Lords Sitting of 4 July 1845

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS Public.—1a. Seal Office Abolition, 2a. Jurors (Ireland).
Reported.—Real Property Conveyance (No. 2).
3a. and passed:—Banking (Ireland) Bishops' Patronage (Ireland).
Private.—la. Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Branches); London and South Western Metropolitan Extension Railway; Glasgow Junction Railway; Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway).
2a. Saint Helen's Improvement; Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Oxford and Rugby Railway; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Dublin and-Belfast Junction Railway; Cork and Bandon Railway; Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Great North of England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; Waterford and Limerick Railway.
Reported.—Taw Vale Railway and Dock; Belfast Improvement; Manchester and Birmingham Railway (Ashton Branch); Ashton, Stalybridge, and Liverpool Junction (Ardwiek and Guide Bridge Branches) Railway; Ulster Railway Extension; Manchester, South Junction, and Altrineham Railway; Eastern Counties Railway (Ely and Whittlesea) Deviation; London and Brighton Railway (Horsham Branch); Londonderry and Enniskillen Railway; Chester and Birkenhead Railway Extension; Chelsea Improvement; North Wales Railway; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway and Bury Extension); Scottish Midland Junction
2
Railway; Middlesbro' and Redear Railway; Cockermouth and Workington Railway; Falmouth Harbour.
3a. and passed:—Quinborowe Borough; Leeds and Thirsk Railway; Great North of England and Richmond Railway; Totnes Markets and Waterworks; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Eastern Union Railway Amendment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Landowners and others, of St. Helen's, Lancaster, against, and from the same places, in favour of the Saint Helen's Improvement Bill.

BANKING (IRELAND) BILL.
the Earl of Ripon, Bill read 3a. An Amendment made.
The Marquess of Clanricardeproposed the insertion of a clause, as a rider, to empower the Hibernian and Royal Bank, in Dublin, to exercise equal privileges with the other banks; which, under this Bill, would have the power of issuing notes in Dublin. These two banks had been going on under the impression that these privileges would some day or other be conceded to them.
The Earl of Riponfelt it his duty to oppose the clause, but he did not wish to argue the question over again. The parties had been informed, as early as the year 1839, that no promise had been held out

3
to them, or engagement entered into, by the Government, to extend to them the privileges they now asked.
Amendment negatived. Bill passed.

JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill for making further regulations for more effectually securing the correctness of the Jurors' Books in Ireland, said that this was a subject of great importance. Everything connected with obtaining a fair, full, and impartial selection of juries, must be of great interest to every person concerned in the due administration of justice. The difficulties he had to deal with he would state in a few words. By the Statute of the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. 91, the high constables and collectors in the different districts in Ireland were ordered once a year to prepare lists of all persons qualified to serve on juries, and to send those lists to the clerk of the peace of each county, which lists were to be corrected by the magistrates in petty sessions, and signed by them. The parties were then to make out one general list from all those lists so handed in, and deliver the same to the clerk of the peace, who was to copy them into a book, and deliver that book to the sheriff, which was to be used by him as the jury-book for the ensuing year. He proposed to repeal the latter part of this enactment, and instead thereof to enact that when such list should be duly corrected by the justices present at such special sessions, the lists should be marked in their presence with the successive numbers 1, 2, 3, &c, according to the number of such lists; and when the lists, so corrected and numbered, should be allowed and signed by them, the justices should cause one general list to be made out therefrom, containing the names of all persons whose qualification should have been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property, which general list should be compared by the presiding justices at such sessions with the lists so allowed, signed, and numbered, and should be corrected by such justices (if necessary) by reference to such lists, and be made to correspond therewith; and the presiding justices at such sessions should sign the general list at the foot of each page, and deliver the same, together with the lists so signed, to the clerk of the peace, who should thereupon cause the same to be copied, in the same order in which the names should be arranged in the general list, in a book, and should deliver
4
the said book to the sheriff, which book should be called "The Jurors' Book." This provision, he thought, was quite sufficient to prevent all mistakes which might occur in the making up of the one general list from the several particular lists. Notwithstanding, however, all these precautions in securing an accurate transcript of the particular lists into the general list, which was afterwards to be copied into the book to be delivered to the sheriff, it was possible that some error might creep in: to correct this, he proposed to enact that the clerk of the peace should cause jury lists, so allowed and signed, and the general list, to be placed among the records in his office, and allow the same to be inspected at all reasonable times, without fee, by any person who, by the 3rd and 4th William IV., would be entitled to peruse the copies of any of the jury lists delivered to the clerk of the peace by the high constable and collector or collectors. He had also provided, that if the Jurors' Book should be found to contain any name which should not be contained in any one of the jury lists, or if any name which should be contained in any one of such lists, should not appear in such book, it should be lawful for Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, or any Judge of the said Court, upon complaint thereof made to the said Court or Judge, to order the said sheriff or under-sheriff and the clerk of the peace respectively, to produce the said Jurors' Book and the said jury lists to the said Court or Judge; and if upon inspection of the said book and jury lists any such error should be found in the said Jurors Book, the said Court or Judge should order the same to be amended, and such amendment should be forthwith made and signed by the said sheriff, or under-sheriff and clerk of the peace, in the presence of the said Court or Judge. He thought he had thus sufficiently provided for insuring a correspondence between the Jurors' Book and the particular lists which were to be corrected by the magistrates, who, in correcting them, would act judicially, and without appeal. If any suggestion could be made for giving additional security against error, and of making the Jurors' Book correspond with the original lists of the high constables and collectors, than what this Bill provided, he should be glad to adopt it. He thought it proper to mention that, since the Bill was printed, a communication had been made to him by a gentleman who acted a part of some

5
notoriety in the case out of which this Bill had arisen — he meant Mr. Pierce Mahony. He thought, as far as his judgment went, that the provisions of the Bill would be effectual for the object sought; and the only provision he suggested was this: according to the present law the collectors were authorized, at the public expense, to print and circulate a certain number of their lists; but this was not compulsory, it was only permissive. What Mr. Mahony required was, that the collectors should be required to print their lists. He (the Lord Chancellor) was ready to adopt that suggestion when the Bill went into Committee.
Lord Campbellthought the Bill of his noble and learned Friend was calculated to be effectual for the purpose he desired. At the same time, he was of opinion, that it did not go far enough for all the purposes that it was desirable should be effected. It did not reach the point of law relating to the challenge of the array. Their Lordships were aware that it was a privilege given by the Common Law of England to a party put on his trial that he might challenge the array of the jury; but the Judges were of opinion that the right of challenge could only be exercised in the case where unindifferency or misconduct of the sheriff could be alleged. Lord Denman, on the contrary, was of opinion, and he (Lord Campbell) concurred with him, that the law was different from what the majority of the Judges had laid it down. It appeared to him (Lord Campbell) that a more general enactment was necessary to meet this point; for there were many other cases in which parties might fairly challenge the array besides those of unindifferency or misconduct on the part of the sheriff.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the challenge to the array could only arise where there was an error between the lists signed by the magistrates and the Jurors' Book; and he thought sufficient precaution had been adopted to prevent any such error. He was, however, willing to meet any particular case in which an error might have occurred, which should not necessarily challenge the whole jury list for the assizes.
Lord Campbellwould strictly confine himself to a challenge of the array in particular cases.
Lord Denmanthought it possible that there might be error in the lists, besides that arising from unindifferency or misconduct
6
of the sheriff. He would suggest that copies of the lists and books should be kept in more than one place, to guard against alterations being made in them. There was another point he wished to advert to. He did not see why this should not be made a general measure for the whole Empire.
The Lord Chancellorconsidered that sufficient security was afforded against any alteration in the lists, by requiring the magistrates to sign them. With respect to what had been said by his noble and learned Friend respecting the propriety of making the measure general, he had to intimate the intention of the Government to introduce a measure for England, framed in a corresponding spirit.
Bill read 2a.

RAILWAYS—COASTING TRADE.
The Marquess of Londonderrycalled the attention of the Government to the danger in which the coasting trade of the country was placed by the increase of railways, more particularly in the coal trade of the north, and hoped the subject would receive the earnest consideration of the Government. The noble Marquess moved for certain Returns connected with the subject.
The Earl of Dalhousiethought the noble Marquess had overrated the danger. The charge for coals per railway would be 15 s. a ton, irrespective of the charges in the port of London, while by sea it was only 7s. There appeared to be no present danger of railways competing with the coasting trade.
Lord Hathertonthought the apprehensions of the noble Marquess were not altogether unfounded. In the Great North of England Railway many of the directors were coal owners, and they had made a contract to supply their coals from Durham to York at three farthings a ton up to a given quantity, and beyond that at a farthing a ton. The practical result had been that coals had been delivered from Durham to York at five-eighths of a penny per ton. He had no doubt that in time coals would be delivered from the midland counties at all the great marts of consumption per railway at a halfpenny a ton per mile. He fully agreed that the support of the coasting trade was a great national object, to which much ought to be sacrificed.
Lord Ashburtonsaid that the coasting trade, which was one of the vital interests of the country, ought not to be sacrificed

7
to any abstract notions of political economy.
Lord Broughamsaid, that no one felt more deeply than he the necessity of supporting the maritime defensive strength of the country; but he was for supporting it by the true and legitimate mode of increasing the commerce of the country, by the removal of its restrictions, by removing the fetters which bound up trade, and by giving every possible facility to the employment of capital, and by these means increase the already vast amount of the commercial resources of England. The coasting trade was a most Valuable branch of those resources, and the nursery of our seamen. In estimating the state of the coasting trade, his noble Friend opposite totally forgot the increase of the coal mines, consequent on the increase of the metropolis; in the last sixty or seventy years the consumption of coals had been doubled. He totally dissented from the position that they were bound to discourage the inland trade for the sake of encouraging any other branch of commerce.
Lord Stanleystated, with reference to the number of ships and men engaged in the whale fishery, that the decrease which had taken place was not attributable to the reduction of duty on foreign whale oil. It was true that a great decrease had taken place between 1832 and 1842; but this was concurrently with the maintenance of the highly protective and almost prohibitory duty of 26 l. 10 s. per tun on foreign oil. In 1832, the price of whale oil in this country was 61 l. per tun; in 1840, it had risen to 104 l.; in 1832, 81 ships, of 26,393 tons, and employing 3,645 men, were engaged in the northern whale fishery; in 1842, the duty remaining the same, the number had fallen to 18 ships, of 5,400 tons, and employing only 810 men altogether. But since the reduction of the duty on the foreign article, on the contrary, a great increase in the trade had taken place; for, since 1842 to the present time, the number of ships had arisen from 18 to 32, the tonnage from 5,400 to 8,955, and the number of men employed from 800 to 1,440.
Lord Colchestercalled the attention of the Government to the great importance of maintaining the coasting trade, and particularly the sea-borne coal trade; because the seamen who were brought up in it, were formed in the very best school of their profession; and it was almost the only nursery left. If it should be destroyed,
8
there must necessarily be an increase in the Estimates. He had no wish to see coals dear; but he trusted the Government would look seriously at the question with a view to keep up our maritime superiority.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, a greater blow could not be struck at our naval power than by the loss of the great nursery of seamen offered by the coal trade, from any considerable diminution of the number of ships engaged in the carriage of coals from the north of England. It would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know, that the coasting trade was now in the most vigorous condition, and increasing rather than diminishing. The general shipping of the country was also on the increase. The opening of the trade in the interior of the country was not at all likely to diminish the coasting trade. On the contrary, the cheapness that would be so caused, would create a greatly extended market; and if coals could be brought from the north to the other parts of the coast more cheaply than by railway, the demand would be supplied from that quarter. But of course the interior could be supplied direct by railway more cheaply than if they were brought round by sea to some part of the coast, and then sent overland.
Lord Kinnairdsaid, the quality of the Newcastle coals was superior to all the inland coal; and they always commanded a preference. The noble Marquess need be under no apprehension on that account; but he would recommend the noble Marquess to break up the monopoly at the coal pits. At the time of his visit to the district, coals were being shipped to France at 2s., which, when sent to Dundee, were charged 6s. The coal owners were bound by regulation to produce only a certain quantity.
Lord Wharncliffethought the monopoly was now entirely broken up, and that the trade was perfectly free.
The Marquess of Londonderrydid not regret that he had brought forward this Motion; his sole object in doing which was to call their Lordships' attention to the importance of maintaining the coasting trade. There could be no doubt that the coal owners would prefer to send their coals to London by land carriage, if they found it the cheaper mode of conveyance. With regard to what was called the monopoly, an immense number of new collieries had lately been brought into the field to extend the supply, owing to railroads and other causes, which had lowered the price in

9
London considerably; the new concerns not having so heavy rents to pay, or so great capital invested. The price of a ton of coals at the mouth of the pit was 7s. 6d., while the freight to London consumed an equal sum, and the difference between 15 s. and 26 s., the price at which they were delivered to the consumer, went to pay the port dues and corporation taxes of London. He thought it a great hardship that the individual coal owners should only have one-third of the price; and the fact was, that the best coals were sold in London at a loss.
The Duke of Wellingtonwould say only one word in favour of a corporation with which he felt it an honour to be connected, he meant that of the Trinity House. He entreated their Lordships, in their resolution to maintain the coasting trade, not to lose sight of the lights on the coast of England, and of their immense importance to navigation.
Returns ordered.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from various parties praying to be heard by counsel against the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway.
Lord Redesdalesaid, he would take this opportunity of stating that a gross fraud had been practised upon the public by the Oxford and Worcester Company, which had adopted the broad gauge. When canvassing the public, they offered to carry iron ore at a penny per mile; but when they drove the rival line out of the field, they raised the charge to three-halfpence per mile.
Lord Hathertondid not think it likely that the Committee of the House of Commons could have been duped in the manner the noble Lord seemed to suppose; and he believed that the ironmasters of Staffordshire were much too sharp in looking after their own interests to allow any measure to be carried which might be prejudicial to those interests. It was required that a maximum toll clause should be inserted in all Railway Bills; but he believed nine-tenths of the manufacturers were very well satisfied with the low rate of charges which had hitherto been levied upon coal and iron. He believed that the rejection by the other House of Parliament of a line of railway projected by the London and Birmingham Company had had the good effect of preventing
10
that company from possessing the monopoly they would otherwise have enjoyed in the iron districts.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, it was worth while, as a matter of curiosity, to refer to the prospectus originally issued by the London and Birmingham Company, and the promises they then made, and to compare them with the prices charged by that company during part of the last and the preceding year. It would then be evident that no company had ever made such an attempt to deal unfairly by the public; for at the very time they raised their charges to a most unjustifiable height, their dividends were very great, and the price of the stock was immensely high. It was only because the attention of the country was called to the subject, and because threats were held out that means would be taken to compel them to lower their charges, that those charges were reduced.
Lord Broughamdid not think it had been shown that the Committee of the House of Commons had not been duped. He knew that two instances had lately occurred in which the grossest frauds had been practised on Committees of the House of Commons. In one case, a gentleman named Whateley, a barrister, who intended to oppose the Bill, withdrew his opposition on the company promising to introduce a clause which would prevent the line of railway from passing close to his house; but when the Bill was passed, no such clause had been inserted. Another similar case had also occurred.
Lord Redesdalewas understood to say, that the London and Birmingham Company had never raised their rate of charges, except in the case of the mail trains. The petition presented by the noble and learned Lord could be referred to the Committee, who would inquire into the matter.
Lord Hatherton and Lord RedesdaleAfter a few words in explanation from Lord Hatherton and Lord Redesdale,
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he considered it most desirable that Parliament should come to some understanding as to the tolls to be charged by railway companies. Scarcely two Bills had been introduced into Parliament in which it was proposed to charge similar rates of toll. It appeared to him that the best mode of remedying the difficulty would be to pass an Act providing that they would revise the rate of tolls charged by railway companies every five years. That step, in his opinion, would prevent the injurious results

11
of monopoly, and secure the public interests; but, as one of the selected Members, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to express any opinion on this or any other Railway Bill which came before that House.
Subject at an end.

RAILWAY AND OTHER BILLS.
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the 3rd Resolution (see June 3) read.
Lord Broughamthen proposed the Third Resolution affecting the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House which he had submitted to the House yesterday, and the consideration of which had been postponed until to-day. The noble and learned Lord read the Resolution.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he objected to this Resolution, the effect of which, in his opinion, would be to induce the opponents of railroad projects to defer their opposition until the Bills came into their Lordships' House, under the expectation that they would then obtain their casts. He believed that this Resolution would not only prevent opposition to railway schemes in the other House, but that it would have the effect of bringing that opposition exclusively into their Lordships' House, and eventually a collision might ensue between the two Houses. Supposing a railway company refused to pay costs under this Resolution, had the House the power of levying them? They had not. They might recommend the company to pay costs, and in the event of non-compliance they might refuse to pass their Bill; but he thought such a course on the part of the House would be most unfair, for if a Committee of the House considered the project advantageous to the country generally, it would be most unjust to the community to reject it on such grounds.
The Duke of Richmond: If the Committee recommend costs to be paid to certain opposing parties, what so easy as to put a clause in the Bill for that purpose?
Lord Broughamsaid, the House had no power of levying money; but in the case of their judicial proceedings, they were in the constant habit of ordering parties to pay costs. If a person applied to that House for a divorce from his wife, the House might require him to allow her an annuity. He remembered a case in which a person suing for a divorce had offered to allow his wife 50 l. a year; but the House refused to pass the Bill unless he allowed
12
150 l. a year. What could be easier than to say to parties who brought in Railway Bills, "If you wish to carry this Bill, we think justice requires that you should pay the costs of parties who oppose it?" He would have no objection to allow the Resolution to stand over until Monday, in order that noble Lords might have time to consider the subject. He believed that this Resolution would afford great protection to private individuals; for, if railway projectors were aware that by the Standing Orders of that House they might have to pay the expenses of opposition, they would be disarmed of that power which they at present exercised with the utmost possible oppression. The companies frequently said, "We have a heavy purse—oppose us if you dare;" but this Resolution, if adopted, would prevent them from using those threats to deter their opponents from proceeding.
The following Amendments were then moved:—
"To add after the Word 'Parties' the following words—'incurred in the Proceedings before this House, or its Committee;' and at the End of the said Resolution the following Words—?'That where any Committee has directed Expellees to be paid by any such Party, it shall report such Direction to the House specially, with the Circumstances inducing them so to direct."
Debate on Resolution so amended, adjourned to Monday.