Lords Sitting of 18 April 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Elective Franchise Extension.
Reported.—Sheriffs (Wales).
3a. and passed:—Bastardy.
Private. — 3a. and passsed:—Birkenhead Commissioners Dock; Thames Navigation Debt.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Bishop of Bangor, Duke of Richmond, Bishop of Hereford and Earl Powis, from Boystone, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Clergy and others of St. David's and several other places, against the Union of St, Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop of Manchester.—By Bishop of Durham, Dukes of Rutland, and Richmond, Earls of Bandon, and Wicklow, Marquess of Breadalbane, and Lords Campbell, and Braybrooke, from Glasgow, and numerous other places, against Increase of Grant to Maynooth.—By Duke of Cleveland, from Inhabitants of Ballymoodan, and Bandon, for Inquiry into the course of Instruction adopted at Maynooth College.—By Earl of Bandon, from Cork and several other places, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—From Waltham Agricultural Society, for Repeal of Malt Tax.—By Duke of Rutland, from Landowners of Leicester, and from the Leicestershire Agricultural Society, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—By Lord Campbell, and Bishop of Durham, from Inhabitants of Rhymney Iron Works, and 2 other places, for the Suppression of lntemperance—By Duke of Richmond, from Merchants and others of Forres, against any alteration of Law relating to the present system of Banking (Scotland).—From Presbytery of Jedburgh, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Earl of Mounteashell, from Guardians of Fermoy Union, for Alteration of Poor Law (Ireland) Act.

THE DIOCESES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Earl of Powis, on presenting petitions from a great number of places against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, said that he should take that opportunity to put the question of which he had given notice on this subject. It would be in the recollection of the House, that last year he had introduced a Bill for the purpose of continuing to keep separate the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. The House agreed to the se-
932
cond reading of this Bill; and, subsequently, in conformity with the advice of some noble Friends who had aided him in supporting the Bill, he had withdrawn it in consequence of the statement of the noble Duke, that Her Majesty's Assent was not likely to be given on the further progress of the Bill. In the present year he had introduced a similar Bill; and the second reading stood for Thursday, the 29th. The object of the question which he now wished to put, was to request the noble Duke to have the kindness to inform him whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to interpose, in the present instance, Her Majesty's Prerogative, in a similar manner in which it was done last year; and which would have the effect of preventing the St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses Bill passing that House?
The Duke of Wellingtonreplied, that the Bill alluded to by the noble Earl was for the repeal of so much of the Act of the 6th and 7th William IV., as related to the union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. This Bill was in the possession of their Lordships; and Her Majesty's Ministers' attention had been directed to it; and he could only say, in reply to the question of the noble Earl, that he had not received Her Majesty's authority to give Her Assent to the progress of the Bill.
The Earl of Powissaid, that he would on Monday state the course which he intended to pursue. With regard to the Bill, he was aware that it could not be proceeded with without the Assent of the Crown. He could not state the proposition which he should make; but whatever Motion he should make, Thursday, the 29th, would be the day on which he should submit it to the House.

RAILWAYS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a case had come under his notice, showing a most extraordinary example of recklessness on the part of the managers of a railroad, and of their sacrificing the interests of the shareholders. He had the very best authority for the statement which he was about to make; but he should not name the railway company, or even the part of the country in which it was. The statement which he was about to make showed the reckless manner in which the powers given to the company by their Act had been carried out; and this not to the injury of individuals, but to the utter ruin of the company itself, in consequence of their hurry to complete their railway,

933
without waiting for an Act giving them new powers. In this instance, this railway was connected with one of the largest railways in the kingdom, many of the proprietors of which were men of great wealth. Near the then proposed line, there was an estate, which was held in trust, as devisee, by an eminent legal gentleman, who was his authority on the subject. The lethal title of the estate was, therefore, vested in this gentleman. It appeared expedient to the managers of the railway company to carry on their works, not confining themselves to the land or line described in the Schedule of their Act. The powers of the Act allowed them to take a line, and they might make some slight variations from it; but not satisfied with this, they wished to take a property situated in a parish not set forth in their Schedule. They went to the parties occupying the property, and by means of their agents made a bargain with them; and by offering four times the value of the land—which he did not object to—they obtained the consent of these parties to their driving their railway through their property. The parties, however, who had given their assent were only tenants for life, and had no power to give assent. The legal gentleman to whom he alluded was trustee of the property as a guardian of infants, and, therefore, without an Act of Parliament, he could not, as a devisee of the property, give his assent to the alienation of it, as he could not make a title to the land. Any lawyer could have told the parties this; and it appeared that nearly all these companies had not only solicitors, but standing counsel; but such was their reckless haste to complete their works, that they could not wait to obtain a new Act giving them additional powers, but at once proceeded, to the most serious injury, if not the ruin, of the shareholders in the company. Another circumstance had been mentioned to him which was also worthy of notice. It appeared that an eminent manufacturer, who was the director of some half-dozen railways, had got shares divided into half-shares, quarters, and even eighths; and he had held out inducements to clubs, artisans, and other workmen, to take them. Those persons had been induced to draw their 20 l. or 30 l. from the savings banks, where it was deposited for bad times, and to speculate with it in gambling in the share market, to their most serious injury, if not to their utter ruin.

THE FEANCHISE TAX.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he should then present the Bill of which he had given notice, for the extension of the franchise to all persons paying the Income Tax. Some doubt appeared to be entertained when he alluded to the subject on a former evening, as to the utility of his plan, but from inquiries which he had since made, he had reason to believe that the proposed measure would give a very beneficial extension to the elective franchise, even in cities and boroughs. There were many annuitants, retired tradesmen, professional men, and others, contributors to the Income Tax, who resided in lodgings in all the cities and large towns, and there were also a considerable number of the same class living in counties beyond the limits of adjoining boroughs. These would all be benefited by his measure, and would prove a very enlightened and independent body of voters. The right of voting would of course be confined to the limits of the respective counties or boroughs. Without entering further into the provisions of the Bill, he begged to move that it be now read a first time.
Lord Stanleysaid, he presumed there was no objection to allow the Bill to be read a first time without entering into any discussion on its merits. He merely rose for the purpose of expressing a hope that, in assenting to such a course, he would not be supposed by the noble Marquess to give any concurrence in the very novel principle in legislation which the measure introduced. Perhaps his noble Friend meant to guarantee that the Income Tax was to be a permanent source of taxation.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he wished he could guarantee that the Income Tax would not be a permanent tax, but from what what, had before fallen, from his noble Friend on the subject, he thought he had every ground for fearing that the Income Tax was intended to be permanently continued. The Bill would, of course, limit the duration of the franchise conferred by it to the continuance of the Income Tax. His noble Friend had spoken of the principle of the Bill as one novel in legislation, but his noble Friend was himself not long a Member of that House, or he would have known that his allusion to an objection to the first reading of any Bill was itself a most novel proceeding in their Lordships' House.
Bill read 1a.

INFANTICIDE.
The Earl of Mountcashellwished to bring under the notice of the House the Return of Inquests held in 1844, by Coroners in the United Kingdom, on the bodies of infants under twelve months of age. The last Return for which he had applied was for the number of these inquests held in 1844; but he had previously obtained a Return of the number of Coroners' inquests held in cases of infanticide for the preceding eleven years. That former Return had now been lying on their Lordships' Table since the last Session of Parliament, and he had to complain of it as being very imperfect and irregular in many instances. In one case, the Coroner refused any return until he would know by whom he was to be paid his expenses for doing so; and in other cases also the Returns were very unsatisfactory and imperfect, but still the Report showed that inquests had been held during the eleven years prior to 1844 on upwards of 8,000 infants.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he at first thought the noble Earl meant to confine himself to the case of Irish Coroners, and had he done so, he (the Duke of Richmond) would leave to some noble Lord connected with the sister country, the task of defending them. He thought the information required could be obtained through the treasurer of the county, especially in cases where the Coroner did not happen to be in a position to give it. With respect to the case more particularly alluded to by the noble Lord, the proper course, in his opinion, was to call upon that Coroner to make the return forthwith; and if he then refused, they would soon let him know that the House of Lords had plenty of power to make him account for his conduct, and to oblige him to travel up to London and back again at his own expense, and perhaps to take up his lodging in Newgate for some time in the interim. The subject of Coroners' Courts was one that ought to be brought under the serious consideration of Parliament. He did not mean to allude to any little squabbles that might have taken place between police magistrates and coroners, but to the indefinite way in which juries were summoned to attend inquests. In other cases juries were summoned, perhaps, from the extremity of the county, and kept often for several days from their homes without getting any remuneration whatever; whereas it was part of the patronage of the constable to collect coroners'
936
juries from among his neighbours, as they were entitled to receive 1l. remuneration — a sum which, however, was seldom taken in cash, as it was usually appropriated to paying for a good dinner, of which the jurymen partook together after the inquest. With respect to the Coroners generally of England, every one should admit that they were a most respectable body of men.
Their Lordships then adjourned.