HL Deb 19 July 1861 vol 164 cc1161-4

Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a committee on the said Bill.


expressed a hope that the opposition which had been threatened on a former occasion would not be persevered in. He had received various communications from different parts of Ireland, urging the importance of such a measure, and the bene- fits which it was calculated to confer. It was alleged that the Bill did not contain proper securities as regarded property; but the fact was that under it securities greater than those affecting railway legislation were given, as landowners who might be unwilling or unable to incur the cost of a Parliamentary Opposition would find a sympathizing tribunal in a grand jury, while the whole expense of opposition, including an ultimate appeal to the Privy Council, would not necessitate one twentieth part of the outlay indispensable to attendance before a Parliamentary Committee. The resolution which had been come to to omit a clause in the Bill giving the power to take land would do great injury to the agricultural interest, by preventing the construction of tramways in localities where they would be of advantage to the cultivators of land. Out of that House he had not heard a single objection to the Bill, and he, therefore, recommended their Lordships to reconsider the decision which they had come to.


objected to the measure because it had the effect of diminishing the securities contained in the Bill of last year. If the scheme for a tramway happened to enlist the support of the High Sheriff, by whom grand juries were convened, it might be passed in spite of remonstrances and arguments, however reasonable.


said, that the clause which the noble Marquess complained had been struck out on a former occasion was a clause which enabled parties to take land by compulsion anywhere they pleased, instead of being subject to the limits provided in the former Act. The limitation was inserted in the former Act upon this principle, that if land was allowed to be taken anywhere through the medium of grand juries for tramways, why should not the same principle be applied in the case of railways—a far preferable and much more important mode of communication? He did not say that Parliament was the best tribunal for railway companies to go to in order to obtain the powers required for the making of their lines, and he should be glad if a better could be found; but, what he contended was that they ought not to give in a Bill like this powers which were denied for other and more desirable purposes. He considered that the provisions of the Bill were opposed to the interest of the country and objectionable in every respect, but he hoped that alterations might be suggested which would make it a working measure.


hoped that in legislating for Ireland in this matter their Lordships would act upon the same principles that they acted upon in regard to England, and if they did that, he felt confident that the greater part, if not the whole, of these clauses would be materially altered.


thought that the institution of turnpike roads might have been opposed 200 or 300 years ago upon the same ground as this Bill was now opposed, and he hoped that their Lordships would not object to allow of the formation of a few tramways in Ireland. The Bill asked no more than the same power for making tramways as was given to grand juries for the making of ordinary roads.


said, it appeared to him that this was a cheap way to obtain a railway. He should not oppose going into Committee, but he hoped that their Lordships would seriously consider the provisions of the measure.


said, though the Bill was intended to give power to make tramways, nevertheless, it provided that in the event of any person having a locus standi, coming to Parliament against a particular tramway, it would be necessary to have a special Act of Parliament to establish such tramway. He did not think there was any objectionable feature in the Bill.

Motionagreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (One Approval by Grand Jury to be sufficient).


moved the omission of the clause, as it did not give the securities which he deemed requisite.

On Question, whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 16: Majority 4.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Inquiry before Board of Works to be confined to Engineering Question).


moved the rejection of the clause, on the ground that it limited the inquiry to the Board of Works, instead of carrying it before jurors.

On Question, whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 14: Majority 10.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 struck out.

Further Amendments made.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next.