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 The Bill, however, was subsequently withdrawn, and a new measure introduced without them.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.