HC Deb 14 March 1845 vol 78 cc889-91

House went into a Committee on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill.

On Clause 23,

Mr. Tatton Egerton

proposed an Amendment, giving parties whose property was taken, the option of arbitration or an appeal to a jury. Juries were usually, he thought, biased, and decided against private parties, and in favour of companies. His object, therefore, was to secure a fair trial before an arbitrator, if a party preferred it.

Lord G. Somerset

was willing to consent to the introduction of the Amendment, if the option between an arbitrator and a jury were not confined to the private party, but given to the company also.

Mr. G. Craig

admitted the difficulty of obtaining a fair trial in many cases where appeal was made to a jury, and referred to the practice in Scotland, which was in conformity with the Amendment.

Lord G. Somerset

did not agree by any means in the general censure passed upon juries for partiality to railway companies. He doubted whether the landowner would be benefited by arbitration as much as was expected. He contended that if the option were given, it ought in fairness to be given to both parties.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

said, that if the option were also given to the company, the company would, in all cases, be guided in making its choice by the fact whether they could get a jury or an arbitrator most favourable to them. Small landowners were constantly bullied by companies, and compelled to take the sum offered, or to appeal to a tribunal which was notoriously ill-disposed towards them.

Mr. Aglionby

contended, that trial by jury, though on the whole a great good, was not in all cases, an unexceptionable tribunal. Juries were formerly mad against railways, whereas now they were mad in favour of railways. He did not mean to charge them with corruption, but it was certain that in most cases juries did not administer justice. On the other hand, a well-informed arbitrator was usually as impartial as he was competent; in Cumberland he could point out many gentlemen who would be able to give a fair and discreet decision in a dispute of the kind.

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 48,

Mr. Aglionby

proposed an Amendment, in order more effectually to give parties an appeal from the Sheriff to the Court above on points of law. A case had arisen whether directors on railways were competent witnesses; collectively it had been decided they were admissible, under Lord Denman's Act, inasmuch as they had no separate interest; but this was a point upon which high and legal authorities were at variance. He proposed a clause enabling either party to apply to the Court above in order to set right an error in the Court below.

Lord G. Somerset

apprehended that such an Amendment would be greatly in favour of companies who could afford to appeal, and against private parties who, perhaps, had not funds to enable them to pursue the case into the Court above. The practical effect must be to compel parties to resort to arbitration, in order to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a lawsuit.

Mr. Aglionby

hoped that the noble Lord would pause until he had had time to make inquiries as to the expenses of such appeals; he did think that a Motion of the kind in the Court above would cost more than was within the means of a moderate man; it might not cost 2l., and certainly not 20l.

Lord G. Somerset

did not pretend to say what an appeal of the sort might cost; an ex-parte statement must first be made to the Court above, which would occasion an answer from the other party, and then there seemed no means of knowing where the expense would end.

Amendment deferred. Bill went through Committee. House resumed. Bill to be reported.

House adjourned until five o'clock, and then resumed.