the Government were determined, however, to carry that law into universal operation throughout England, all inquiry, he repeated, was totally unnecessary. It was a question beyond all others of importance. The public mind was in a most unsettled condition, and, for his part, he believed it to be impossible that the people could continue to preserve their loyalty, and maintain their respect for the laws, if the New Poor Law were to be persevered in and carried out to its present extent. He, therefore, again put it to the Government whether this useless inquiry was to be persevered in? If it were for the purpose of discovering abuses in the administration of the Gilbert Union Acts, then he would by all means urge an inquiry. But he did not believe the Committee was appointed with this view. He admitted the liability of all laws to be abused. The Gilbert Union Acts were not free from this liability; and if such abuses existed in them, it was only right they should be inquired into and brought into comparison with those which were found to exist under the New Poor Law. Let both the systems be placed fairly and fully before the nation, and then let it be seen which of then was the best adapted to the purposes for which they were designed. He had had the honour of being received, together with a deputation from Rochdale on this subject, by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and it was then stated to the right hon. Gentleman, that out of a body of 12,000 ratepayers who contributed to support the Gilbert Unions there, all except nine of them were decidedly opposed to the introduction of the New Poor Law. He was ready to admit the perfect courtesy with which the right hon. Baronet, as was his unvarying custom, received the deputation,
218
and replied to their representations that he had no power to interfere with the law. The right hon. Baronet did not say that he had not the power of controlling the Poor Law Commissioners; but if he had not that power, he would be the very first to grant it to the right hon. Gentleman. He made these observations in the full belief that all inquiry into the working of the Gilbert Unions was entirely useless, and that the appointment of the Committee was uncalled for.

POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Colonel Sibthorp, in reviving a Motion, which he had brought forward and obtained the sanction of the House to in the course of the last Session, stated that for some reasons of which he was ignorant, the Order which was then made on the subject had been evaded, or at least it had not been complied with. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had, however, given him to understand that there was a difficulty in making out a return of the number of days during which the Poor Law Commissioners attended in the performance of their duties, because no regular roster was, he believed, kept in the public offices of the attendance of the functionaries; that being the fact, to his knowledge, with respect to the Home Secretary's office. He was quite ready to admit the ability, the perseverance, and the zeal of the right hon. Baronet in the performance of his duties, and the universal satisfaction which his assiduity and his untiring attention to his arduous occupations had given to all parties. He said this without any wish to flatter the right hon. Gentleman, and for that reason he did not require that a roster should be kept of the right hon. Baronet's attendance at his office, seeing so many proofs could be adduced of his attention to his duties; but the case was different with respect to the Poor Law Commissioners, and he should certainly like to know when and where they went; he did not mean to say they went into any improper places, but he should like to know what their attendance at their office was, and whether they attended regularly to their duties. He desired to know where they were, and what they were about. What he was anxious to obtain was a full return on these subjects; and, with respect to what had been stated to him by the right hon. Baronet,

219
he must confess that he felt great surprise on being told that he now objected to what he had formerly agreed to without a word. He, therefore, begged to move, in the same terms which the House had sanctioned on the 12th of July, 1844, that there be laid before the House
"A Return of the number of days each Poor Law Commissioner has sat in discharge of his official duty at the office appointed for such official sittings, or at any other place for the same purpose."
Also a
"Similar Return of the number of days each Assistant Poor Law Commissioner has been engaged in the discharge of his official duty, the place and periods at which those have been performed respectively, whether at the office of the Central Board of Commissioners, or in visits and inspections, or other matters of official duty at the different Unions or Union Workhouses throughout England and Wales, the number of days employed therein, and the amount of expense incurred by each Assistant Poor Law Commissioner in travelling or in other incidental expenses relating thereto."
Sir J. Grahambegged permission to address a few words to the House with reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. Towards the close of the last Session the hon. and gallant Member had felt it his duty to move for the Return now under the consideration of the House, to which Motion he had not offered any opposition. In the course of the present evening, he had staled to the hon. and gallant Member what he had recently repeated to the House, as to the difficulty of making any Return to the first part of his Motion—namely, that with reference to the attendance of the principal Poor Law Commissioners at their office, no roster was kept, any more than the attendances of the Commissioners of Excise, Stamps, or Customs were thus registered, and consequently, in the absence of such registry, it was impossible to make any Return to meet the demands of the hon. and gallant Member. At the same time, he (Sir J. Graham) felt bound to state, of his own personal knowledge, that no public servants were more assiduous in their attendance to their duties than were the Poor Law Commissioners; and for the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Member, as well as for that of the House at large, he would, as far as possible, give all the information on this subject that was possible,
220
convinced that the dilligence of the gentlemen in question would be apparent. He had, therefore, resolved not to resist the Motion, lest such a proceeding should throw a shade of doubt over the subject, as far as the performance of their duties by the Poor Law Commissioners was concerned; and, for this reason, he acquiesced in the Motion.—Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS—STANDING ORDERS.
Mr. Youngmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Standing Orders.
On the Motion that Standing Order 102 be suspended,
Mr. Entwistlesaid, that the first result of suspending this Standing Order would be to relieve the parties interested in railways from the necessity of presenting their petition with the Bill attached to it until twenty-one days after the Board of Trade had reported on such railway project. That alteration had been approved of by the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, under the belief that a great expense would thereby be saved to the parties; whereas, upon inquiry, he (Mr. Entwistle) found that the cost of printing a Bill and preparing a petition would not exceed 30 l. or thereabouts. With regard to the printing the Bill alone, he had said that the expense would not exceed 30 l. or 40 l, and if any greater expense were incurred, his answer was, that it was not fair to particular Companies that one company, against which the Board of Trade should have reported, should be allowed to delay drawing up their Bill till the reasons of the Board of Trade should be known, whereas the other company, in favour of which the Board of Trade had reported, wishing to press forward their measure, would have already drawn up their Bill, which Could not be altered; à priori, the line against which the Board of Trade had reported had the worst case would, by the delay, be enabled to draw up their Bill with reference to the reasons given by the Board of Trade against it. Upon that ground, he objected to any postponement which would enable the parties to draw the Bill after the reasons against, it should be submitted to the House. He believed that in most cases the companies who meant to proceed, notwithstanding the adverse decision of the Board, had prepared their Bills, and the whole extra expense would be the printing. Although

221
there was little expense in this House before a petition, there was much in working the line out of the House; the expense began when the company put their case into the hands of the Parliamentary agents, of the solicitors, and of the engineers; the consequence was, that by every day's delay, the company incurred a large amount of extra expense, and this extra expense would be imposed on companies anxious to proceed. He by no means, however, wished to compel the parties to incur the further expense of passing the Standing Orders, which would cause the necessity of bringing up witnesses.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, it was understood, if the reasons of the Board of Trade should induce the companies reported against to think it foolish to proceed, they would not force their Bills; but if those reasons should not be satisfactory, he hoped the House would give them leave to proceed with their Bills, notwithstanding the decision of the Board of Trade. The question of what should be done to prevent injury to parties anxious to go on at once would arise when he should submit his Motion, a few days hence, for a Committee to consider to what tribunal all the competing lines should be referred; when that Motion was carried, it would be for the Committee to say how far parties should avail themselves of the present alteration in the Standing Orders. With regard to the question of expense, no injustice ought to be done; but those lines had a great advantage on which the Board of Trade had expressed a favourable opinion; and whilst they must take care that the decisions of the Board of Trade should not absolutely stop the progress of any measure, they must also take care that parties did not prevent or retard the progress of others.
Mr. Hodgson Hindethought it had been clearly made out by the noble Member for Sunderland, that it was necessary to take some step in order to prevent injustice from being done to those companies against whom the Board of Trade had reported. Great injustice would likewise be done if parties in whose favour the Board of Trade had reported, were obliged to delay going into Committee till the adverse Bill was in a state of such forwardness as to be committed also. He therefore hoped that the parties who were promoting an adverse Bill would be obliged to bring their case before the
222
Committee, though they were not in a state of forwardness to have their Bill regularly committed. The promoters of the adverse line might delay for five or six weeks before they stated their determination as to proceeding, and the loss of such a period would be equivalent to the postponement of the road for a season. Thus, successful lines would be induced to pay enormous sums to get rid of competition. And thus the extension of time in favour of unsuccessful lines would be made an instrument of extortion. It was notorious that 25,000 l. was spent to expedite, by six months, the completion of works. Now six months at the commencement of the season was equal to six months work in the general run of railroads.
Mr. Entwistlethen withdrew his Amendment, the Motion was agreed to; the Standing Order was suspended, and the following Resolutions were agreed to:—

"1. Resolved—That this House will not receive any Petition for any Private Bill, other than a Railway Bill, after Friday the twenty-eighth day of this instant February.

"2. Resolved—That no Private Bill, other than a Railway Bill be read the first time after Friday the fourth day of April next.

"3. Resolved—That this House will not receive the Report of any Private Bill, other than a Railway Bill, after Friday the thirtieth day of May next.

"4. Resolved—That this House will not receive any Petition for any Railway Bill, later than the twenty-first day after the day on which the Report from the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, with reference to such Railway, has been laid on the Table of die House.

"5. Resolved—That no Railway Bill shall be read the first time later that, the twenty-eighth day after the day on which the Report from the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, with reference to such Railway, has been laid on the Table of the House.

"6. Resolved—That this House will not receive the Report of any Railway Bill later than the eighty-fourth day after the day on which the Report from the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, with reference to such Railway, has been laid on the Table of the House."

And on the Motion of Mr. Greene it was—
"Ordered—That on every Petition presented to this House, relating to any Private Bill before the House, the name or short Title

223
by which such Bill is entered in the Votes be written at the beginning thereof."
House adjourned at six o'clock.