begged to call the attention of the House to some contingencies, which in his opinion, were not sufficiently provided for by the bill as it stood. He thought it was right, if not absolutely necessary, to provide for the immediate assembling of Parliament in case of the death or legal disqualification of the regent, in the event of this bill ever becom- ing operative. He hoped that the clauses of which he had given notice, and which provided for such a contingency, would be agreed to, in which case there would be a constitutional mode of calling together Parliament. The hon. Gentleman then moved that the following clauses be added to the bill:—

"And be it further enacted, that if his Royal Highness Prince Albert shall depart this life during the continuance of the regency by this act established, or cease to be regent under any of the provisions thereof, the lords of the Privy Council then in being, shall forthwith cause a proclamation to be issued in the name of the King or Queen for whom such regent shall have been appointed, under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, declaring the same; and in case the Parliament in being at the time of the issuing of any proclamation declaring the death of the regent, or that he has ceased to be regent under any of the provisions of this act, shall then be separated by any adjournment or prorogation, such Parliament shall forthwith meet and sit.

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that in case any such proclamation as aforesaid shall issue in any or either of such cases as aforesaid, at any time subsequent to the dissolution or expiration of a Parliament, and before the day appointed by any writs of summons then issued for assembling a new Parliament, then and in such case the last preceding Parliament shall immediately convene and sit at Westminster, and be a Parliament, and continue during the space of six months, and no longer, to all intents and purposes as if the same Parliament had not been dissolved or expired, but subject to be sooner prorogued or dissolved. Provided also, that if any such proclamation as aforesaid shall issue in any or either of such cases as aforesaid, upon or at any time after the day appointed by any writs of summons then issued for calling and assembling a new Parliament, and before such new Parliament shall have met and sat as a Parliament, such new Parliament shall immediately after such proclamation convene and sit at Westminster, and be deemed to be a Parliament in being to all intents and purposes under the provisions of this act."

had considered the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to him better upon the whole to take the bill as it had been sent down from the House of Lords, and on the principle on which it was framed in conformity with the regency bill of 1830. The bill provided fully for the first contingency that could arise, and he thought it better to leave future contingencies to be provided for by the Parliament of the time. Such Parliament would have the case fully before it, and he must say, that in his opinion, they would on that account be better able to meet the case. He thought that there was no necessity whatever for providing now for any such improbable event as he thought contemplated by these clauses, and he would, therefore oppose them.

was desirous of expressing his hope, that this clause was so worded as to enable the Board of Trade to obtain from all railway companies such accounts as would show what was the amount charged by them for tolls, and what for locomotive power. It seemed to be the policy, and it certainly was the practice, of all the railways to heap the whole sum into a gross charge, and not to separate the sum asked for toll from that required for locomotive power. In order to illustrate what he intended, he would call the attention of the House to the charge made by the London and Birmingham Railway Company. The charge of the London and Birmingham Railway was, for the conveyance of carriages 3l. 15s. Now he found on looking at their Act of Parliament, that they were not allowed to charge for a carriage not exceeding a ton in weight, more than 4d. per ton per mile for toll, the maximum charge, therefore, for toll, would be 1l. 17s. 4d. The difference between that sum and 3l. 15s. was a charge entirely for locomotive power, and inasmuch as the public had, under the act, no control over the charge for locomotive power, it might be doubled at the will of the company. So was it with the charge for horses. The toll for each horse was 1½d. per mile, that would amount to 14s., the charge is 3l. 10s., the difference between the two sums was the charge for locomotive power, and that amounted to 2l. 16s. He had had the opinions of many competent persons, that one farthing for each passenger per mile, and a farthing for each ton of goods per mile, would be a sufficient remuneration for locomotive power, and if that were a sufficient charge, he looked upon the amount now demanded as outrageous. He knew that Parliament was not yet sufficiently aware of the actual cost of locomotive power to determine whether the charge was sufficient or not, but he asked the Government to require from the companies such an account as would inform the Government, and let the public know what was charged for each object. Again, the charge for passengers allowed for toll at 2d. a mile, that would amount to 18s. 8d., the charge for locomotive power at a farthing a mile would not be more than 2s. 4d., the charge was 1l. 10s., and there was thus a difference of 11s. 4d., more than four and half times as much as in the opinion of engineers was necessary. He hoped that the noble Lord would direct his attention to this part of the subject, because the public, as passengers, were at the mercy of the railway companies. So also was it with respect to the conveyance of goods. The London and Birmingham Railway Company would not enable all parties to carry goods. He saw by looking into their Act of Parliament, that their tolls were divided into three classes, one class was 1½ d. per ton per mile, the second was 2d. per ton per mile, and the third was 2d. per ton per mile. The company, however, charged one gross sum of 1l. 13s. per ton for all these classes. They, therefore, made a charge upon the first class of 9s. 4d. for toll, and 1l. 3s. 8d. for locomotive power, and they thus charged 2½ to 1 as compared with the toll, for locomotive power, and if one farthing a ton per mile was ample, they were charging 600 per cent, more than was sufficient. He, therefore, trusted that the Board of Trade would, when the act should come into operation, turn their attention to these points, because so great a revolution was about to take place in the method of transit for goods and passengers, and the public, in consequence of the breaking up of the old methods of travelling, were so much at the mercy of the railway proprietors, that unless attention was directed to these points the public would never consent quietly to the continuance of the monopoly. Some one would be found to start up and claim the right, which, as he contended, they had, of using the railroads upon payment of the tolls.

said, that the clause did not enter into the details which the hon. Member required. The House was aware, that he had prepared the clause in pur suance of the general understanding, that it should include the charge to the public, but should not enter into the amount of profit derived by the companies. Now, if they called for a return of the charge for locomotive power as a separate item, it would be of no use unless they also had some proof of the cost which the companies were put to for that power. It would, therefore, be of no avail to ask for the charge for locomotive power alone. He had strictly adhered to the wish of the House, and endeavoured to classify the different heads of tolls, rates, and charges on the public, and he had limited the clause to that object.

said, that it turned out just as he had expected, there would be no protection to the public by this clause against unlimited charge for locomotive power.

differed wholly from the hon. Member for Walsall, for he thought there should be no specific return of the charge for locomotive power, first, because he thought, that it would be very difficult to obtain from the railroad companies what they did charge for this power, and next, because under that head there were many sums that were not included in the toll, he meant the charge for the different stations, porters, &c, which it was impossible to break up into particulars. He did not see why they should ask any question as to the general management of the railroads, he did not know any reason to suppose that the companies charged more for locomotive power than was necessary, and if they wanted to see a difference in the price of the conveyance of different classes of the community maintained, they must not look too closely into the charge for locomotive power. The charge to the company for the poor man's conveyance was the same as for the rich man's, and if they made the charge to the public uniform, they would raise the price for the carriage of the poor man. Therefore, looking at things practically, he was glad that the noble Lord had confined his clause within its present limits.

entertained the same opinion. He saw in the observations of the hon. Member for Walsall a great jealousy of railroad companies. But when they looked at the patriotic spirit with which these undertakings had been carried on, when they saw the facilities which they afforded to the public, enabling an hon. Member with ease to pop over to Dublin, and to be back in his place in the House in a few days, and when they knew how little profit had been yet realised, he thought that Parliament had no right in this early stage of the proceeding, to object to the remuneration they obtained.

observed, that the railway proprietors did not arrogate to themselves any more patriotism than canals or other public companies, but they did not want to be interfered with any more than those other bodies. He recollected, that when he was on the committee for the first railroad, it was strongly opposed by a canal company that had been in existence seventy years, and was paying 33 per cent, upon each share, whilst the 100l. shares sold for 1,200l. There was, then, no jealousy of the canals. Why did not the hon. Member for Walsall, who might be considered as representing the water affairs in that House, subject the companies with which he was connected to the same rules? It was his firm belief, if such inquisitorial proceedings were encouraged, all such bold undertakings as had given this country a name above other nations, would be materially checked, and they would lose the advantages which these undertakings were likely to confer.

said, that whereas a maximum price existed for tolls for the transit of goods and passengers, the railway companies might charge any sum for locomotive power, and were not limited to any particular price. He thought that the statement of the hon. Member for Walsall went more to that point than any other, and it was one which was well worthy of consideration.

thought, that great injustice had been done to his hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall, by representing him as representing the water interest. His hon. Friend assured him, that he had no share in any water or canal company. He believed, that some Members of that House could not say so much with respect to railways. He thought that the hon. Member had only the interest of the public at heart. He did not understand his hon. Friend to desire, that inquisitorial powers should be given with respect to the proceedings of railway companies, but merely that it was necessary to have a salutary check upon them as regarded the public. All he said was, that they had cut up the country—that they had in- fringed private interests on the plea that they would effect a great public good— that they had, in fact, a monopoly—and that it was not fair they should pay 30l. or 40l. per cent, profit, and if they did, they ought at least to produce their ac counts.

could not suffer any observations as to the individual interests of Members, to be introduced into the debates of the House without making some remarks. It was notorious that he was interested in railway property, but was that a reason why he should not be convinced that it was for the benefit of the proprietors that the public convenience should be promoted at the least possible cost? This being the opinion of all interested in railway property, they were naturally anxious to take part in a matter in which their own welfare, and the advantage of the public were identical. If such a doctrine as that which he had just heard were to be made use of in that House, it must necessarily happen, that when an hon. Member rose in his place to discuss the question of the corn-laws, it would be held that he was to be suspected and looked upon with jealousy, and that his observations were not to be received without apprehension, should he happen to be a landlord. Now, he held that because he was a landlord he would be so much the more anxious that the corn-laws should be placed on a good basis, and accord with the general interests of the community, and instead of this militating against his remarks, it was a ground why his observations should be received with greater attention.

could not but recollect that it was not a long time since the railway proprietors were laughed at, and told that they would never get any return for their money. Having risked their capital, they were fairly entitled to the profits. Suppose there had been a great loss on their speculations, would the public have consented to give them an indemnification? Certainly not; He knew a canal in which the 100l. shares sold for 3,500l. each, yet did they hear any one say that the tolls on this canal ought to be lowered. Individuals who had subscribed their money at a great risk for a public improvement ought to have a fair chance of great profits if they were made.

thought that any inquisitorial power would cramp the ener- gies of the country. They ought not further to inquire into the affairs of these companies than to protect the public interests. They ought to see to steam-vessels as well as railroads, for he knew a case in which lives had been lost because no boat was kept on board a steamer.

said, the House did not seem to have sufficiently attended to the principle of this bill. The object of it was to give the Lord Chancellor a power of transferring children who may have committed felony to the care of any benevolent persons who might undertake thereafter to educate and provide for them. No doubt such a measure had arisen from a benevolent feeling, but he called on the House to pause before they sanctioned such an interference with the rights of parents. He had many objections to the details of the bill, but he would then content himself by moving that it be committed that day three months.

said that this bill had come down to them with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor and the other House of Parliament. The object of the bill was to remove children from the influence of vicious parents. Hitherto the law had been directly opposed to the benevolent views of those individuals and societies who had exerted themselves to save children from further perversion, and the object of this bill was to place a discretionary power in the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of facilitating their efforts. If the House went into committee, he would be prepared to strike out that part of the bill which gave it an ex post facto effect as regarded offenders already convicted.

objected to the bill as throwing additional duty on the Lord Chancellor, when he was too much burthened already. He also objected to the bill, as an arbitrary interference with the rights of parents, and as affording a ground for stigmatising parents with the faults of their children.

was opposed to the bill altogether, as giving too much power to the Lord Chancellor, who might transport a child beyond seas, or imprison him for an indefinite period.

said the hon. Member for Finsbury had an entire misconception as to the effect of the bill.

thought it advisable to postpone the bill till next Session.

then moved that no infant under this bill be sent out of the United Kingdom.

said, that in making the motion of which he had given notice he did not mean to cast any reflection on the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests; on the contrary, no one was more anxious than he was to compliment the noble Lord for his general management of the parks. He thought the public were greatly indebted to him for the increased facilities that had been given for admission to

^*Voted with the Ayes on the first division.

Hampton Court, and for the improvements that had taken place in Hyde-park. In reference to this present motion, he understood that it was not the intention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inclose any part of the Green-park, and he was glad that this was the case; for it might be considered the great play-ground of the people of London. The House would recollect that a committee had sat this year on the subject, and any hon. Member who had read their proceedings, would be convinced of the great evils that were caused by the want of open spaces in large towns. He was not the advocate of the rights or privileges of the higher classes; but of those classes to whom the open space in the Green-park was of great value. He did not think that there was much force in the objection of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley) as to the want of a proper police. If the police regulations were defective, there was no police so effective as a row of gas-lamps. He suggested that it would be desirable to have a row of gas-lamps on the outside fence, like those in St. James's-park. He had no objection to any new regulation of police that might be necessary, but he thought it strange that those persons who possessed houses between Piccadilly and St. James's-park should turn round on the Department of Woods and Forests (to whose kindness they were much indebted) and ask for additional police regulations. Why had they not keepers for their gardens, as was the case in the different squares in London. The hon. Member then suggested several improvements which he wished to see done—particularly a broad gravel walk from the reservoir to St. James's, and a foot gate opposite Devonshire-house. He had no wish to prevent kite-flying or ball-playing, or to deprive the boys of their only play-ground, but he objected very much to any inclosure. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would assure the House that there was no intention to make any inclosure on a large scale. It was more as a matter of form than with any intention to divide the House, that he moved for the production of plans with reference to any proposed alterations in the Green-park.

was afraid that it was impossible that any plan could be laid before the House, as several had been given, and none as yet adopted. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member, he could only repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that there was no intention on the part of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inclose any part of the Green-park. With regard to the other observations of the hon. Member, he would take care to mention them to the noble Lord at the head of the Department of Woods and Forests, certain as he was that that noble Lord would be always inclined to give every facility to the public in their admission to the parks.