Lords Sitting of 9 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Election Petitions, or Controverted Elections; Stannaries Courts.—Read a second time;—Brick Duties; Paper Duties; Glass Duties; Prisons (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Bo-rough Watch Rates.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Salisbury, from Liverpool, Hemel Hempsted, and other places, against Clauses of the Prisons Bill.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Lanark, and other places, for a Uniform and re-
74
dueed rate of Postage; and from a place in Scotland, for the Extension of the Church; and against the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.

LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.
The Marquis of Salisbury The Marquis of Salisbury moved the second reading of the London and Blackwell Commercial Railway Bill. He had heard, with great concern, that his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had declared his intention to oppose the measure. In almost every instance, the statement of the petitioners against the bill was met with a direct negative by the promoters of the measure, who had testified their fairness in the proceeding by offering to pay the expenses of both parties, if the bill were referred to a Select Committee. He moved that the bill be read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he should take the sense of the House against the second reading of the bill, and he should do so solely on the ground, that the Act of Parliament which established the Black-wall Railway Company, had expressly and positively declared, that their operations should not extend further into the metropolis than the Minories. He moved, that the bill be read a second time that day six months
Lord Broughamdid not attach much importance to the argument used by the noble Duke, for it was manifest, that the Act of one Parliament could not tie up the hands of another. He objected to the motion of the noble Duke, because it tended to abrogate one of the most useful rules of their Lordships, according to which all private bills should be referred to a Select Committee. Then evidence as to disputed facts could be taken, and if the bill should be considered objectionable, it would always be in their Lordships' power to throw it out on the third reading.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed in principle with the noble and learned Lord, that every private bill should be sent to a Select Committee. He knew that the noble Duke proceeded on public grounds, but he viewed his proposition with the greater alarm, because it might hereafter be referred to as a precedent. The railway for which the bill on the Table was wanted, was not a railway on which it was proposed to work machines by means of steam; and he understood that the company were prepared to introduce a clause prohibiting the use of steam or locomotive machines on it. It was to be a railway on a viaduct,

75
supported by arches; and along its side there was to be a pathway for foot passengers, so that it would add to the communications of the metropolis, instead of restricting them.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he could well understand the opposition to the present bill, if it rested on the general ground, that no railway should be permitted to come into the heart of London; but if it were alleged that the bill ought not to pass, because it constituted a breach of contract, or would injure the property of individuals, these were reasons which might best be investigated before a Select Committee, and the bill ought not, on account of them, to be thrown out on the second reading. He reminded the House, that after the Committee reported, it would be open to any of their Lordships to move the rejection of the bill.
The Bishop of Londonsupported the amendment, precisely on the ground, that, under no circumstances, would he give his assent to bringing a railway into the heart of the metropolis. The proposed terminus of the Black wall Railway was equidistant from three churches, and the collection of many thousands of persons on a Sunday at this terminus, together with the noise of the carriages, would prove a serious interference with the decency of divine service. The corporation of London, the inhabitants of the parishes, as well as the clergy, all prayed their Lordships not to agree to the second reading of the bill. For these reasons he should support the motion of the noble Duke.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought, that their Lordships would act with extreme injustice to the company, if they did not allow the bill to go before a Select Committee.
Lord Ashburtonwas anxious to state the reasons that would induce him to vote against the second reading of this bill. He objected to the bill, because the railway would come into the very heart of the metropolis, and if that were allowed in this case, there was no reason why the termini of other railroads, such as the Birmingham. should not also have the same permission, He further considered, that it was not merely particular parties who would be injured, but the whole neighbourhood would be affected by the railway, in consequence of the rattling of the carriages upon the arches, whether moved by steam or anything else, All railways should have
76
their termini at the skirts of the metropolis; for otherwise a great general nuisance might be committed to persons in the city, although they might not be able to produce evidence of any specific injury.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that after what he had heard, he had come to a very different conclusion from the noble and learned Lord opposite. His objection was, to bringing railways into the heart of the city of London; and certainly, after what the right rev. Prelate had stated, although he had entered the house quite ignorant of the subject, he could not feel the least hesitation in supporting the motion of the noble Duke.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that he had heard no argument urged against this measure that would induce him to say, that it ought not to go before the Committee. He trusted that their Lordships would allow the second reading of the bill, and there would then be an opportunity of hearing all the strong arguments against the measure. He would admit, that the arguments stated tonight went very far against it, and if he were appointed a Member of the Committee, he should attend very closely to the proceedings.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, he thought it rather late now to come to any other conclusion than that of supporting the bill. Three years ago their Lordships had passed a measure allowing a railway to have its terminus in Smithfield, so that it was very little argument against the present bill to complain of this railway coming into the heart of the city.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion, Contents 33; Not Contents 26: Majority 7.
Bill read a second time.

TITHE COMMUTATION ACT.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that in moving the second reading of the Tithe Commutation Act Amendment Bill, he felt it necessary to offer a few observations. This Bill was one of considerable importance, though it was not likely to call forth any difference of opinion among their Lordships. He would state briefly its chief objects; but, before doing so, he might as well inform their Lordships of the progress made in carrying the Commutation Act, to which this was an amendment, into effect. From a return which he held in his hand, it appeared that the Commissi-

77
oners, under the Act, had already made great progress in reconciling the interests of the Church with those of the public, and on grounds which would prove beneficial to both. The return to which he referred showed, that 4,255 voluntary agreements had been already made with respect to the commutation, and, of that number, 3,114 had been confirmed. Of compulsory agreements there had been 339. There had been 179 notices given of awards actually received, and 57 of awards confirmed. Thus it appeared, that one-third of the kingdom had been already brought under the principle of voluntary agreement, and there was a satisfactory prospect that the whole kingdom would at no distant period, be brought under the operation of this salutary measure. The chief points of the bill before their Lordships were these.—First, it provided that former charges on tithe be transferred to land; second, that supplementary awards might be made. He would admit that it was not generally desirable that awards should be re-opened, but in some cases it became absolutely necessary; as, for instance, in cases where parts of parishes had been accidentally excluded. In the third place, occupiers of Lammas land were allowed to enter into competition without reference to the sum paid by graziers, who sent their cattle for part of the year on the land. The fourth point related to the tithe on fruit. Orchards would be taxed in the same way as other land, but it was proposed and assented to by the Commissioners and those who represented the interests of the Church, and by those who represented the interests of the fruit-growers, that a composition should be made of tithe on the land as land, and that another should be made on the capital embarked in growing the fruit, with the power of rescinding that composition when the orchards fell back to be used as ordinary land. These were the chief points of the Bill. Some amendments would be necessary in the committee. But to these it was not necessary to advert at present. He moved, that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord Ashburtondid not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill. He admitted that the sanction of the Commissioners would do much to remove difficulties, and the progress they had already made showed that they were executing their trust with zeal and ability; but when he heard that
78
there were above 4,000 cases of voluntary settlements, he must remark that they were settlements between the tithe-owners and tithe-payers, and that the proportion to be paid by the tithe-payers amongst themselves, was not settled. The simple question was this—the practice of the country had been to rate the tithe-payer or farmer on rack-rent, and also on his profits, but the courts by whose decisions this practice was sanctioned, left it undecided how the pofits were to be ascertained. They could not give the clergy compensation on one principle, and allow the rating to be on another. He thought it was necessary that Parliament should settle that vexata questio.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought, that his noble Friend was in error as to the point. The case of "the King and Joddrell" was one, as at present decided, which would make the law press heavily on the tithe-payer. That was a case in which the opinion of all the judges should be taken. It appeared to him, that if the first decision come to was good law, it ought to be so declared before the whole land was ruled according to the principle established in that decision. If the law was allowed to remain as it had been decided in the first instance, in the case he had mentioned, it would be very hard on the tithe-payer.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that if the present opinion of the judges remained, it would be necessary to come to Parliament to settle the question, for if the farmer were rated on his profits, so ought the merchant and the manufacturer to be rated likewise. The land would gain by this principle, for the merchant and the manufacturer would be made to bear some part of the burthen.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that as the question was to be argued before all the judges in November next, their Lordships would not think that Parliament could interfere until they knew what the final decision of the judges would be.
Bill read a second time.