TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 July 1861)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE.
in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, its object was to amend an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, containing so many stringent provisions that the measure had become a perfect nullity. The Act required that parties desirous of of making tramways should go twice before the grand jury, then appear before the Board of Works, and afterwards appear before the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and afterwards have an Act of Parliament. These cumbrous formalities were necessarily attended with an amount of expense greatly disproportioned to the advantages 688 to be derived from making the tramways; and the intention of the Bill, therefore was to render it necessary for the parties to go before the grand jury once only, and to enable the Lord Lieutenant to finally sanction the work. This Bill proposed to repeal a clause which was inserted in the Act of last year, providing that there should be no deviation of more than thirty feet from a highway; but, as it was necessary that a tramway should be carried on the level, that provision rendered the measure valueless wherever a hill or valley occurred. The Bill would afford many advantages, and he, therefore, hoped their Lordships would read it a second time.

THE EARL OF LUCAN
opposed the second reading, considering the provisions of the Bill to be very objectionable. The Bill of last Session was carefully considered by a Select Committee, and the principal clause in it, which empowered any company, with the consent of the grand jury, to pass over any man's estate was rejected without even a division. It was proposed by this Bill to restore that clause, and to restore it without many of the securities which were then offered. He challenged the noble Marquess to name any company which had attempted to carry out works under the Act of last Session. He considered the Bill most objectionable, and, therefore, moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that it was found to be absurd to do anything under the Act of last Session, and no one had attempted to carry out works under its provisions. That was the reason why an Amendment of the Act was sought by this Bill, and it was not likely that any works would be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, by the grand jury, and by a jury of assizes, which were open to sound objections. The Bill gave sufficient protection to landowners, and he hoped that at least their Lordships would consent to examine it in Committee.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
thought that as the Bill would confer great advantages it was desirable to give it a second reading, and if, on consideration in Committee any further checks were required, they could be then inserted.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that if by the repeal of the clause inserted in the Act 689 of last year it was intended that power should be given to take land not within thirty yards of a highway the result would be that a tramway would be first laid down, and then a short Act obtained to turn it into a locomotive line. Practically, it would allow grand juries instead of Parliament to sanction railways in Ireland; and, without wishing to say more about grand juries than they deserved, he must say they were a body easily influenced to do anything, whether right or wrong. The Act last year was carefully considered by a Select Committee, and before a year's trial had been given this Bill was brought in to alter it. It would be far better to have a longer experience of the Act passed last Session before proceeding further with this Bill.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE and the Earl of WICKLOW,

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
asked the noble Marquess whether he would have any objection to expunge from the Bill in Committee that clause which repealed the 42nd Clause of the Act of last year, and which consequently gave power to take property without the owner's consent beyond the limits assigned by the Bill of last year? If the noble Marquess would give that assurance, he should have no objection to going on with the Bill, and considering the other clauses in Committee; otherwise he should vote for the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, he had no objection to give that assurance, on which understanding