Lords Sitting of 30 June 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1ªJurors (Ireland); Arrestment of Wages (Scotland); Assessed Taxes Composition Timber Ships; Administration of Criminal Justice (Lord Denman).
2ªBanking (Ireland); Real Property Conveyance (No. 2); West India Islands Relief.
Reported.—Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity; Granting of Leases; Outstanding Terms; Bishops' Patronage (Ireland).
3ªand passed:—Banking (Scotland); Charitable Trusts; Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidation; Oaths Dispensation (No. 2).
Received the Royal Assent.—Indemnity; Military Savings Banks; Privy Council Appellate Jurisdiction Act Amendment; Maynooth College (Ireland); Calico Print Works; Canal Companies Tolls; Fresh Water Fishing (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland).
Private.—1ªEdinburgh and Northern Railway; Scottish Midland Junction Railway; Shepley Lane Head and Barnsley Road; Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway; Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway; Wear Valley Railway; Cockermouth and Workington Railway; Preston and Wyre Railway; Glossop Gas; Saint Helen's Improvement.
2ªSheffield Waterworks; Westminster Improvement; Falmouth Harbour; Taw Vale Railway and Dock; North Wales Railway; Follett's (or Molyneux's) Estate.
Reported.—Hartlepool Pier and Port; Lancaster and Carlisle Railway; Bridgewater Navigation and Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction) Railway; Manchester and Birmingham Railway (Ashton Branch); Lynn and Dereham Railway; London and Brighton Railway (Horsham Branch); Londonderry and Enniskillen Railway; North Wales Mineral Railway; Chester and Birkenhead Railway Extension; Cornwall Railway; Ashton, Stalybridge, and Liverpool Junction (Ardwick and Guide Bridge Branches) Railway; Ulster Railway Extension; Manchester, South Junction, and Altrincham, Railway; Chelsea Improvement;
1342
Bristoland Exeter Railway Branches Dublin and Drogheda Railway.
3ªand passed:—Ellison's Estate; Exeter and Crediton Railway; Wolverhampton Waterworks; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway.
Received the Royal Assent.—Middlesex County Rates; Crediton Small Debts; Battersea Poor; Clerkenwell Improvement; Chester Improvement; Claughton-cum-Grange (St. Andrew's) Church; Claughton-cum-Grange (St. John the Baptist's) Church; Cromer (Norfolk) Protection from the Sea; Chester and Holyhead Railway; York and Scarborough Railway Deviation; Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington, and Colne Extension Railway; Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester Railway; Dunstable and Birmingham and London Railway: Leeds and Bradford Railway Extension (Shipley to Colne); Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway; Berks and Hants Railway; Yarmouth and Norwich Railway; Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway; Bedford and London Railway; Blackburn, Darwen, and Bolton Railway; Lowestoft Railway and Harbour; Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tyne-mouth Extension) Railway; Ely and Huntingdon Railway; Midland Railways (Nottingham to Lincoln); Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway; Hull and Selby Railway (Bridlington Branch); Kendal and Windermere Railway; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch); Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth, Railway; Manchester and Leeds Railway (Burnley, Oldham, and Heywood Branches); Lynn and Ely Railway; Midland Railways (Syston to Peterborough); Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Whitby and Pickering Railway; York and North Midland Railway (Bridlington Branch); Newcastle-upon-Tyne Port; Boddam Harbour; Southampton Docks; Birkenhead Company's Docks; Castle Hill (Wexford) Docks; Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Bridge; Clifton Bridge; Stoke-upon-Trent Market; Glasgow Markets; Pudsey Gas; Devonport Gas; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas; Paisley Gas; Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company; Taunton Gas; Scarborough Water; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company; Huddersfield Waterworks; Nottingham Waterworks; Whittle Dean Waterworks; Shaw's Waterworks; Royal Naval School; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Turn; Hemel Hempstead Small Tenements; Standard Life Assurance Company; Edinburgh Life Assurance Company; North British Insurance Company; West of London and Westminster Cemetery; Watermen's Company Endowment; Stokinchurch Road; Duke of Argyll's Estate; Molyneux's Estate; Lord Barrington's Estate; Leicester Freemen's Allotments; Nottingham Inclosure; Spoad Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED From Mercers' Company of City of London, and from Society of Friends in Great Britain and Ireland, for Exempting certain Charities from the Charitable Trusts Bill—From Master, Wardens, and others of the Merchant Tailors of the Fraternity of Saint John the Baptist, London, to be heard by Counsel against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—By Marquess of Normanby, from Metropolitan Members of the Faculties of Surgery and Medicine, in favour of Sanatory Regulations.—From Mayor and others of Cork, for Alteration of Law relating to Corporations (Ireland).—By Bishop of Durham, from Archdeacon and Clergy of Lindisfarne, against certain Clause in Marriage Law Amendment Bill.

BANKING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Earl of Riponmoved the Third Pleading of the Banking (Scotland) Bill,
Objected to: and after a short discussion (in which the Earl of Radnor, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Rosebery took part against the Bill), on Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion, House divided: — Content 47; Not-content 15: Majority 32.
Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 3a. accordingly and passed.
The following Protest against the Third Reading of the Banking (Scotland) Bill was entered on the Journals.

"I. Because I can see no possible benefit likely to result from this Bill, and none has been stated in debate, except in the event of such an emergency as has never yet occurred, which, in my opinion, it is rather calculated to occasion, and which it supplies no new means of meeting.

"II. Because it will at once check, and ultimately put an end to, that competition which has heretofore existed amongst the banks of Scotland, and which has rendered banking remarkable for cheapness, efficiency, and safety, and highly beneficial to all the interests in that country.

"III. Because, though I consider the evils hence resulting quite certain, they will not be considered so palpable as to invite or suggest a repeal of this law. They will not exhibit themselves by any calamity, or produce any immediate distress, but they will silently prevent that advance to prosperity which might otherwise have been attained. If similar provisions had been enacted twenty years ago, it is evident that Scotland would not have enjoyed the advantages which are universally admitted to have resulted from its banking system; but no one would have known that but for those enactments it would have been more prosperous; in like manner, hereafter, as no one will be able to say what would have been the state of the country if this Bill had not passed, so no one will be able to trace the amount of evil which it will have produced, or of good which it will have prevented.

"For the first reason,
"ROSEBERY."

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The Lord Chancellormoved the Third Reading of this Bill.
Lord Cottenhamobjected to some of its details, on the ground that they gave to the Commissioners more power than the Lord Chancellor had ever possessed. He approved altogether of the object of the Bill; but he wholly disapproved of its machinery.
Bill read 3ª; Amendments made; Bill passed.
The Marquess of Normanbypresented a petition from the Medical Practitioners of the Metropolis, praying for the adoption of Sanatory Regulations in populous Districts. The noble Marquess complained that the Government had not fulfilled the pledge that had been given respecting the introduction of some measure of this description.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, that his noble Friend (the Earl of Lincoln) would have introduced the measure referred to by him for the purpose of making some sanatory regulations in large cities and towns, had not the great pressure of other business interfered and prevented him.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the noble Duke's statement proved the necessity that existed for some fresh arrangement being made in regard to the measures deemed necessary to be carried through Parliament by the Government. Had the Sanatory Bill been introduced in that House early in the Session, it would now have been ready for the proceedings in the Lower House.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAYS.
Lord Campbellasked the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Trade whether, according to the existing law, the practice of one railway company buying up other projected railways could be prevented; and if not, whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure to put a stop to that practice?
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, that no doubt could be entertained of the fact that projected lines of railway were bought up by existing companies. The advantages of amalgamation were sometimes very great; and sometimes the transaction was detrimental to the public interest. The Legislature, however, closely investigated all such transactions when the Bills came before the Houses of Parliament. As to the state of the existing law, the Board of Trade certainly had the power, under the Act of 1844, to interfere in such transactions in any case in which they thought that the interests of the public would be affected injuriously. He had submitted the case to the Law Officers of the Crown, whose opinion was, that such purchases were not legal. Notices were accordingly given to the railway companies, who would have to meet the case against them. He believed the law was sufficient to reach them; but if not, the Government would make it a duty to put the law into such a state as to slop the abuses complained of.

RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL (NO. 2).
The Earl of Dalhousieinformed their Lordships that in the conference which their Lordships'

1345
House had with the Commons in respect of the clause granting; compensation in the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill, the latter had rejected that clause. But as the Bill was of so much importance to the public, he should not advise their Lordships to reject it for that reason, especially as there was still a power of obtaining compensation by the parties who should be injured. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that their Lordships should not insist on those Amendments in the Bill which had been disagreed to by the Commons' House of Parliament.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the Bill had originally come up from the Commons with the clauses objected to inserted, and their Lordships had sanctioned its introduction with these clauses. The Bill, however, was subsequently withdrawn, and a new measure introduced without them. He was of opinion that the adoption of such a course was an interference with the privileges of their Lordships' House; for the clauses struck out might be the very ground of their assent to the measure. The noble Duke then complained that the Turnpike Trusts (Scotland) Bill had not received that discussion it ought to have received in the House of Commons. The effect of it would be, that if the Bill passed, the man who had lent money on the security of the tolls would be cheated. There was a difference in this respect between England and Scotland. Here the noble Duke quoted a clause in the Scotch Turnpike Act, authorizing landholders to borrow money on the security of their estates, and binding their heirs of entail. This was not the case with the turnpike trusts of England; and, therefore, he thought a distinction ought to be made in the Railway Bills of the two countries. He regretted the public inconvenience which would result if this Bill were thrown out; but, at the same time, he thought that their Lordships ought to protect and guard the interests of those who, on the faith of the Act of Parliament, had lent their money on the road trusts. If they agreed to this proposition of the Commons, it would be drawn into a precedent, which which might hereafter be found to be extremely dangerous.
Lord Kinnairdagreed with the noble Duke that the conduct of the Commons with regard to this clause was extraordinary; but he thought a few words
1346
would account for it. It was through an error in the House that the Bill was passed with that clause. It was only introduced at the third reading, and it was never printed; so that the House of Commons was taken by surprise, and on those grounds they afterwards opposed it. He agreed that the effect of the rejection of this clause would be to throw a heavy debt upon the landlords in Scotland; but, then, it ought to be remembered that the making of these roads had very considerably benefited their estates, which had risen in value in consequence. Then, he could not understand why the holders of the land ought to be protected, when no protection was proposed to be afforded to widows and others, who had lent small sums of money, being probably all they had, on the faith of the Acts which were already passed. He could not conceive any difference in principle between the two cases.
The Duke of Montrosewould have supposed that the noble Lord who had just sat down was an Englishman and not a Scotchman; for he had shown that he was ignorant of the distinction in the Scotch cases to which the noble Duke (Richmond) had before adverted. In England persons who lent their money to a turnpike trust came upon the county; but in Scotland the trustees were personally bound to those from whom they borrowed money; and therefore compensation was due to the trustees, and not to those who lent them the money, who had a claim upon the trustees. He saw no reason for the clause being rejected. The Railway Companies had agreed to it as well as the landowners; and the Bill was altogether unopposed, so that there was no reason for rejecting it.
Lord Campbellagreed with the view taken by the noble Duke. The parties had agreed to the clause, and it was founded in justice. At the same time, if they agreed not to insert the clause, they would have it in their power to do substantial justice, as it might be inserted in each particular Bill which came before their Lordships.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, that if they rejected the clause the Bill would be lost, and they would be as far as ever from getting compensation to the parties referred to. The proper course would be, not to lose an important Bill by rejecting this clause, but to insert it, as the noble

1347
and learned Lord had suggested, in each particular Bill. He hoped, therefore, the noble Duke would not persist in his Motion.
The Duke of Richmondhad made no Motion, he had only thrown out a suggestion, which he would not press against the wish of their Lordships.
Lord Broughamthought it was much better not to insert this clause in the general Act. It would be much better in each particular Railway Bill.
It was then moved not to insist on the said Amendment. On Question: Resolved in the Affirmative.
House adjourned.