Lords Sitting of 24 February 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Deodands Abolition. Private.—2a. Britten's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Rosebery, from Edinburgh and Haddington, against any Alteration in the present Laws relating to Banking in Scotland.—From Linlithgow, for Inquiry into the Laws relating to Imprisonment (Scotland).—By the Earl of Radnor, from William Bidwell, of Cambridge, for Inquiry into Legal Proceedings instituted against him for refusing to pay Church Rates.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Stilton, and 2 other places, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Intemperance.—From Roman Catholics of Sydney (New South Wales), for Inquiry relating to the Omission of the Names of certain persons from the Special Jury List Ireland.—By Lord Camoys, from Cork, for Repeal of Certain Clauses in the Charitable Bequests (Ireland) Act.

LOCAL TAXATION.
Lord Beaumontwished to put a question to his noble Friend the President of the Council, and to draw his attention to an important document which had been laid on their Lordships' Table. The question he was desirous of putting was, whether it was the intention of Government to make any alteration in the law of rating this Session; and the document to which he was anxious to draw his noble Friend's attention was the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners on Local Taxation. In that paper there was the fact, which might be familiar to their Lordships, but was startling to those who had not well considered the subject—viz., that actually the amount of 12,000,000 l. sterling was annually disposed of by the local authorities; that, moreover, there were twenty-four distinct rates, every one of which was, according to the original Statutes by which they were rendered lawful, regulated on distinct and different systems, founded on different bases, and intended for different purposes. The matter was so complicated that it had been found utterly impossible to
1026
conform to the law; and, consequently, the local authorities had been obliged, instead of complying with the law in practice on that subject, to establish a principle of their own, and they, therefore, levied those rates generally on the basis of the Poor-rates. The document stated also that no less than 250,000 officers were engaged in the collection of those various local taxes and, moreover, that the property on which they were imposed differed in nearly every instance; but that, although they differed according to the law on the subject, yet at the same time, it was usual in practice to impose them upon real property, on lands and houses. The document, after mentioning some other objections, concluded with a passage that was so clearly written, and expressed the case so strongly, that he would read an extract it from their Lordships:—
"Putting out of consideration the taxes and various modifications of them created by our local Acts of Parliament, there is found in Common Law and general Statutes authority to impose and levy for above 200 various and imperfectly defined purposes, at least twenty-four different local taxes, a large portion of which would, if the law were carried into effect according to its intention, be levied separately and distinctly in every district. Some of them are permanent, some occasional, and many of them for the purpose of raising a sum of money insignificant in amount. The definitions of the persons on whom the taxes are imposed often vary without apparent cause, and sometimes are inconsistent with what is generally supposed to have been the intention of the Legislature. The definitions of the property on which the taxes are assessed being still more various, and involved in still more frequent difficulties, a multitude of these taxes cannot be levied, if they are resisted, and others are gathered with great cost; while in some cases there is entirely wanting all protection, arising from the accountability of the officers who impose the tax, or collect it, or disburse it."
Such was the extract, and after having read it he would again ask his noble Friend whether the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject during the present Session, and whether it was their intention to make any alteration in the law, so as to consolidate into one uniform rate these numerous and vexatious taxes, and remedy the cumbrous and expensive machinery which was at present employed to raise them? His noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) had, last year, put a similar question to his noble Friend opposite, who then answered "not this year;" he

1027
was therefore induced to ask him now whether there would be any alteration in the law in the present year?
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he could give no other answer than he had given to the same question when put to him by another noble Lord last Session—that it was not the intention of Government to introduce any measure on the subject in the present Session. A Bill relating to the Law of Settlement had been already introduced into the other House by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, which, it might be anticipated, would be sufficient to occupy the attention of Parliament.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, it was perfectly true that there were not less than twenty-four of these different local taxes in different places and under different circumstances; but it had often appeared to him that it would be extremely desirable, instead of having raised upon the same community a different number of rates for different purposes, that there should be, as in the county rate, one rate that was applicable to a great variety of different purposes, among which should be the maintenance of the poor. Such a course would be a great improvement on the present system of levying local taxation.

ABOLITION OF DEODANDS.
Lord Campbellsaid, that, in pursuance of the notice he had given last week, he should, with their Lordships' permission, lay on the Table a Bill for the Abolition of Deodands, and he did not anticipate there would be any opposition offered to its passing through, much less in its introduction to that House—the wonder to him was that a law so extremely absurd and inconvenient should have remained in force down to the middle of the nineteenth century; especially as that did not arise from the law having become obsolete or slipped their recollection from never having been put in force; for the law of deodands was called into action almost weekly, as the newspapers constantly informed them. He would, however, venture to say that the law was both extremely absurd and inconvenient, and, under the correction of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he would shortly state to their Lordships what that law really was which men now enforced, and which, if resorted to, ought not to be perverted by Coroners' juries. By the old Common
1028
Law of England, which was still in force, all personal chattels that had immediately caused or moved to the death of a reasonable being were forfeited to the Crown. That was not at all by way of punishing an offence committed by the owner of the chattels, because, as his noble and learned Friend well knew, where there had been malice or culpable negligence, so that it became a case of murder or manslaughter, the law of deodand did not apply. It had been decided that if another man took his (Lord Campbell's) sword, without his leave, and killed another with his sword, his sword became forfeited to Her Majesty. The severity of the law, if it were strictly enforced, was very great, because everything that in the remotest degree contributed to the death was included in the forfeiture. Not only an ox that gored a man was forfeited, but if a person fell from a horse the horse was forfeited: and if a man fell from a horse into the water and was carried down a mill-race and killed by the wheel of the mill, the horse and the mill-wheel were both forfeited. To be sure, if a person fell from that which was not in motion that motionless thing was not forfeited; it was only what he touched immediately before the moment of death, which was the subject of a deodand; for instance, if a man were climbing up a waggon, which was stationary, and fell from a wheel, the wheel by which he was climbing up was alone forfeited; but, then, if the waggon was in motion, the waggon, and the horses, and the load in the waggon, were all forfeited, as tending ad mortem. This was in accordance with the maxim, "omnia quæ movent ad mortem sunt Deo danda." Again, if a person fell from the top of a stage-coach, even intoxicated or asleep, and the wheel of the coach passed over him and killed him, the horses and the coach, and everything in the coach, including the luggage of the passengers, would all be forfeited. Certain absurd distinctions were made: for instance, if a man fell from a ship in salt water, there was no deodand on the ship; but if he fell from the ship in fresh water, then the ship and the furniture of the ship, and the cargo of the ship, were all deodands. Neither did it signify, whether the chattel fell on the man, or the man on the chattel. But, it was said, that if the thing was fixed to a freehold, then it should not be a deodand; and, therefore, if the door of a house fell upon and killed a man, it

1029
being part of a freehold, was not forfeited. Again, if a bell dropped from a steeple, and produced the death of a person, it was not a deodand, because it had been consecrated. The law of deodands, it was supposed, had been founded partly upon the Mosaic, and partly upon the Athenian law, by which any instrument causing death was considered accursed, and was made a deodand; but the bells were blessed, not accursed. By the old English law, the chattel causing death was to be sold, and the money, however great the amount, was to be applied in the purchase of masses for the soul of the deceased; as he had gone to his account unprepared, the law humanely provided that masses should be celebrated for the purpose of accelerating his removal out of purgatory. Now, it did seem strange that in this Protestant country a law should remain in force, which had been abolished in all Roman Catholic countries, and that England, which was so proud of being distinguished for its Protestantism, should be the only country in which it was allowed to remain. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would agree with him that it ought not any longer to be a reproach to their jurisprudence. A very different application than was intended by the Legislature was attempted to be made of it by Coroners' juries, who used it as a punishment for negligence, carelessness, and a criminal intent. If no fault appeared on the part of the owners of the chattel, the jurors found no deodand; but if there had been gross negligence, or what they considered had been a "culpable neglect," then they did find a deodand; so that they entirely perverted the law—they found no deodand where the law gave a deodand, and where the law gave no deodand there they found one. Now, he was sure their Lordships would agree with him, that Coroners' juries, in the inflamed state in which they must necessarily be, sitting on an inquest upon a person who had come to an untimely end, must be a very unfit tribunal to punish an offender, even if they could do so by law. It was an entirely ex parte proceeding—the party accused was not on his trial before the jury. The power must necessarily be abused if it existed; but the power did not exist, and the Court of Queen's Bench for the last ten years had almost invariably quashed inquisitions where such a course had been pur-
1030
sued: because, when an inquisition was held, and the facts were stated, and there appeared to have been gross negligence, that would amount to manslaughter, and the verdict ought to have been against the party guilty of the negligence, as in the case of "The Queen v. Bolwarth;" and the Court quashed the inquisition. But still the Coroners' juries went on from time to time, with a laudable and natural feeling, to try, by a little perversion of the law, to do what they considered was subservient to the ends of justice. Great vexation arose from that, and much injury was done to the administration of justice. He had had the honour of communicating with several legal friends on the subject, and they all entertained the opinion that the law should not be allowed to remain as it then was, as it led to most inconvenient consequences. He had likewise conversed with an intelligent Coroner, he meant Mr. Wakley, the Coroner for Middlesex, who was a most active servant of the public, and he had informed him that, in his opinion, that law could do no good—it only held out a temptation to juries by which they were misled, and from which the greatest inconvenience resulted. There was only a single benefit that this law might be supposed to confer upon the public, and that was, that it tended to induce caution aud care on the part of stage coach proprietors and the directors of railroads, because it was held out in terrorem, and might have a salutary effect in making them more careful than they otherwise would be. But there was another defect in the law which he had now to point out, and which being removed would be productive of unspeakable benefit. By the law of France, and most of the Continental countries, and likewise by the law of Scotland, if, by the default of any person, death ensued, that person was liable to make compensation to those who had suffered from the death of the individual who had so perished. In Scotland that was called an "assythment;" but he had been told that that law did not operate well, for the life of a man was considered so valuable that no estimate could be formed of its value; so that if death ensued, there was no remedy. If a man's son were thrown by the negligence of a coach proprietor from a coach, and he broke his limb, the father had an action against the stage coach proprietor; but if the poor boy was killed upon the

1031
spot, then the father had no action against the coach proprietor.
The Lord Chancellorthought his noble and learned Friend had reported a case on that point. It was the case of the death of a wife, and occurred in the time of Lord Ellenborough.
Lord Campbellsaid, the same observation applied to the case which his noble and learned Friend had referred to. Where a man's wife was thrown from the top of a stage-coach and killed upon the spot, no action could be maintained for even the expenses of her funeral. His noble and learned Friend would hardly suppose that that was a state of the law which ought to be allowed to remain; and he would agree with him that it was a great reproach to their jurisprudence that it had not been sooner altered. He (Lord Campbell) had intended to have made that part of his Bill; but his noble Friend, Lord Lyttleton, had prepared a Bill on the subject, which had been laid on their Lordships' Table, and which he hoped would effectually answer every purpose that he (Lord Campbell) had in view. He did not wish to take the matter out of the hands of his noble Friend; but, on the contrary, should be happy to afford him every assistance in his power in improving his Bill. The two Bills might go on together, because, objectionable as the system of deodands was, he would no abolish it, having regard to the public safety, unless the right of action was given, in order to make railroad directors and stage coach proprietors cautious of the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects. His Bill was confined merely to the subject of deodands; but the two Bills might either go on pari passu, or be joined together. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Baron Parke, a Judge to whom the public were indebted, not only for his administration of justice, but for the rules of law that he had suggested and introduced, he had inserted a clause in his Bill for doing away with a useless absurdity in indictments for murder, in which it was at the present time necessary to give a minute description of the instrument by which the murder was committed, and to state the value of it, or to allege that it was of no value. He had therefore introduced a clause which should make it no longer necessary to introduce this into the indictment. Such was the nature of the Bill that he had the honour
1032
to offer to their Lordships, and he should propose that it be read for the first time. He hoped it would go on concurrently with Lord Lyttleton's Bill—but if it should be thought better to amalgamate them, he should be most happy that it should go down to posterity as Lord Lyttleton's Bill.
The Lord Chancellordid not rise for the purpose of giving any opposition to this Bill, which would be read for the first time, as a matter of course. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that the system which he had dilated on was pregnant with absurdity. His noble and learned Friend had mentioned many absurdities from, he believed, the Digests on the subject, one of which he (the Lord Chancellor) had seen that morning, which contained a case which went, in absurdity, even beyond those stated by his noble and learned Friend. If a man were riding in a cart drawn by three or four horses, and the cart were overturned, and the man crushed by a wheel, the cart and horses would become a deodand. That his noble and learned Friend had stated—but if a waggon loaded with hay were passing at the same time, and the man were thrown in such a way that a wheel of the waggon went over and killed him, not only the cart and horses were forfeited, but the waggon and the load of hay, and the horses followed the same fate as the cart. The absurdity of the law was not the only ground on which he thought it would be wise to adopt the course suggested by his noble and learned Friend:—it would be wise also to abolish it, in order to do away with the application of it to collateral objects. But he should not say more at present than to suggest one or two points for the consideration of his noble and learned Friend, in the interval between the first and second readings of his Bill. The first point was, that deodands formed part of the ordinary revenue of the Crown. It would be necessary, therefore, according to usage, that the consent of the Crown should be obtained before proceeding with any measure proposing to deal with them; and he thought it would be the more respectful course to ask that consent as soon as possible, than to postpone the obtaining it to the last stage of the Bill. There was another point of more difficulty than that to which he had already adverted, and it was this—that that property of the Crown had been

1033
granted out in a great variety of instances, to lords of franchises and public corporations. They possess a property, therefore, in these deodands; and he thought their Lordships would hardly interfere with these rights, without providing in some way or other compensation, or an equivalent for the loss of it. It might be said that this was a trifling matter, and that de minimis non curat lex; but if this mode of procedure be once sanctioned, it may next be applied in cases more extensive and important. There was still another point which had been mentioned to him by a noble Friend—viz., whether the public and the House of Commons would not consider them by this Bill as interfering with their privileges, inasmuch as it proposed to deal with the revenues of the Crown. He did not profess to have any great learning on the subject, but he felt rather disposed to controvert the right of the other House to interfere with their decisions; but he knew there was an apparent right on this point, which was exercised by the House of Commons in a somewhat arbitrary manner. He should not offer the lest objection to the Bill in its progress through the House, but merely wished to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the points he had stated, in order that he might apply his judgment to the consideration of them.
Lord Campbellwas so fully aware of the necessity of the consent of the Crown being obtained, that he had purposely given notice of his intention to introduce the Bill, so that the attention of Ministers might be called to it as early as possible; and he was sure that the Government would now obtain Her Majesty's consent, and the Bill could be proceeded with. He was much obliged to his noble and learned Friend for the suggestions he had thrown out; but he would take the earliest opportunity of saying that there was not the slightest pretence for giving compensation to the parties to whom the grant of a deodand had been made, as the grant continued only so long as the deodand existed. While the law gave a deodand, it went to the Crown, or to the grantee of the Crown, but no longer. If such were not the law, in many cases they could not do away with a particular felony as a capital offence, because there was a forfeiture involved in it. In the case of a felony, the felon's goods were forfeited; and in many cases these rights had been
1034
granted away, and they could not alter the law with regard to felony, and say there should no longer be a deodand, without giving compensation to the public executioner, who was entitled to the felon's clothes. With regard to the third point suggested by his noble and learned Friend relative to the House of Commons, he would only say, that a noble Friend (Lord Canterbury) who had filled the Chair of the House of Commons with so much distinction, and was always so zealous in sustaining the rights of that House, had not objected to Bills originating in their Lordships' House, which did not affect the revenue of the country. The abolition of deodands could in no way interfere with the rights of the House of Commons.
Lord Monteaglesaid, it would be well to consider that the casual acquisitions of the Crown formed part of the Public Revenue as much as any other portion of the revenue vested in Her Majesty. He should imagine, therefore, that the practice in respect of them was analogous to the course taken by the House of Lords in the repeal of any other tax.
Lord Campbellsuggested to his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), that the landed estates of the Crown came under the same view; but it could not be contended that the House of Lords had not the same control over those estates as the House of Commons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the course they were about to adopt, could not be attended with inconvenience, because if the House of Commons would not give effect to the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, they would send up a corresponding Bill for the consideration of their Lordships.
Bill read 1a.

RAILWAYS.—BOARD OF TRADE.
The Earl of Dalhousielaid on the Table the Report of the Board of Trade on the Newcastle and Berwick, and the Manchester and Leeds Railway lines, and the Maps of the Railways in the South-Eastern and Manchester and Leeds districts, which were ordered to be printed.
Earl Fitzwilliaminquired whether these Reports contained the reasons for the decisions which had already appeared in the Gazette?
The Earl of Dalhousiereplied, that they contained the detailed reasons for

1035
the recommendations of the Board of Trade.
Earl Fitzwilliamwould then ask whether it was certain the advice of the Board of Trade would be given to Parliament on all the lines, before Parliament had been obliged to form its own conclusion without that advice? He did not ask this for the purpose of impugning the conduct of the Board of Trade, but quite the contrary; for he thought the public were indebted to the Board of Trade for the labour they had undertaken, and he would say also that the public were indebted to the Government for having imposed those labours on that subordinate department. He was induced to take that opportunity of making these observations because it appeared to him that the Board of Trade had not been fairly dealt with in other places; and he went the length of saying for himself, that it would be better if Parliament did not entertain any Bill till the Board of Trade should have reported upon it. Indeed, he entertained a sort of major opinion that the Government ought originally to have issued a Commission to determine the best mode of establishing railway communications throughout this country, and, entertaining the major opinion, he undoubtedly held the minor, not that every decision by the Board must be acquiesced in by Parliament, but that the greatest possible deference ought to be paid to the opinion of that Board. The distinction he was inclined to make on the subject was this,—that whenever the Board of Trade reported against a railway, the consequence of it should be that the Report was final; but not that it should be final if the Board of Trade came to a decision in favour of any line. By taking the decision of the Board as final when it should be against any line, they would only be postponing that line for another year; but if they took absolutely the Report in favour of a line, it might have the effect of inducing Parliament to take a line which might afterwards be found not to be the best adapted to the object they had in view. He wished to say one word more on a subject which appeared to him to call for a comment. The Railway Officers of the Board of Trade seemed to him to have been brought up before the other House of Parliament as culprits; they had been treated most unfairly, and this solely because of certain transactions on the Stock Exchange which had come to the knowledge of the public. At that place there were certain gentlemen who
1036
dealt largely in railway shares; and he was not making use of an improper word, or one which was beyond the limits of propriety, in designating these transactions at the Stock Exchange as a species of gambling, founded on their Lordships' estates all over the country. There had been inferences drawn in another place, that because railway shares realized a certain profit to those who speculated in them, this result must have been in consequence of improper communication having been given to individuals on the subject from the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. He knew this inference had been drawn in a certain quarter where he entertained the highest respect and personal esteem; but it was in his opinion altogether unfounded. If he looked at the matter with open eyes, or even with half an eye open, if he found the Reports regularly delivered in from the first to the second, third, fourth, down to the ninth, and if, moreover, he found in all those Reports—and he must observe that persons much more acute upon these points than himself had the same opportunity for observing and for drawing their conclusions—if, he repeated, he found, and those more acute persons found, that certain principles had been adhered to by the Railway Board in coming to a decision upon the schemes laid before them, and that their decisions and Reports had been guided by those principles, then he would observe to their Lordships that it required no very great degree of intelligence or sagacity to infer that the same principle which had determined the Railway Committee in reporting upon the first nine schemes, would likewise guide them in reporting upon the tenth. It surely did not call for any excessive ingenuity to enable an acute observer to arrive at this conclusion; and yet, notwithstanding, because so obvious an inference had been drawn, and a successful speculation in railway shares had ensued in consequence, the Railway Officers of the Board of Trade had been roundly accused of collusion. This was not only a most unfounded conclusion, but the terms likewise in which it had been announced were too strong, and it was altogether a most unfair and unwarranted accusation. At the same time, he could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the traffic in railway shares ought to be put an end to by the Legislature, or by some means being placed at the disposition of the Executive Government for stopping it; or, if such a power did

1037
not exist, it ought to be devised, in order to enable the Government to prevent such gambling. This was a subject well worthy the attention of Parliament. The first railway bill that ever passed through the Legislature was called a Private Bill. What a monstrosity it was to style such a class of measures Private Bills! Was an intersection of the whole country by lines of railways, increasing the speed of travelling by four or five times, and causing an entire revolution in the economy of the people, to be classed under the head of Private and Personal Bills? Such a thing was monstrous, and if the railway schemes were continued to be dealt with on the principle of Private Bills, the Legislature would abdicate one of its most important functions. He thanked the Government most sincerely for what had been done in this respect. It was a step taken in a right direction, and he was extremely sorry the Railway Reports of the Board of Trade had not been upheld in another quarter. If the mischief that had been done in this respect was not irreparable by the time the various railway bills came up to their Lordships' House, he trusted that a sufficient and proper degree of respect and of authority would be given to those Reports. Not that in his opinion the present Railway Board was the best constituted body for effecting the objects which it was sought to achieve. It was not a Committee of the Privy Council, nor had it the weight or authority of such a body, one only of the Privy Council being a Member of the Board; but it was formed from a subordinate class of public officers, who ought not in his opinion to have such weighty powers intrusted to them. He thought the power ought to exist, but that such a body of men as those constituting the Railway Committee ought not to be intrusted with the power of dealing with all the landed property of England. He considered, therefore, that he was doing no disservice to the noble Earl sitting on the opposite bench, if he pressed on him the necessity of reconstituting the Railway Board, and of appointing to act in that capacity men of the very highest weight and authority in the kingdom; by which step all the difficulties which surrounded the legislative progress of the bills in question would be removed; and more,—he would venture to say, that a Railway Board constituted in the way he had pointed out, and selected from the class of men he had indicated, would go far to remove all necessity far legislating on the subject of railways.
The Earl of Dalhousiecould give no definite reply to the question of the noble Earl with respect to the period when the remaining Railway Reports might be expected to be laid before Parliament; for the labours of that Department of the Board of Trade had been of a far more onerous description than was generally known. The increase in the numbers of railway projects during the last year had been altogether unparalleled; and such a simultaneous creation of schemes would probably never again occur. It had, therefore, been utterly out of the power of that Board to do that which, from its constitution, it was originally contemplated it would, and which, under ordinary circumstances, it ought to be able to perform,—namely, to report upon all the schemes in detail previous to the meeting of Parliament, so that all the Reports should be ready to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses on the first day of their meeting. The consequence of the enormous pressure of this class of business on the Railway Department had been to prolong inquiries that were still going on before them. The Railway Board had been reproached for the tardiness of its proceedings, in not having reported on all the projects sooner; but a similar reproach for precipitancy would have been justly made had the Committee hurried through the business before them, without duly weighing each scheme in its bearings upon the whole subject. He must further call their Lordships' attention to the fact, that the preparation of their Reports, and their drawing up in detail, was a work which required time to perform it with that care which was requisite. The investigations that had hitherto taken place before the Railway Department only regarded the great outlines of each class of railway projects; and it now remained for the Board to see if the objects of the schemes were carried into operation in the Bills themselves. The various details of the Bills were extremely voluminous; the tariffs—the various regulations and stipulations—were all to be settled, independently of the preliminary investigations; and, of course, subsequent to them. But, in so far as those preliminary investigations were concerned, the Reports relating to the schemes would, he might assure the noble Earl, all be laid before Parliament very soon; though it was not possible for him to name the day on which

1039
they would be ready. With respect to the noble Earl's views of the system that ought to have been adopted, he did not coincide in all his opinions; nor did he adopt his views with respect to the constitution of a General Railway Commission. He would not say it might not have been desirable to have adopted such a course in the first instance; but he thought that the time had passed at which such an arrangement could be made with any advantageous results. He was extremely gratified to hear the noble Earl's statements and remarks with regard to the proceedings of the Railway Board. Undoubtedly, the Members of that Department had been, to a great degree, treated as culprits, and as such they had been condemned. He did not complain of this; all he asked, was—not for pardon—not for an acquittal—but only to have as full, as severe, as unlimited, and as long a trial as was necessary to test the integrity and efficiency of the Railway Board, and the impartiality which had governed the decisions at which its Members had arrived.
Lord Campbellhaving said a few words on a former occasion with reference to the subject before the House, would take the present opportunity of stating that he had never imputed any blame to the Railway Committee with respect to its decisions, nor to the Government for having appointed that Department of the Board of Trade. He believed the Government had acted wisely in so doing, and he believed also that the Railway Board had carried the intentions of the Government in constituting it into full effect. But what he had said, and what he was glad to find his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) concurred in saying also, was, that the Railway Board was wholly incompetent to perform its duties. It was not constituted under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Its powers were limited. It could not examine witnesses. In short, it was founded solely on the authority of a Resolution of the House of Commons, that Resolution being to the effect that railway projects should be submitted to the preliminary investigation of the Board of Trade. But that Resolution was not sufficient to warrant the constitution of a separate Department of the Board of Trade; nor could any such body as the Railway Committee have any weight until regularly appointed under the authority of Parliament. He must, however, protest most strongly against
1040
the opinion of his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam), whose high character would give a great weight to his sentiments relative to the decisions of the Railway Board. His noble Friend had stated that the decisions of the Board, when adverse to a railway project, ought to be conclusive. That was a monstrous conclusion to arrive it, and he could not for a moment coincide in it. The noble Earl opposite had candidly admitted, that notwithstanding all the evidence before the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade, neither he nor his coadjutors could do more than guess at the various elements which were to be taken into consideration in coming to a decision; and that they had to grope in the dark, doing their best in the meantime to arrive at an equitable and beneficial judgment. He (Lord Campbell) had no doubt whatever that such had been the case; but ought it to be said that great enterprises—such as many of the rejected railways were—should be crushed, and for ever deprived of all possibility of being executed, because the noble Earl and his Colleagues had, in their hurry to get their Reports presented to Parliament, not had time to report on all the elements of such railway projects? He admitted that respect was due to the Reports of the Railway Board; but that such Reports when adverse were to be final, he would never consent to.
The Earl of Dalhousiewould not prolong the discussion, but must take the opportunity of putting the noble Lord right upon one subject. The noble Lord had asserted that the Railway Committee had no authority to report on the projects brought before it. Such was not the fact. The Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to examine and report upon the general question of railway legislation reported on the particular question whether the projected railways which were to come before Parliament, should undergo a preliminary investigation by the Government or not. This question was discussed in all its different branches by the Committee; and in the Report the Committee entered into the arguments, and detailed them at length, stating that the railways ought to be submitted to the examination of the Board of Trade, and further specifying particularly the Railway Department of that Board as the proper authority to examine them. Not only was this laid down in the fifth Report of the

1041
Select Committee; but the Report entered into a consideration of what the duties of the new Railway Board ought to be, and it defined its powers and functions. The Report even went further; and, in order to prevent any usurpation of undue power, it laid down in distinct terms what the Railway Board should not do. Therefore, not only was there a line marked out as to what the Board was to do, but also as to what it should not do; and the authority which was to attach to its Reports was likewise clearly defined. It was in vain for noble Lords to assert, after such a precise and well-defined line as that to which he now referred had been laid down, that the Government ought not to have done what it did. The Government could, he must distinctly assert, take no other course than that which had been followed; and which, he reiterated, was precisely the one indicated by the Resolution founded on the Report he had referred to. With respect to the suggestion of his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam), he could hold out no prospect that such a Commission of the Privy Council of the Lords of Trade, or any other similar body, as he had indicated, would be formed. The noble Earl would bear in mind, with reference to this subject, that to constitute such a Board would be to interfere with, and in some respects to supersede, the authority of the Legislature itself.
House adjourned.