RAILWAYS. (Hansard, 10 June 1845)

Lord Brougham
presented a petition from Dr. Freer, of Oakford, Devonshire, complaining that a railway was proposed to pass through his grounds, which would entirely separate his lawn from his garden and pleasure grounds. He held a lease of his property for thirty years, nine or ten of which had not yet expired. He complained to his landlord, a worthy Baronet, of the inroad that was to be made on his property, and his landlord promised him protection; but he subsequently found that the Railway Company had bought off the landlord, and he had consequently withdrawn his opposition from the Bill. The House of Commons had since passed the Bill. He (Lord Brougham) considered this so gross a case that he should not be justified in withholding the name of the Baronet, in order that he might contradict the statement, if it was based in error. It was Sir Stafford Northcote; but he did not mean to assert that that worthy Baronet was himself personally cognizant of the transaction, inasmuch as his agents might have been the parties who made the arrangement. But he should certainly vote for the Bill being thrown out on its second reading.

Lord Campbell
considered this attempt on the part of the Railway Company as one of the grossest attempts to interfere with the property of an individual that had ever come under his notice. He had seen the plan of the railway, and according to it, the railway would entirely cut off the lawn from the pleasure grounds of Dr. Freer; and as the company had the power of diverging 100 yards either way, the line might be carried directly under the drawing room windows of that gentleman.

§ The Earl of St. Germans
entirely disapproved of the discussion, as being fraught with great inconvenience. He could not believe that the worthy Baronet alluded to could have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him, as he knew him to be a man of the highest honour. These allegations formed matter of inquiry for the 269 Committee, and, therefore, he thought it would be rather too much to reject the Bill on the second reading merely on the ex parte statements contained in the petition.

§ Lord Redesdale
knew Dr. Freer personally, and believed that he had been very harshly treated.

Lord Brougham
said, that he had received a lecture from the noble Earl opposite, for having exercised his undoubted right of making a statement on presenting a petition. The noble Earl must only be a Member of Parliament of the day before yesterday not to know that some statement must precede inquiry. The Bill had not yet arrived at its second reading. He had already said that he did not believe the worthy Baronet was a party to the transaction, but he had since looked into the petition, and he found it there stated, not that agents had been employed, but the son of the worthy Baronet himself.

The Earl of Wicklow
said, it was most inconvenient that the time of the House should be occupied, night after night, by discussions upon these private complaints. The proper course would be to refer such petitions as that presented by the noble and learned Lord to the Committee. Some of these petitions contained serious imputations on the characters of individuals, which, in consequence of the discussions upon them, obtained circulation through the press; and he considered that such proceedings ought not to be sanctioned by their Lordships. He believed there was not an individual in the country who had or fancied he had ground of complaint against any railway company, who would not forward his complaint to that House through the noble and learned Lord opposite, in hopes that he would not only present it, but make a long ex parte statement in his favour. Every facility was afforded to such individuals for bringing their cases before the Committee, and he considered it most inconvenient that their Lordships' time should be occupied with such matters.

Lord Brougham
said, nothing could be more destitute of foundation than the statement the noble Earl had just made with reference to himself. The noble Earl had charged him with being ready to present any petitions containing ex parte statements which were committed to him. Heaven forbid that such a state- 270 ment should go forth, or he (Lord Brougham) would be overwhelmed with such applications! The fact was, that he did not present to their Lordships one in fifty of the petitions forwarded to him on this subject; many of them he refused to present.