Lords Sitting of 22 February 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord SHAFTESBURY, from Lewes; and by the Earl of DEVON, from Exeter, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—By Lord HOLLAND, from the Protestant Dissenters of the three denominations, for a Redress of Grievances.

RAILROADS.
Lord Wharncliffehad to present a petition on a subject which not merely concerned the agricultural interest, but which affected also those persons who resided in towns and cities. The petition related to the formation of railroads. Their Lordships must be aware that many bills for the formation of railroads had been introduced into Parliament, and the public attention had been strongly directed to this subject. The tenour of the petition which he rose to present was, that, inasmuch as railroads were projected in various parts of the country, it was important that they should be confined, as much as possible, to the line of the existing turn pike-roads. He did not approve of that principle, but he would suggest to noble Lords in his Majesty's Government that when a railroad bill came into that House, some inquiry should take place prior to its being read a second time, as to the line on which it was adviseable that such rail road should proceed. There were at present between Brighton and London no less than three projected lines of railway. Now, he apprehended that no man in his senses could suppose that more than one railroad was necessary between Brighton and London. According to the newspapers, however, the shares in all these undertakings were at a premium. This was a most extraordinary fact. He had himself considerable experience on this subject, having sedulously attended a Committee which sat for a long time to investigate the circumstances connected with a rail-road of very great importance. They had heard evidence for many days with reference to that railroad—evidence in many instances of a directly contradictory nature. Knowing, therefore, the difficulties by which the subject was surrounded, he would suggest to his noble Friend opposite, that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain, in the first instance, the best line that could be adopted for any given railroad; and which should take especial care that no proposition for a railroad should be countenanced if its projectors did not adopt the best possible line. He made these observations, be-

671
cause he felt that it was Government alone that could with propriety take up this important subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to say a very few words on this question, as he was connected with a county in which those railroads had grown up in a most extraordinary manner. He alluded to the county of Durham. Five or six years ago, application was made on this subject to Parliament, and one individual particularly exerted himself on the occasion. He succeeded in his attempt to carry a railroad bill. Two or three years afterwards, some opposition having been given to his plan, he got up another railroad, parallel to that which he had first projected; and, strange to say, the same individual had again succeeded in forming a third railroad. Here, then, were three railroads running nearly parallel to each other. Of the first—the Stockton and Darlington railroad—he believed the profits were much overrated. The shares were perhaps at par. With respect to the second, it was entirely bankrupt—and Government would find it necessary to take possession of it. As to the third, he believed that it would never pay. Such was the situation of three railroads projected in the county of Durham. Was it possible, he would ask, that these railroads were projected for the public service, when they had turned out such miserable speculations as he had described? No—they were got up merely that certain joint-stock companies might reap advantage. The consequence of this system was, that the estates of gentlemen were rode over in every direction. It was now proposed to create a great northern railway to Edinburgh, which should pass through the county of Durham. This might be very desirable, as the bill for forming a great Western Railroad had passed; and he should be inclined, indeed he should be most anxious, to support it, as beneficial to the county of Durham. But a certain party by whom the Stockton and Darlington railway had been projected, preponderated in the county; and that party, which was composed of Quakers, insisted that the Northern railroad should come out near the Darlington and Stockton railroad, by which they would be enabled to give, for a profitable consideration, a portion of their railroad to the Great Northern railroad. The individual who represented a portion of Durham in another place (and
672
who was a member of that religious persuasion to which he had alluded) brought forward this plan, in order that a great part of the Darlington and Stockton railway might be available for the great Northern railway. Others, however, denied that such was the true line, and that the Great Northern railway should enter Durham in such a manner as to render available a great portion of the Clarence railway. Thus they had one party contending for the Darlington and Stockton line, and another for the Clarence line. Now, unless his Majesty's Government, seeing those difficulties, came forward with some general principle as to the formation of railways, the greatest mischief and confusion must follow. There was really, at the bottom of these railroad speculations, a strong desire to serve private speculating interests, but nothing whatever for the benefit of the public. That was entirely lost sight of. He thought much good would be effected, first, if the compulsory clause—obliging individuals to give up their property when experiments of this kind were made, whether they would or not, were to be omitted in future; and next, if it were enacted, that after a certain period, the capital and interest of money expended on such undertakings having been paid, the railways should revert to the public. This, in his opinion would check the rage for speculation.
The Marquess of Lansdowneentirely agreed in the observations made by the noble Lord (Wharncliffe), both as to the importance of the subject, and as to the necessity of its being taken up by Government. He was of opinion, that when Bills of this description were introduced, some preliminary or some concurrent inquiry ought to be instituted—there ought to be placed before them the evidence of some impartial authority—before they were allowed to proceed. He undoubtedly felt very strongly the necessity of taking this course, because this was not a case of individual interest merely, but one so general and extensive in its operation, that the Government of the country was bound to notice it. The immense magnitude of the capital required for these projects, and the various and important consequences, connected with them, which affected every branch of industry throughout the country, called for the most serious consideration. This would appear at once, when, he stated to their Lordships, that even at the

673
present moment there were applications before the other House of Parliament, for carrying into execution projects for railways, which involved the expenditure of little short of 40,000,00 l. of money; certainly between 35,000,000 l. and 40,000,000 l. Entertaining this opinion, which, he believed, was supported by the concurrent opinion of their Lordships, he was happy to state, that this very day a proposition would be made in another place, having for its object to refer the consideration of the subject to a Committee. That Committee, after receiving proper information, would report their opinion to Parliament on the important subjects that would be referred to them, and the public would thus have a certain security that nothing would be recommended but that which, upon examination, appeared to be intrinsically good. Petition laid on the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Lord Abingerpresented four petitions from Norwich and places in Norfolk against that part of the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidating Bill which confines the taking out probate of wills to the proposed Central Court in London.
Lord Wynfordsaid, if there were no other objection to the clause than that which related to the expense which parties would be put to in taking out probates of wills, it could not be maintained; because he believed that, in point of fact, the expense would be less, if the probate were taken out in London, than if it were taken out in the counties.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, much attention had been paid to this subject by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom he had the honour to be one, and there was a strong impression on his mind that the expense of taking probate in London would certainly be less than it would be if sought for in those inferior courts.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, there was a great deal of the bill of which he entirely approved; but he undoubtedly thought it advisable to preserve, for the general convenience of individuals, the right which they now possessed, of taking probate of wills in the different counties, instead of being obliged to visit London for that purpose. There would, at the same time, be no great difficulty to preserve in London a general index. He thought that the Committee on the Bill, which would follow
674
the second reading, might take its general provisions into consideration, but that this particular part of the measure ought to be referred to a Select Committee. They would have a fair opportunity for devising a proper remedy in the case to which the complaints of the petitioners referred. He should either now or hereafter propose such a committee, and would in the mean time put their Lordships in possession of the names of the noble Lords. His Lordship then read the names of those whom he wished to form the Committee.
The Lord Chancellorwas most anxious that this subject should undergo mature consideration. At the same time he felt it right to state, that he conceived it to be impossible that any inquiry which might be made could lead to the result which the petitioning parties wished for. Several reports had been made on the subject of the ecclesiastical law; they had been submitted to their Lordships' consideration; and they all agreed in the necessity of this specific alteration. This point had commanded the serious consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The subject had been, in fact, before the Commissioners for one whole year. Some of the Commissioners thought that it would be wrong to leave to the local court the right of granting probate. This, however, was met by a contrary opinion, which was held by other members of the Commission. The subject was, therefore, much considered; and it was at last found, that the preservation of this convenience was utterly unattainable, concurrently with the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Courts which was contemplated. It was never contended that these local courts should exist for the purpose of deciding serious questions—whether, for instance, wills were valid or not, or whether individuals, in disputed cases, should be allowed to take out administration to estates. Then came the difficulty which attended applying for probate in a court which had not the power to decide ultimately on the matter litigated. If the claim were contested, all the expenses incurred in the local court, which could not decide the matter, were entirely thrown away. Even, after probate granted, ail the expense incurred might turn out to be useless. Thus, if probate were granted in one diocese, and the deceased person had possessed property to the amount of 5l. or 10 l. in another diocese, the local court, which al-

675
lowed probate, having no jurisdiction in the latter diocese, its proceedings were worth nothing, and the money expended was lost. Another difficulty was, as to where the parties, who might wish to oppose an application for probate, were to address themselves. There must, if the old system prevailed, be at least twenty-six courts, one in each diocese, and a party might find it extremely difficult to discover in which of these application for probate had been made. Suppose the rule to be, that probate should be applied for in the court of the diocese where the party died. In many instances, persons having an interest in the property might not be able to discover exactly where the individual died. This subject had been laboriously investigated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by the Real Property Commissioners, and by a Committee of the House of Commons, and their decided opinion had been, that it was impossible to effect a due improvement in the Ecclesiastical Courts, leaving to the local courts the power of granting probate. If they looked to the large dioceses, they would find that it was more difficult to proceed there than it would be to apply to a central court in London. He would refer to the diocese of Lincoln, and he would ask how much more easy would it be for a party interested to receive information from London, if a central court were established there, than it could be procured in the former place.
Lord Denmanexpressed a hope that this measure would be passed without delay, and that all the differences which seemed to exist on the subject should be reconciled. Some arrangement, he thought, might be made for having an index in the country without interfering with the general probate in London. Never was there a measure which came so recommended to Parliament. His noble and learned Friend who now sat on the woolsack was the third Lord Chancellor who had taken up the principle of this Bill. The recommendations of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into this subject (and whose generous sacrifice of the patronage which they enjoyed, in order to promote the object of such a measure as the present ought never to be forgotten) were embodied in a measure which had been introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) who gat on the woolsack
676
in the year 1833, and the principle of that measure had never been lost sight of by any subsequent administration to that of which the noble and learned Lord was a member. Sir Frederick Pollock had introduced a Bill into the House of Commons, similar in its nature to the present; and the present Attorney-General had also brought forward a measure, of which the Bill then under their Lordships' consideration was a transcript. He might, perhaps, he allowed to add, that the present Bill embraced one of the many great improvements which were brought under the consideration of Parliament in the year 1828 by his noble and learned Friend, to whom he had already alluded, in his luminous and comprehensive view of the changes in the law which were then required. Great benefit had already resulted from the adoption of one of those suggestions in the courts at Westminster, and he hoped they would be productive of still further advantages; but there were certainly none of these advantages greater than those which this Bill was calculated to effect, and than it would effect, he trusted, in a very short time.
The petitions were laid on the Table. The Bill was subsequently read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, which, on the motion of Lord Ellen-borough, was appointed.