HL Deb 20 June 1881 vol 262 cc832-3

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 7 (Alteration of section six in the Act of 1860, and section four of Act of 1871).

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON

moved, in Clause 7, page 2, line 29, to leave out (toe of the fence) and insert (roadside boundary).

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, there was no objection to the Amendment, but there was to the clause itself, as it would enable a private company to take away part of a public road, to raise it higher than the other portion of the road, and to place rails on it for the tram cars

That would be a serious nuisance. He also wished to point out that there was not a single word in the Bill to secure compensation to persons who might sustain damage by the acts done under it.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

said, that nothing could be done under the Bill without the sanction of the Grand Jury, and then of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. This Bill would enable cheap tram roads to be made, and in many parts of Ireland that would be a great advantage.

LORD EMLY

said, he hoped the noble Earl at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) would not persist in his objection, as all the county surveyors in Ireland were in favour of the Bill.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

contended that this clause would very seriously interfere with public and private rights, as the making of raised tram roads would prevent other roads being at any time made.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

thought that ample guarantees were provided by the Bill against persons being injured.

LORD CARLINGFORD

was of opinion that if the clause was not agreed to it would be a misfortune to Ireland. He understood that all persons—landlords, farmers and others—were agreed that these roadside tramways would be suitable for Ireland. All he could say was, that unless Parliament allowed these cheap lines of railway to be constructed, Ireland would be deprived of what would prove a great advantage.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, he was unwilling to move the omission of the clause.; but he was thoroughly convinced that if their Lordships wished to create a nuisance this was the way to do it. He must protest against the making of these raised tramways without securing to the persons by the roadside entrance to their fields or residences. They were proposing to take away the whole of a public right and to give it to a private company, which would be a great injury to the public in many cases.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

also objected to the clause.

Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.