Lords Sitting of 14 April 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Public Museums, &c.; Sheriffs (Wales); Actions of Debt (Limitation).
2a. Customs (Export Duties); Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Glass Duties.
Private. — 1a. Ellesmere, Birmingham, and Liverpool Canals Union; Kingston-upon-Hull Docks.
Reported.—Calvert's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Bishops of London, Rochester, Llandaff, and St. David's, Earls Powis, Lichfield, Enniskillen, Ellenborough, and St. Germains, Marquesses Anglesey, Breadalbane, and Camden, Lords Ashburton, Brougham, Hatherton, Campbell, and Denman, from Members of Scots Presbyterian Church, London, and numerous other bodies and places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Earl of Enniskillen, from Killoghter, and several other places, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—From Clergy and others of Congresbury, Nailsea, and Tonbridge, for the better Regulation of Beer Houses.—By Bishops of London and Lichfield, from Derby, Bethnal Green, and Sandford Orcos, for better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Duke of Buccleuch, from Presbyteries of Skye, and other places for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—From Tradesmen of Tonbridge, and several other places, for Repeal of 57th Clause of Insolvent Debtors Act.—From East Lambeth, for Redemption of Tolls on Waterloo and other Bridges.—From Land Occupiers of Huntingdon, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Bishop of Hereford, and Earl Powis, from Clergy and others of Ludlow, and Sittingbourne, against the Union of St. Aasph and Bangor; and from Louth, Frome, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.—From Montgomery, for Establishment of Local Courts (Wales).—By Lord Campbell, from Prison Board of County of Fife, complaining of Evils of present System relating to Care and Management of Criminal Lunatics (Scotland).—From Corpustye, and several other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance, especially on the Sabbath.

MAYNOOTH.
The Marquess of Breadalbane, in presenting a great many petitions against any grant to Maynooth from many places in Scotland and elsewhere, said that he should not do justice to the petitioners, if he did not state to the House their sincere and anxious view of the question. However much they objected to the grant, they did not wish to interfere with the principles of civil or religious liberty, as they wished their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to enjoy perfect freedom of opinion. But they regarded the enjoyment of civil rights and the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland as very different things. For his own part he had always acted upon this principle, and had constantly voted for Catholic Emancipation, and for an equality of civil rights among all classes of his countrymen; but with the petitioners he drew a distinction between civil rights, and in substance making a new Church Endowment and Establishment. He thought that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter was most imprudent and censurable.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND).
Lord Campbellsaid, that he had then to present the petition of which he had given Notice, from the Prison Board of the County of Fife, on the subject of Criminal Lunatics. He hoped that the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed to the matter; and he could assure them that the subject-matter of the petition involved no charge against any Member of the Government, but the petition pointed out a serious defect in the law. The petitioners complained that the law made no provision for the support or maintenance of criminal lunatics in Scotland. There was a provision for the maintenance and dealing with poor lunatics, when they had been guilty of no criminal offence, but there was no provision for criminal pauper lunatics—there was no system for their treatment and cure. In consequence of this they were obliged to be kept in gaol, which was as miserable for them as for the other persons in the same prison with them. The only mode in which they could be dealt with in gaol was to keep them in solitary confinement in cells. The petitioners stated an instance of the defective state of the law. It was the case of a man who had been tried for homicide. There was no doubt as to his having committed the act, but he was a lunatic when he did so, and was consequently acquitted on that plea; but was ordered by the Court of Justiciary to be committed to the Fife county prison till further orders. The petitioners state that they were most anxious to do anything which could mitigate the state of this unhappy man; but in the gaol they had no means of doing so. When this man was first committed he was only a monomaniac; except upon one particular subject he was perfectly rational, and was a very intelligent and clever man. The only course the petitioners could adopt under the circumstances of the case was to place him in a cell in solitary confinement. They had appealed to the Court of Justiciary on the subject, but they could obtain no relief, as there was no public establishment for criminal lunatics, while no private lunatic asylum which they could select would receive him. They had appealed to that excellent and humane Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, but he could give them no redress; and they therefore were obliged to continue to keep him in a cell in solitary confinement in the prison at Cupar. He hoped that some clause to make provision for cases of this kind would be introduced
580
into the Poor Law Bill for Scotland.
Lord Wharncliffewas quite satisfied that the subject called for the serious attention of the Government. There could be no doubt but that the law in Scotland was deficient in this respect; but the subject was one that required great consideration as to the best mode of dealing with it. The law of England was equally deficient on the subject until the Act the 39th George III was passed.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Clanricardewished to ask some questions of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Trade, of which he had given notice, on the subject of Railways in Ireland. It was a subject of very considerable importance. The first question which he wished to ask the noble Earl was, whether, in the recommendations of certain railways by the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade to Parliament, those recommendations were to be considered as pointing out the line positively the best possible, or merely relatively to others the best, and that the recommendation of a line was merely founded on the comparison with other lines which might be before the Board? He was induced to ask this question in consequence of a Report which was laid on the Table only early last week, although it was dated the 3rd of April, and, by some means or other, had been printed in Irish newspapers a week before it was laid before Parliament. He wished to ask this question, because the Report to which he referred related to railways in the part of Ireland with which he was connected—namely, the west of Ireland. He saw in that Report that the Board of Trade alluded to only two lines: he did not intend to discuss the relative merits of those lines, or to find fault with the Report because it recommended one line in preference to the other, nor did it seem to him to be the right time to give any opinion on the subject; but he thought that neither of those lines would be the best possible line for effecting the object in view, namely, a railway to Galway. He asked this question because he thought the Legislature and the Executive Government stood in a very different position with regard to railways in Ireland from that in which it was placed in England, when railways were first set on foot in the latter country. No

581
doubt it was wise and prudent, in the first instance, to leave the formation of railroads in the hands of private companies, and not to commit themselves on the subject, as the consequence of such undertakings was very doubtful; and the great results which had followed, although anticipated by some, were far from being generally expected. It had, however, been frequently the subject of regret in that House, in the course of the two last Sessions of Parliament, and from which expression of regret he had never heard a dissentient voice, that, considering the great results arrived at by these undertakings, and the importance they had obtained in this country, the Government had not more directly interfered to point out the lines which, for the advantage of the country, should be undertaken—avoiding in some cases monopoly, and bad lines in others, and interfering in many respects, by which the community would have received more benefits than had accrued to it by the course which had been adopted. But with respect to Ireland, they stood in a different position; there they had new ground and a new country, with the advantage of the experience they had derived from what had occurred in England; and, therefore, the department of the Government to which these matters were now referred, might very fairly take a much more decided line, and announce a much more positive opinion upon the proposed lines, than was called for in England. On that principle their Lordships would see the advantage of not leaving those matters, in Ireland, too much to private speculation. He made those remarks because, as he had stated, it appeared to him that neither of the lines mentioned in the Report were the best possible lines to effect the object in view. Two other lines were slightly adverted to in the Report; and they led him to the second question which he wished to ask, namely, how far the Committee of the Board of Trade examined into and inquired whether the companies that came before them, as original and incorporated companies, and who proposed to resort to Parliament as companies, had complied with the provisions, the very stringent provisions, of the Registration Act passed in the last Session of Parliament? Those provisions were, doubtless, very stringent; and if they were too stringent in the opinion of the Board of Trade or of Parliament, the law in that respect ought to be altered; but, undoubtedly, while the law remained in force which was
582
intended for some security, as it was, to the public against gambling and fraudulent speculators, as well as for other reasons, the provisions of the Act ought to be complied with. He was induced to make those remarks, because he saw that in this Report a scheme which he thought—but he might be wrong in his opinion—would be as advantageous as those mentioned in detail in the body of this Report, was very slightly referred to as a project into which the Board of Trade did not think it right to go in detail, upon the ground that a mere outline of the plan had been laid before them. Now the projectors of that plan, although they had no company formed, and had taken no particular steps, were still entitled to as patient a hearing as any company that had not complied with the provisions of the Act; indeed, he thought that, having avowed themselves only projectors, and not represented themselves to be a company, nor violated any law, they were entitled to more protection than persons who came before the public as a company, but who had not complied with the law. He did not mean to say positively that others had not complied with the law, but he had been given to understand that they had not; and he thought that that was a subject of great importance, because it would be a great misfortune for Ireland that capitalists should be induced by untrue, if not fraudulent—he did not mean to say that these were such — representations to embark their money in schemes which were not likely to be carried out, and were not set on foot with a bonâ fide intention of being executed. He found, to his great surprise, on Saturday last, that in the last winter his name had appeared in a prospectus with which he had nothing to do, and to which he had never given his sanction. One of the regulations in the Act to which he had adverted was, that within a month of registration, a return should be made, showing; the paper by which all the promoters of the scheme shall have bound themselves to take one or more shares in the company to which they lend their names. And he could conceive nothing more improper than a person to lend his name to a scheme to which he was not ready to lend his money. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had always refused to have anything to do with forwarding speculations of this kind unless he was prepared, at the same time, to embark some money in them. There were at present schemes in the market—and he

583
said in the market, because he saw them advertised — headed by noble and hon. Friends of his, who, he knew, had no concern whatever with those speculations. Their Lordships were aware of the manner in which matters of this sort were managed. Prospectuses were issued by interested parties, accompanied by a notice that applications for shares were to be made by a certain day. The shares were then sent into the market at a premium, and persons not acquainted with the process were induced to buy them, supposing that the persons whose names they saw to these prospectuses were engaged in the undertakings; and loss inevitably followed to those speculators thus misled by statements which ought never, not only according to equity, but by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, to have been given to the public. For those reasons, the Board of Trade should be cautious in recognising as companies persons who might come before them as such, unless they were sure that the provisions of the Act had been strictly complied with. At the same time, he thought that, whether they were companies or no companies, it would be wise in the Board of Trade to examine into every project and every suggestion that might be made as regarded the different lines; because in the country to which he referred it was essentially necessary to keep in view great lines of communication — that none but good lines might be sanctioned, and that those lines should be really and bonâ fide executed.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas anxious, before he replied to the questions put to him by the noble Marquess, to account for a fact which the noble Marquess seemed to think required some explanation; he meant the fact of the Report itself having appeared before the public in the Irish newspapers previously to its having been laid before that House. It was very true that the Report was to be seen in the columns of the newspapers before it was laid on the Table of their Lordships' House; but the reason of this was to be found in the fact of their Lordships having adjourned some time previous to the other House of Parliament, and the Board of Trade being desirous that this Report should be submitted to Parliament as early as possible, several Reports were laid on the Table of the House of Commons after their Lordships had adjourned, and, which, therefore, could not be laid on the Table of that
584
House until after the recess. With respect to the first of the questions, the noble Marques had asked whether the recommendations of the Board of Trade were to be regarded as absolutely recommendatory of the best line for particular districts, or for any quarter of the country, more especially in Ireland, or as relatively recommending one line as compared with another line. He had no difficulty whatever in answering that the recommendations or opinions contained in the Reports of the Board of Trade were not to be taken as absolute recommendations of a line as the best of all possible lines, for a country. The terms in which the Report of the House of Commons advised the appointment of the Board, precluded them from taking that course. The matter was referred to the Board, and they were to report upon it, taking into consideration the plans and sections, and such matters, with the Bills, as might be laid before them. The Board was to consider whether there were public reasons that ought to be conclusive against the schemes, or which scheme of two ought to be preferred by Parliament. On these grounds they had acted; and when two schemes were laid before them they had given the preference to that one which appeared, upon the whole, to confer upon to the public the greatest amount of advantage. The noble Marquess had also inquired how far it was advisable for the Government not to leave these matters to private enterprise, but to lay down its authority as to what lines of railway should be adopted. Upon former occasions he (the Earl of Dalhousie) had alluded to that subject, and he should not venture to say more upon it on the present occasion than that he thought such a course of action might, in the first instance, have been followed; but that, having proceeded for so long a period upon a different line, it was impossible to have recourse to it then. But if it were unnecessary or impossible for the Board of Trade to follow such a line of conduct now, it was doubly unnecessary to do so with regard to Ireland, inasmuch as in that country, under the sanction of Government, such an inquiry had taken place, and a most elaborate, able, and admirable Report had been many years since laid upon the Table. He need not assure their Lordships that upon entering into the consideration of railways in Ireland, constant reference was made to that Report by the Railway Department as the highest authority, and they had not on any other

585
occasion departed from the terms of that Report without great hesitation, after the most careful consideration, and only where circumstances seemed to have altered since the date of the Report, and under which, as they knew, a different course of action would have been adopted by the Commissioners. With regard to the second question of the noble Marquess—namely, whether the Board had been sufficiently cautious in recognising as companies those projectors who had come before them, and who had in many instances broken the provisions of the Registration Act passed last Session of Parliament—he was aware that those provisions were stringent; but so far as the Board of Trade was concerned they had no authority whatever in the matter to take cognizance of the observance or non-observance of them. It was referred to the Railway Department to enter upon the consideration of certain plans, sections, and Bills to be referred to them, and the particular points into which the inquiry was to be made were specified in the Report of the House of Commons; but as to whether companies had complied with the Standing Orders of Parliament, it formed no part of their consideration. A question arose very early in the inquiry of the Board with reference to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, as to whether any Report on a Railway scheme which had notoriously failed to comply with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be submitted to Parliament by the Railway Board. Their Lordships were probably aware that in consequence of the enormous pressure of business during last Session of Parliament, it became almost impossible for every railway company to comply with the Standing Orders of Parliament; and it seemed to the Railway Board that, inasmuch as the question whether the Standing Orders had been complied with rested with the House of Commons itself, the Board might find themselves in this position, that having declined to report to Parliament on a scheme which had failed to comply with the Standing Orders of Parliament, if the House of Commons afterwards declared there were valid reasons why the Standing Orders should not be insisted upon, the House of Commons, finding no Report on the scheme from, the Board of Trade, might turn round and ask the Board why they had taken upon themselves to decide whether these Standing Orders had been complied with or not? With respect to the Registration
586
Act, it was no part of the duty of the Board to inquire into it; they were merely told to report upon the schemes that were laid before them. He was not prepared to deny the existence of what the noble Marquess had stated, namely—that in many instances the provisions of the Registration Act had not been complied with. The clauses of that Act required that no shares should be transferred until after the complete registration should have been had of the joint-stock companies. But a complete registration, it appeared, could not be had until the measures had proceeded somewhat further than they had gone through Parliament, and consequently there could be very little doubt that all the transfers of shares made in the meantime were contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Department charged with the Registration Act were not negligent in this matter, and upon being made acquainted that such traffic was daily connived at, they issued notices to the Stock Exchange in London and Dublin, and put them also in the different journals of the kingdom, warning parties that they were acting illegally, and subjecting themselves to a penalty—that the transfers so made were null and void, and that by making them they placed themselves in difficulties. He should add that there was some little doubt entertained whether the clauses of the Act were strictly applicable to railway companies. It was, however, now believed that they were applicable, although in other respects railways were excluded. Having given that notice, it was impossible that the Registration Department could proceed further, inasmuch as, although they could lay hold of a company if it performed an illegal act, yet it was impossible to lay their hands upon private individuals, and more especially upon those engaged on the Stock Exchange, where all the transactions were kept secret, and where detection could not follow. He might at the same time also observe, what was well known to their Lordships, that in the ordinary operations of the Stock Exchange, transfers and modes of dealing were recognised which were often entirely at variance with the law. He merely mentioned that to show that those charged with the Registration Act were not negligent of their duty, and so far as the Board of Trade was concerned they had nothing whatever to do with it.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he thought the Clause of the Act was a little

587
more easy of enforcement than the noble Earl seemed to consider. The 5th Clause provided,—
"That if for a period of one month after the particulars hereby required to be registered, or any of them, shall have been ascertained or determined, the promoters of any company shall fail to register any such particulars, or any of them, then, on conviction thereof, such promoters and every of them shall be liable for such offence to forfeit a sum not exceeding 20 l."
The noble Marquess proceeded to read the section referring to the execution and registration of the deed of settlement of public companies, and then continued to observe that the most prominent names in the prospectuses of some companies were those who had not signed any such agreement as the Statute required; and he was aware of such being the case in some instances. He begged to observe that he did not attach any blame to the Board of Trade on the ground of their not having inquired into this subject; but he certainly thought the Government were bound to look after such matters as railway schemes in Ireland with more care than in similar cases on this side of the Channel. In the Report of the Board of Trade to which he had already alluded, he could not understand why one body of promoters, who proposed to take up the line recommended in the Second Report of the Railway Commissioners, had been so entirely passed over, because they had not made the necessary preliminary arrangements, if it happened that the promoters of the other schemes had not complied with the Standing Orders, and with the provisions of the Registration Act.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid he did not believe it was very regular to prolong the discussion; but he wished to be permitted to observe that he considered the clause read by the noble Marquess quite compatible with the position in which he (Lord Dalhousie) had represented the Board of Trade to have been placed. He did not deny the truth of the allegations made by the noble Marquess, nor was he defending the conduct of the companies complained of; but he wished to explain, that the Board of Trade had no alternative to act differently from the course they had pursued. With respect to the remaining charge made by the noble Marquess, the line of railway alluded to had met with attention, but certainly not to an equal extent with the two companies who had deposited their money, and completed all
588
their other arrangements. It would not have been consistent with the duty of the Board to place these companies in the same position with the promoters of a third line, who had no money deposited, and who were not before Parliament, and none of their plans completed.
Subject dropped.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
The Earl of Dalhousie, in moving that the House go into Committee, according to Order, said, he would not detain their Lordships by entering into all the provisions of the Bill; but he would wish to observe that a supposition had gone abroad that these provisions were all new, and were now attempted to be enacted for the first time. That was a complete mistake, as the Bill was nothing more than an incorporation of the various clauses that had been inserted in Private Bills for many years past. Every Private Bill, having for its object the incorporation of a company for any particular purpose, had in it clauses that were equally applicable to every other similar scheme that could come before Parliament. The consequence was, that every such Private Bill was necessarily made extremely voluminous, and thus much labour was imposed both on the promoters and on the Legislature. It was, therefore, thought extremely desirable that all these clauses, which were common to various Bills, should be consolidated, and that a uniform system should thus be adopted. These clauses were formed into three groups; one of these, namely, that now before the House, referring to Land; another—the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill—being applicable to the transfer of shares; and the third being confined to Railways. It was thought desirable to divide the measure into three sets of clauses, and to introduce three separate Bills. First, there were the Land Clauses Compensation Bill; the second, related to the transfer of shares, and the rights and liability of proprietors; and the third to the regulation of railways; so that any promoters of a measure getting an Act might incorporate in their Bill all or any of these Bills. For instance, if it were a Railway Bill, the company would require all three; a canal company would only require the Bill for taking the Land and the Companies Consolidation Clauses; whilst if it were only a Gas Bill, they would not require the provisions for the acquisition of land, or for the regulation

589
of railways. Their Lordships would see that this was a great relief to the parties, and a great relief to persons interested, because now no one was secure against the introduction of some particular clause injuring them which might escape detection; whereas hereafter the Committee on a Bill would only have to examine the Bill and see whether the particular clauses were departed from, and whether any different clauses were introduced.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he had to apologize for intruding on their Lordships at that stage of the proceedings; but he wished to express his opinion that he regarded the Bill then before the House as one which would enable railway companies to ride roughshod over all small proprietors, whose land they might wish to become possessed of. He agreed fully with the noble Earl that the Bill was an improvement on the existing system of passing all those clauses in each special Act. The object of the Government was, he had no doubt, to protect the landowners, to diminish litigation, and to afford facilities to companies in carrying out their projects. The Bill would institute several new tribunals, and would make it compulsory on the companies to comply with the decision of that form of tribunal selected by the proprietor. But he doubted whether it would afford the protection which was intended; and if it passed into a law, the railway companies would have a strong ground for resisting all special clauses that might be introduced into their respective Bills having a contrary tendency to the provisions of the General Act. There were other portions of the Bill which he thought would actually enact a hardship. He alluded more particularly to the provision for the payment of costs in those tribunals. In some cases the costs were to be paid entirely by the railway companies; but in other instances; where the amount awarded by the jury or by the arbitrators was less than the sum originally offered as compensation by the company, the costs were to be equally divided between both parties; and thus, if an unfortunate man who did not wish for the railway, and who was obliged to sell his land against his will, happened to set a higher value upon his home than either the company or the jury might think proper to award him, he would be compelled to pay half the costs out of the sum
590
of money awarded by compensation; and if that should not happen to be sufficient for the purpose, then a provision was made for recovering the balance by distress. A man might thus be left in a position to lose the entire sum awarded to him, and in addition a portion of his remaining fortune. Now, he thought a railway company should be in the same position as a borrower in a mortgage transaction, when the party getting the money had always to pay all the costs. Again, if the person selling the land had merely a life-interest in it, the money was put in the bank to the credit of the Accountant General, and though it could be drawn out on application to the court for effecting certain improvements, these were of a kind from which the tenant for life could not, in many instances, derive much benefit. The money could not, for instance, be expended in the draining of lands.
The Earl of Devonsaid, he had a clause to propose which would effect that object.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he was very glad to learn what the noble Earl had stated. There were other cases in which serious injury might be done to the drainage of lands by railways; such, for instance, as in the north of Lincolnshire, where great lines of drains were formed, and where large embankments would form a serious obstacle to the improvement of agriculture.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas understood to observe that special clauses would afford a remedy in such cases.
Lord Beaumontsaid, another objection was, that they had put railway companies on so strong a footing since the establishment of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, that it was very difficult for private parties to grapple with, them. In many cases persons who would have petitioned against particular companies were now deterred from doing so, from a feeling that all opposition to them would be useless. In proof of this he would allude to a circumstance that had come under his own knowledge. A railway in favour of which the Board of Trade had reported, passed near a large mansion which belonged to the same family since the reign of Edward I. Before the Report of the Board of Trade was made known, the solicitor to the railway company went to the proprietor of that mansion, and begged of him to appoint an agent to treat with the company for the purchase of his land, promising to be extremely

591
liberal, in consequence of the injury which the railway would do his residence, provided he offered no opposition to the Bill. The matter was then left to the honour of the company; but within the last, few days, the company having got a strong footing in consequence of the Board of Trade having reported in their favour, and their shares having risen in the market, informed this proprietor that they did not intend to give him any compensation. He (Lord Beaumont) intended to watch that Bill when it came before the House; and he believed the proprietor to whom he alluded was resolved to petition the other House of Parliament against it. Such a hardship ought to be provided against, and there was now an opportunity of doing so in the two Bills conjointly. He could not understand why the two Bills had been divided. They should have been considered together, their principle and object being the same. The two Bills, properly conjoined, might have been a sufficient security against the injuries which were now committed. He should, in conclusion, move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.
The Earl of Dalhousiemust oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. It was unnecessary for him, in reply to the noble Lord, to enter into an explanation of the measure, because he thought he had already done so to the satisfaction of the House. As to referring the Bill to a Committee up stairs, such a course would be impracticable in the present state of business. The clauses in the Bill before their Lordships were the result of the experience of years; they had been revised again and again during the progress of every Session; and the greater portion of them had been in existence during the last fifteen years, being thus contemporaneous with the existence of railways to any extent in this country. The present Bill afforded greater advantages, in the shape of protection, than had ever been given before to those whose lands were likely to be interfered with. Upon these grounds, he should object to the Bill being sent up stairs; but a still greater objection to such a course arose from a knowledge of the fact that there was now before Parliament an unprecedented accumulation of railway business, such as he hoped they should never meet with again. There were no less than 248 Railway Bills before Parliament, and they had now reached the middle of
592
the month of April, and not a single Committee was sitting upon one of those Bills. The Committees, it was settled, were to meet on the 21st of this month, and looking at the amount of business which they would have to perform, it appeared to him that a great hardship would be inflicted out of doors by the delay which must necessarily arise from referring this Bill to a Select Committee up stairs.
House in Committee.
The Earl of Devonmoved that an addition should be made to Clause 64 for the purpose of authorizing persons interested in reversionary inheritances to lay out certains sums of money in trust, under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, for drainage and other permanent improvements.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to such an addition being made to the clause, on the ground that the expense which it would occasion to parties interested would be so great as to defeat the object of the noble Lord.
The Earl of Dalhousealso objected to add the proposed words, on account of the difficulty which they would give rise to.
Clause withdrawn. Clause 87 was omitted.
Report to be received to-morrow.
House adjourned.