Lords Sitting of 11 March 1902

The Earl of WILTON sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; and read 1a.
  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  RUSTHALL MANOR BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Elgin; the Earl of Camper down to be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
  WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Elgin; the Earl of Camper-down to be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
  ROSSENDALE VALLEY TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3.a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  WADHURST GAS BILL,
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 4. (1902). Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of Brazil, relative to the boundary between Brazil and British Guiana. Signed at London, 6th November, 1901. [Ratifications exchanged at Rio de Janeiro, 28th January, 1902.]
  No. 5. (1902). Convention between the United Kingdom and Persia, extending the system of telegraphic communication between Europe and India through Persia. Signed at Teheran, 16th August, 1901. [Ratifications exchanged at Teheran, 13th January, 1902.]
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

  UNDERGROUND RAILWAY BILLS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the injury to houses and property in London which may arise if the Bills for underground railways, now before the House, should become law, and to move the Resolution standing in my name. I feel that I need make no apology for bringing forward this matter, because there are, at the present time, about twenty Bills for underground railways before your Lordships for consideration, and any question which affects their legal status or any other important matter of that kind is, I think, one which your Lordships will be perfectly ready to consider. Perhaps I

  987
  ought to say at the outset that I am not actuated in any way by any dislike to, or suspicion of, these undertakings. I fully recognise them as a means of locomotion, now becoming more and more frequent, and I readily admit that in future they may perhaps assist in the solution of two or three very awkward questions, such as overcrowding, which are more and more occupying the attention of Parliament. Perhaps I ought to say, further, that I am free from any personal interest in the matter. None of these companies whose Bills are now before Parliament, so far as I am aware, come anywhere near the house which I inhabit, and even if it were otherwise, the arguments and the merits of the ease remain exactly the same.
  While I recognise the importance of these underground railways, I cannot be blind, and I think your Lordships will not be blind, to the fact that there are also to be considered the individuals under whose houses and property these railways propose to pass. That it is possible that damage may be done by these railways is a matter on which, I think, we must all agree. Indeed, we have the notable instance of the Central London Railway, with regard to which it has been necessary for the Board of Trade to appoint a Committee to consider vibration and one or two other questions of damage alleged to have been caused by this railway.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to inform you what the law at present is with regard to corporations which have received statutory powers. Not being learned in the law, I feel very great diffidence in speaking on matters of this sort; but it is generally accepted that the law is as laid down by Lord Blackburn in the case of Geddes v. The Ban Reservoir. In his judgment Lord Blackburn said—
  "It is now thoroughly established that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, even although it does occasion damage to anyone. But an action does lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done negligently."
  Accepting that as the law, corporations which have received statutory powers are free from liability under the common law, so long as they are not chargeable with negligence. By way of illustration, I will point out to your Lordships how this has worked in the case of ordinary
  988
  railways. Railways above ground are not liable in the event of sparks from their engines burning crops or setting fire to a stackyard, or doing any other damage of that sort, unless it can be shown that in the construction of their engines some precaution or some improvement had been neglected. Great exception has been taken to the law as at present laid down, and, as most of your Lordships know, there have been Bills introduced in the other House of Parliament on the subject. A Bill was introduced last session, the object of which was to make railways liable for damage of that sort, just as, much as a travelling traction engine or any private person would be. When you pass from ordinary railways and come to underground railways, it is quite clear that the risk of damage—of serious damage—to property becomes very much greater. These lines must necessarily run under houses or near to houses, and under streets and other crowded places. Therefore, it can hardly be contested that the risk of damage is very much greater than in the case of ordinary railways.
  As to the Central London Railway, we find that there have been many complaints of damage, and I believe it is admitted by the Committee in their Report that the serious vibration has caused very great inconvenience to many persons living along the line of route. The Committee, in what I believe is a preliminary Report, have suggested certain measures for obviating this inconvenience to a considerable extent. They say—
  "So far as the Central London Railway is concerned, we are confident that by adopting motor ears in the place of the original locomotives, the vibration produced can be reduced so as to cause no serious annoyance, though it is possible that the sound of the trains may still be detected, especially in the night."
  If the Committee are right in their expectations, that damage will have been remedied; but supposing, for the sake of argument, that their expectations are not realised, what happens? The persons who suffer will have no remedy. They will be compelled to make the best of it. It may be said that these persons might have opposed the Railway Bill in Parliament. But I do not think that any Committee would be prepared, nor would it be desirable, to throw out a Bill simply because certain persons came and alleged that if the Bill were passed the railway might be so constructed and worked as to

  989
  cause them damage hereafter. Damage occasioned by the working of a railway—I draw a distinction between working and construction—cannot be proved before it is done. Therefore, to argue against the construction of a railway because at some future period it might do damage, would be taking up an untenable position. The distinction between construction and operation is important, because I understand that while a railway is being constructed the persons whose property is affected by anything done in the course of the construction have their remedy at common law. But after the railway is actually in operation, the person whose property is damaged has no remedy whatever.
  I would put it, your Lordships—Did Parliament thoroughly realise, when it passed these Acts, that it was not only giving to the companies or public bodies the privileges for which they were asking, but was creating a corporation which was not amenable to the ordinary common law for the damage it might do? Even supposing Parliament did foresee this damage, is it quite fair that, if damage is caused by a public improvement, the whole cost of that damage should be thrown, not on the public, but on the individuals whose houses by bad luck had been constructed on the line which a particular underground railway had taken? I would ask your Lordships what special reason exists as a general rule for exempting underground railways from liability for any damage which they may do? I have never read the terms of one of these Bills, but I understand that underground railway companies apply, not to take property—they are not obliged to purchase property—but for an easement, for which they pay nothing at all it is at a certain depth. That is a very considerable privilege as compared with railways above ground. It may be urged that if we did not concede this privilege to underground railway companies these railways would not be made at all. That means, then, that the companies come to Parliament and explicitly request permission to secure an advantage at the cost of private individuals. That is my statement with regard to the law as it at present stands.
  I will now say a word or two with regard to the Resolution which I am asking the House to adopt. What I am anxious that your Lordships should
  990
  do is to affirm the principle that if underground railway companies do damage they shall he liable at common law, as any other private persons would be, or as they themselves would be if they were taking their privileges by means of agreement. I indicate in my Motion, in general terms, the way in which your Lordships might affect that purpose. So far as an instruction to the Select Committees is concerned, I well know that your Lordships object, and very rightly object, to interfere with the liberty of Select Committees by giving to them a positive instruction; but if your Lordships arrive at the conclusion that it is desirable to accept the principle of the Resolution, it would then be open to consider the means by which the Resolution could be carried into practical effect. It seems to me advisable, if your Lordships decide that this matter ought to be dealt with in this House, that it should be done by means of a general rule. It would be obviously inconvenient if one Committee dealt with one underground railway company in one way and another Committee in another way. There is a very pertinent precedent for the Motion which I propose in the Gas Works Clauses Acts. The Act of 1871 contains the following provision—
  "Nothing in this Act or the Special Act shall exonerate the undertakers from any indictment, action, or other proceeding for nuisance in the event of any nuisance being caused by them."
  That seems to me perfectly fair. If a gas company obtains powers from Parliament and sets up gas works, what is more reasonable than that they should not thereby obtain power to annoy their neighbours? Parliament in this case inserted this clause to specially prevent anything of that kind happening. That is my case, and I place it before your Lordships for your consideration. Of course, railway companies say that all that they do is for the public advantage, but it is also for their own private advantage that they work. I beg to move.
  Moved, "To resolve that it is desirable, whether by instruction to the Select Committees on these Bills or otherwise, to provide that the liability of railway companies at Common Law for damage to houses and property in London which may arise if the Bills for underground

  991
  railways now before the House should become law, shall not be impaired by the passing of any such Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I think the House will agree with the noble Earl that the subject which he has introduced this afternoon is one of considerable interest and importance. The system of tubular railways, both in this country and abroad, is in the experimental stage, and it is not in the least unreasonable to hope that before long considerable improvements may be effected in them. There is no doubt, as far as the railways in London are concerned, that errors have been committed, both in regard to their construction and their working, which would be avoided if they had to be constructed over again; but, at the same time, I think that the results which have already been obtained on these railways are such as to justify us in forming considerable hopes as to their success in the future. Although there are only three railways of this type now in London, I understand that during 1901 no less than 60,000,000 passengers were carried upon them. The importance of those figures is apparent when we recognise that, as my noble friend reminded the House, at the present time the two most pressing problems in London are, first, the ever-increasing congestion of the street traffic, and, secondly, the provision of cheap and healthy homes for the masses of the working men who seek employment within the Metropolitan area. I agree with my noble friend that if, instead of having these isolated railways, we were to have a perfected system, providing cheap and easy transit from one end of London to the other, and to suburban areas, we might hope to have advanced no inconsiderable step towards the solution of the difficult problems that lie in front of us. But, my Lords, promising as these railways no doubt are in this respect, and great as are the advantages which they may have brought to many citizens of London, I think there is no use disguising the fact that, up to the present, at any rate, the development of the system has also brought with it considerable disadvantages. There is no doubt that the vibration which has been caused, at any
  992
  rate by the Central London Railway, has proved a great inconvenience and annoyance to many innocent people who find themselves living on the line of route. I have no doubt that this vibration has also considerably decreased the value of the property affected by it. As to how far it is possible for those people to obtain a remedy at law by action against the railway company, or how far it is possible for individuals, whose land is not actually taken for the purposes of a railway, to appear as objectors before a Committee, I will not express an opinion. It is a point with which my noble friend the Chairman of Committees will no doubt deal later on. Nor will I attempt to say, supposing these railways turn out to be a great boon to the inhabitants of London, how far the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number can justifiably be applied to this question. I think it is quite possible that certain cases of hardship may have to be recognised in the interests of the community of London as a whole. But however that may be, I agree with my noble friend that it is plainly most desirable that the disadvantages of this system should be minimised as far as possible, and that in sanctioning other undertakings of this kind we should endeavour to ensure that a system which brought advantages to some should not be made a means of considerable inconvenience and disadvantage to others.
  So far as the Motion of my noble friend has that object in view, I think the House will probably be inclined to give it a considerable measure of sympathy and support. But when we come to the method by which my noble friend proposes to carry out that object, we come, I think, to a totally different matter. What does my noble friend suggest? He suggests that the Common Law liability upon a railway company for damages caused by the working of a railway should not be affected by the empowering Act sanctioned by Parliament. As far as I know, the method proposed by my noble friend would introduce a perfectly novel and unprecedented principle, as far, at any rate, as railway legislation is concerned. As to the precedent of a gas company, quoted by the noble Earl, I would point out that the capital involved in that case

  993
  is entirely different from the amount involved in the formation of a railway, and in the latter case the promoters would have to be far more careful of the liability which they took upon their shoulders than the promoters of a gas company. There is a further point that I think is important. What is the principle upon which railway legislation proceeds? It is the principle of defining the public duties which the promoters have to undertake, and, at the same time, of specifying equally clearly the public liability to which they may be subjected. Surely that is the whole difference between proceeding by Bill and proceeding by agreement. The whole object of promoters in coming to Parliament is to enable them to obtain Parliamentary sanction to carry out certain enterprises under certain definite obligations and liabilities. If, however, promoters are no longer to have their liabilities defined, and if a company is always to be made subject to an action for damage done to private property while carrying out enterprises sanctioned by the empowering Act, I think it is not too much to say that those enterprises would not be carried out at all. Under such conditions I believe that every one of the Bills now awaiting a hearing at your Lordships' hands would be withdrawn. I do not believe that any company could be floated under those circumstances. I do not believe that any promoters would find it possible to obtain the capital necessary for their undertaking if they knew that liabilities of that kind were to be, imposed upon them. My noble friend's remedy, therefore, would be worse than the disease. While undoubtedly we should aim at minimising the disadvantages which have been pointed out by my noble friend, I think it would be nothing less than disastrous to strangle all those enterprises in their very inception. Unless the privilege granted by Parliament defines the extent of the liability which will lie on the companies there is very little real privilege about it.
  What, then, can be done? As I have ventured to criticise the method proposed by my noble friend, it may be asked what alternative proposal I have to make. I believe that a much more practical and a sounder plan lies open to us. As the House may know, the Committee presided over by Lord Rayleigh, which was appointed last year to consider this very question, has now reported, and its
  994
  report is of a most interesting character. It sets forth clearly, and in a very interesting way, many experiments that have been made with regard to vibration, and the conclusion arrived at is that the vibration is to a great extent, in fact almost entirely, caused by the great weight of the locomotives, and the Committee are of opinion that if that weight could be more distributed throughout the train the vibration would be reduced to an infinitesimal quantity. I believe this has been proved to be the case in other countries. In America they have adopted the multiple unit system, by which the weight and power are distributed throughout the whole length of the train, a motor being fixed to a succession of carriages. The Committee also made certain recommendations in regard to the permanent way, and were distinctly of opinion that if their recommendations were carried out the vibration which has been complained of would be reduced to an infinitesimal quantity. To quote their own words—
  "We are confident that by adopting motor cars in place of the original locomotives the vibration could be reduced so as to cause no serious annoyance."
  If that is so—and I see no reason why we should doubt the opinion of these able and expert gentlemen—then it seems that the whole point of my noble friend could be very easily met by adopting the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. The only difficulty, I believe, is in regard to embodying those recommendations in clauses. I understand that recommendations of that character are not easily embodied in definite clauses which could be introduced into all these Bills. Even if it could be done, however, it does not at all follow that it would be wise to insist upon such clauses, for it may have the effect of stereotyping too much these particular recommendations. At the present time they may be perfectly applicable to the circumstances of the case, but as time goes on is it not possible that new improvements may be discovered which will put an end to the need of recommendations of this character? It seems to me, therefore, that the inflexibility of clauses of that kind may be more of a hindrance than help to these enterprises.
  To get over the difficulty, I would suggest that the whole matter should be left to the expert staff of the Board of

  995
  Trade. At present, as the House knows, before any railway is opened, officers of the Board of Trade have to inspect it, and to certify that it is safe. Surely an enlargement of those powers could very easily be effected, by which the plans of these railways could he submitted to the Board of Trade immediately after their sanction by Parliament. If the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee are followed, I cannot see any reason why the Board of Trade should not be perfectly able to adjudicate fairly, in the general interest, in this matter. In this way we should have the advantage of being able to modify our recommendation according to the circumstances of the time, and as improvements and perfections are adopted with regard to these railways, so, automatically, the instruction given to the promoters could be modified also. It seems to me that it is only by an administrative extension of that kind that you will be able, without friction and without great difficulty, to obtain the results my noble friend desires without strangling an enterprise which may very easily turn out to be of enormous good to the inhabitants of London, and which may, as I say, provide a solution for many of the very difficult questions we have now to consider. I hope that, having raised this question and secured a discussion upon it, my noble friend will not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I shall only trouble the House with a very few observations after the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl. Though I by no means object to this additional reference to the Board of Trade, giving them full powers to act as they think best in the interests of the public, I cannot admit the force of my noble friend's argument that Committees should not at the present moment enforce the observance of the recommendations made by the Vibration Committee upon the proposed tube railways. We have only to deal with the present, and, as principles are laid down by the Vibration Committee, and suggestions made by them by which vibration can be avoided or largely diminished, I cannot see why the Committee before whom the Bills will go should not at once insist upon these regulations being
  996
  adopted. If they are adopted, of course the railway company will not be liable, but the injury arising from vibration would be, it is hoped, reduced to a minimum; but if they are not adopted, or supposing some new regulation is found to be desirable and the company do not adopt it, then they will be liable at Common Law for negligence in working the railway. The difficulty is not as to damages caused by construction—there can be no question about the law as to that, for whether land is or is not taken the owner mny claim compensation for damages caused by construction—but as to damages caused by the working of the railway. I believe the law to be that the owner of land that is taken can recover under the Land Clauses Act if he can show that he is "injuriously affected" either by construction or by the working of the railway, but that the owner of the land which is not taken cannot recover for damages caused by the working only unless he can show negligence. I think the question may, therefore, he narrowed down to the point as to whether the whole existing law should be altered because persons whose land is not taken for the purposes of one of these railways cannot recover unless it can be shown that there is negligence in the working of the undertaking. I believe it would be a great mistake to alter the whole law upon that consideration. I would also point out that it would be absolutely unfair to alter the law as regards these tube railways, and not to alter it as regards the Metropolitan and other underground railways. The noble Lord asks that Private Bill Committees should he tied down by special instructions, but I venture to suggest that the proper course is to leave full discretion to these Committees to deal with each case upon it merits. If they find, for instance, that there is a large public building, or a large block of private buildings, which they think may be injuriously affected by the working of the line, then they can insist upon the insertion of a clause protecting those buildings against structural injury by the construction or working of the line. That was done in the case of the St. James's Hall, in connection with the Brompton-Piccadilly line, which is about to be constructed.

  997
  A special clause was inserted providing that the company should make good all loss sustained through any structural injury to the premixes by the construction or working of the railway. And somewhat similar clause was inserted in the Metropolitan Inner Circle Act 1874, but confined to damage done during the first three years of the working of the line. The proper solution of the question, I think, is to leave it to the Committee, who will have the full evidence before them and be in a position to judge whether a clause of this kind is necessary or not. But to alter the law for the single case of persons whose land is not taken, and who therefore cannot recover damages for injury, is asking what I think your Lordships will not he prepared to grant.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I understand that all that my noble friend who called attention to this subject asks is that, in a new undertaking, of which no one can sec the effect, the law should so far be modified as to give those who may suffer a remedy which they would not otherwise possess. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, said that this would be unfair as against the Metropolitan railway. I would point out that nobody can say what the effects of the construction of these new railways will be, or what legislation in relation to them may be necessary. The position is totally different from that of railways of which the effect is well known. It is not sufficient to argue that restrictions may check enterprise when the effects cannot he foreseen. It seems to me a curious argument that an enactment of this kind would probably strangle every one of these schemes. What does that mean? It means that the promoters anticipate this very danger. We have not sufficient experience to lay down any special method or enactment to meet the difficulties that arise, but I think there should he some method of dealing with cases of all kinds where new forces, of which we know little, are brought into play, and legislation should be framed to protect those who may suffer from them and to afford reparation for the damage they may sustain.
  L0RD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who spoke on
  998
  behalf of the Government hardly did justice to the Motion before the House. He seemed to think that there was something in the Motion which was antagonistic to the Report of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. As far as I understand the Motion of the noble Earl, it is in favour of carrying into practical effect the recommendations of that Committee. Lord Rayleigh's Committee reported that if certain things were done no serious damage or annoyance would arise. I do not know the difference between a nuisance and a serious annoyance. Nothing is a nuisance at law which is not a serious annoyance. If annoyance and injury can be avoided by the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee, I do not see why promoters coming to Parliament for exceptional powers should not be put under obligations to carry out those recommendations.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend opposite for having started this discussion. The noble Earl has stated his case with moderation and yet with great force. Of my noble friend's statement of the law I have no complaint to make. But what does he wish to do? He desires to completely alter the present state of the law in relation to railways, and to place the tube railways, as they are commonly called, under a different law from ordinary railways. But I venture to suggest, in the first place, that it is not desirable to restrain the discretion of Committees on Bills by a cut and-dried instruction such as my noble friend has proposed to the House tonight. The noble Earl would place promoters in exactly the same position as that of persons without any Act of Parliament at all. It is all very well to say that will not stop enterprise, but I think you will find it will; and probably no railway would have been constructed if some mitigation of the Common Law had not been allowed. My noble friend is perfectly right when he says that action can now lie taken in respect of damage done during the construction of a railway; but if you subject a railway company to liability for action for all future time for all annoyance, however small, that will be imposing a burden too heavy to be borne. I agree that it is most desirable that the Commit-

  999
  tee should have full and perfect discretion in dealing with each case when it comes before them, and that was the view taken by the Joint Committee last year. As to injury due to subsidence, that Committee thought each case should be judged according to the circumstances before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred; and, as to vibration, they recommended the insertion of a clause in every Bill to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. No doubt the Board of Trade would have considerable difficulty in embodying the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee in an Act, and I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Dudley that it is not desirable to lay down an absolutely fixed rule; but I do think it is very desirable to introduce into every Bill such clauses as the Board of Trade may suggest to minimise, or, it is to be hoped, render impossible, the evil against which my noble friend is anxious to guard. I have had communications with the Board of Trade on this subject, and I believe they are considering with very great care the form of a clause which would be applicable. I strongly deprecate the adoption of my noble friend's suggestion that the law in relation to railways should be altered. I am as anxious as he is to make the annoyance and possible damage to private property as small as possible, and I assure your Lordships that I shall be only too glad to co-operate with the Board of Trade in suggesting to the Committees to which the Bills are referred clauses which will meet the views of my noble friend. I think I have said enough to show your Lordships that it would be a matter of considerable danger, if you wish any of these schemes to be carried into operation, to adopt the form of my noble friend's Motion.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Before the Question is put, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say just a few words in reply. I am afraid I have not derived much consolation from the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Board of Trade. As I understand, the course he advises Parliament to take is to hand over this Question to the Board of Trade, to be dealt with according to the lights of that body, with the help of the recommendations of Lord Rayleigh's Committee. Though I have every respect for the Board of Trade,
  1000
  my confidence does not equal that expressed by the noble Earl who represents that august body. It seems to, me that this question of damage to owners is one with which Parliament should deal, and should not be delegated to any other body, however eminent. My noble friend seemed rather to have mixed up two questions. The greater part of his speech referred to the Central London Railway land the Vibration Inquiry; but the point I wish to raise is—when damage is done by a railway company or any other body to some private interest, is it fair or right that the fact of having obtained an Act of Parliament should rescue that company or body from all consequences and liabilities under the Common Law? What the noble Lord said on behalf of the Board of Trade does not reach the point. Supposing the clause is inserted and proves ineffectual, and the damage is still done, then the individual will have to bear the loss sustained by the carrying out of a public improvement. The noble Earl who has just spoken said that without exemption from the ordinary law railways will not be made. That is a matter of opinion, but under their present rights railways have been made. It does not appear to me that Lord Knutsford's argument against putting the new railways in a different position from the existing ones is to the point. If wrong has been done hitherto, that is no reason why wrong should continue to be done. I still feel that it is very hard on those, people underneath or near whose houses these railways pass that their property should be not taken, but depreciated in value. Let anyone whose house is in such a position try to sell it, and see whether the value of that house is affected or not. The question is, Who shall pay for that depreciation? I will not ask your Lordships to divide on this Motion. I am going to satisfy myself for the present with having brought it before the House. We are all agreed, I think, that this question of damage is a real and very important one. The whole subject of the construction of tubular railways is at present only in an experimental stage; and at some future time serious attempts must be made to minimise, at all events, and if possible entirely to prevent, loss to private individuals from the construction of lines which are for the public benefit. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.