Lords Sitting of 14 February 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Registration of Marriages.
Petitions presented. By Lords SUFFIELD, HATHERTON, HOLLAND, BROUGHAM, and the Earl of ABERDEEN, from Sudbury, Hampshire, Newport, Monmouth, and other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from Canterbury, that the House will resist all attempts to interfere with its Rights, Independences, and Privileges.

CHURCH RATES.
Lord Broughamhad a Petition to present from a numerous and most respectable body of his Majesty's subjects. The petition had been drawn up and signed under circumstances of so peculiar a nature, that he thought it necessary, before he requested their Lordships to allow it to be laid on the table, to state from whom it came. It purported to come from the undersigned ministers and laymen, assembled in London as deputies from various parts of the empire, to consult on the best means to be adopted for effecting, by all possible legal and constitutional means, the object of the petition. Though the petition was not signed by more than 200 or 300 deputies, yet he was informed that upwards of 400 deputies were present at the time the meeting was held, and that it was only from the accident of several of them, above 100, leaving town before the petition was prepared, that their names were

519
not also appended to it. He wished also to state to their Lordships, in what way, and from what places, these persons came to town. They came, in the popular sense of the term, as representing congregations of various religious denominations in different parts of the country. They also represented different bodies of men not being religious congregations. Upwards of 500 of these congregations and meetings had been holden in the country, at which it was agreed to send deputies to town, for the purpose he had already mentioned, though not many move than 400, or 420, actually came. He believed that no portion of his Majesty's subjects, either in character, ability, or station in society, were more respectable than the great body whom those individuals, who had signed the petition on this occasion, represented. He again used that word only in its popular sense; but in one sense of the word, he believed that they strictly, as well as popularly, represented them, for he believed, that in this petition, they spoke the unanimous and strong opinion of all the persons composing those assemblies, which had deputed them to come to town.
Petition to be laid on the table.

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY.—RAILROADS.
The Earl of Denbighpresented a Petition from the Committee of the Association for the Protection of Property, at Rugby. It set forth, that in consequence of the London and Birmingham Railway running through the property, situate at, and in the neighbourhood of Rugby, many persons of the most abandoned character, who were employed as labourers on the Railway, assembled in that town and neighbourhood; and that many serious burglaries were committed almost every night against the property of the inhabitants of the towns and villages lying on, or near that line; the petitioners therefore prayed, that when these several Companies should apply to their Lordships' hon. House, their Lordships would agree to insert a clause into any bills that their Lordships might pass, that should require such Companies to afford adequate protection to the property through which the railways passed; and that their Lordships would be pleased to render to the petitioners such further, and other redress, as to their Lordships should seem meet. The noble Earl read a pri-
520
vate letter he had received; describing two or three cases of outrage committed by the men employed on the London and Birmingham Railway, on property contiguous to the line. On one occasion, they broke into a house and carried away 200 l. worth of property; and two nights before that, a shop at Long Langford was broken into and entirely gutted; one person had had thirty sheep killed and taken away; and numerous other offences had been committed: he therefore trusted their Lordships would accede to the prayer of the petitioners.
The Marquess of Salisburywas glad that the noble Earl had brought this matter before their Lordships, and he rose to bear his testimony in support of the petition. He was a magistrate of a county through which the London and Birmingham Railway passed, and he could assure their Lordships, that at the sessions perpetual complaints were made against the class of men employed in constructing that work. It was his intention, and he thought the most convenient time for doing so, would be on the first occasion any bill of this kind came before the House, to propose the insertion of a clause by which the magistrates acting in the district, through which the Railways or other public works should pass, should have the power to appoint such a police as should be necessary, and charge the expense on the Company. He trusted his Majesty's Government would see the propriety of some such provision being adopted.
The Earl of Winchilseaconsidered the present subject one well worthy of the consideration of their Lordships, and he should give his support to any petition brought forward for the protection of property. There was another point which required some consideration, namely, that many of these speculations were undertaken solely for gambling purposes. The estimates brought before their Lordships were often fallacious. He believed that this very Company—the London and Birmingham Railway Company—was about to apply to Parliament for the power to raise a further sum of money, nearly 2,000,000 l. beyond that which was asked for in the first instance, to complete the line. Their Lordships owed it to the public at large to guard them against such a proposition, which to him appeared a gross fraud. Their Lordships were often

521
induced to pass private Bills of this kind on account of the respectability of the names advertised as promoters of the work; but those names were afterwards in general withdrawn, when the shares came to a certain premium. What he had always asked for was, that the projectors of these schemes should be bound to complete the work. He was thoroughly convinced that the original projectors of the Waterloo-bridge Company still holding shares—whatever might be the case with respect to the second and third sets of proprietors, into whose hands the shares had got—had no chance of obtaining one farthing either of interest or capital. Surely nobody could say that the public ought not to be protected against such proceedings. There was another point which ought to come under the consideration of the House; it was this, that many of these railroad bills were passed through Parliament by the grossest deception. By many railroad companies securities were given to individuals, that in the ensuing Session, an application would be made to Parliament for leave to deviate from the line which was originally adopted by them. He knew one instance of this which had occurred in the county of Kent, in which case he had pressed the solicitor until he acknowledged that a bond for 10,000 l. had been given to a gentleman there, through whose property the original line was to have passed, that leave should be sought from Parliament for a deviation which would remove the line, so that it should pass through property at a distance, belonging to a gentleman who had no idea of anything of the kind being contemplated. He was informed that such an application would be made, and if it were, he would pledge himself to bring forward his letter and the solicitor's answer, and would show that it was one of the grossest frauds—to use the mildest term—ever practised before a Committee of their Lordships' House. He had said so much considering that he owed it to the public; he was, however, no enemy to railroads; on the contrary, he wished to support Bills for them wherever it was prudent to make them.
Petition laid on the table.