Sitting of 16 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Fisheries; Cinque Ports.
Petitions presented. By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for the House to Adhere to the Provisions of the Irish Municipal Corporations' Act as originally passed by them.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, against the Factory Act Amendment Bill.—By Mr. W. J. DEVISON, from Dorking, for a Mitigation of the Criminal Laws.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Abolition of Church-rates—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for the Abolition of Annuity Tax.— By Mr. BETHELL, from Mapleton, in favour of Common Fields' InclosureBill.—By Major BEAUCLERK and Mr. KEMP. from Horsham and Chichester, for Amendment of New Poor-Law.—By Mr. BROWN, from Newportpratt, for Introduction of Poor-Laws into Ireland.—By Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY, from Places in Northamptonshire, against Turnpike Trusts' Consolidation Bill.—By Mr. S. CRAWFORD, from Drumlee, against the Sale of Spirits by Grocers (Ireland).—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, against Municipal Corporations' (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. LAW HODGES, from Dartford, for Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Sir R. BATESON, from Colerain, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill for Ireland, as passed by the Lords.

LIGHT-HOUSES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonrose to present Petitions from the landholders and commissioners of supply of the stewartry, and from the merchants, shipowners, and mariners of the port of Kirkcudbright, complaining of the want of lighthouses on the Scotch side of the Solway Frith, whereby numerous shipwrecks and great loss of life were fre-

559
quently occasioned on that coast. The matter complained of was a great and crying grievance in that part of the country. There was only a single lighthouse from the Mull of Cantyre to the coast of Dumfries, and the whole of that navigation was of the most perilous description, being along a rocky shore, upon which shipwrecks were extremely frequent. For the last thirty-five years those who were interested in the stewartry had endeavoured to obtain the erection of a lighthouse on the island of Little Ross, and since he had come into Parliament, he had made representations for that purpose to the Commissioners of Northern Lights, on grounds that he conceived it impossible to resist. They were resisted, however, and on grounds that it appeared to him impossible to sustain. The Commissioners took great credit to themselves for having established a lighthouse at the Mull of Galloway, but in consequence of an intervening headland, that light was not of any use to vessels navigating along the coast of Kirkcudbright. During the last year four vessels had been lost there, two of them with all hands on board, and of the crews of the other two a considerable portion were drowned. If there had been a light on Little Ross Island, this loss of life would not have occurred. There had been sixty-six vessels altogether lost on that part of the coast during the last thirty years, and he could state, on the best authority, that the establishment of a lighthouse on the spot he had named might have averted to a great extent, if not entirely, such a destruction of life and property. A lighthouse could be constructed there for l,400 l., which was scarcely one-tenth of the amount of the cargoes of some of the ships lost there. He did not desire to cast any reflections on the Commissioners of the Northern Lights—they were all most respectable gentlemen; but he must question the constitution of that Board. Of course the House supposed that it was mainly composed of scientific persons and of mariners. There was not, however, a single individual of either class upon it. It was composed of Edinburgh lawyers, and of the sheriffs of certain maritime counties in Scotland, and the Commissioners were entirely led by the judgment of their engineer. That gentleman had not done his duty towards the county which he (Mr. Fergusson) represented. From 1820 up to the present time
560
his consttuents had never been able to obtain an answer to their request that a lighthouse should be established on Little Ross Island. The reply to them now was, that the harbour there had been surveyed by the engineer of the Board, and that he had reported that it was dry at low water. Now what was the fact? In this very harbour King William rode for several days, with all his fleet, on his way to raise the siege of Drogheda. Hundreds of vessels have been seen riding there in safety, and if the engineer had consulted any manner on the spot, he would have told him that at the lowest ebb there were from three and a half to four fathoms water in the harbour. He had been informed by a most respectable resident in Kirkcudbright, that the engineer arrived there on a Sunday, went to Little Ross Island, merely looked at the harbour, and without asking a question of a single mariner there, and without taking soundings, left the place. The harbour was, in fact, one where vessels coasting from Ireland to Cumberland, Dumfries, and Kirkcudbrightshire, could ride with perfect safety, and the light was asked for it as a harbour of refuge. He might be asked what could the House do? It could legislate on the subject, and by a Bill compel the Commissioners to do their duty.
The Speakerinterrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and reminded him that it was one of the regulations of the House not to go into a discussion on a Petition relating to a matter that had been, or would be, made the subject of a specific motion.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that in that respect the regulations of the House were changed since he had come into it. He still thought that petitioners had a right to have their case stated, though they might not have a right to have a debate upon it. He now gave notice, that on Thursday next he would present these petitions, and move for papers on the subject.
the Speakersaid, that he was bound in duty to enforce that which had been laid down as the general understanding of the House.
Petition withdrawn.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Alderman Wood Mr. Alderman Wood, in introducing his motion for a Committee, to consider of the improvement of the metropolis, said,

561
that he understood there were many streets in the city of London, and other quarters of the metropolis, which were almost impassable from their confined breadth, and the crowd of carriages which blocked them up, and that it was absolutely necessary to widen them in several places. One of the principal objects of the Committee would be, to consider of the best means of procuring a remission of the tolls at Waterloo and Southwark bridges. These tolls were a source of great annoyance and expense to many labouring men who were obliged to seek employment in Southwark. He calculated, that to carry into effect the various improvements which he proposed, would require not less than 1,000,000 l. To repay this sum, he would propose to levy an impost of 6d. a ton on coals, which would bring a return of more than 50,000 l. a year. He proposed to form a new street from Southwark-bridge to the Bank of England, which would be very convenient for persons coming from the west-end into the city; another from Waterloo-bridge to the North-road; another from the Bank through Lothbury to the Post-office; another from the Post-office to Smithfield; another from St. Paul's to Blackfriars-bridge; another, from Holborn to the Strand; another from Westminster-abbey to Belgrave-square; and also one of considerable size passing through Southwark. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee to consider of the most effectual plan for raising of money to carry into effect the necessary improvements required in the cities of London and Westminster, borough of Southwark, and counties of Middlesex and Surrey, and for the purchasing of the interest of the proprietors of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, that they may be thrown open for the use of the public, free from toll.
Mr. Humehoped, that when he seconded the motion of the hon. Member, he might not be understood as consenting to his proposal for raising the money by a continuance of the duty on coals. No one could visit the city of London without being made aware of the great importance of the communications being facilitated, as the loss of time and annoyance experienced from the present condition of the streets was incredible. He thought the success which had attended the plans of the hon. Member on former occasions,
562
entitled his projects to be fairly considered at present.
The Chancellor of the Exchequertrusted that the hon. Member did not contemplate drawing upon the public purse in aid of the objects he had in view.
Mr. Alderman Woodreplied, that that formed no part of his plan.
Sir Robert Peelhoped that a very enlarged and comprehensive view of the subject would be taken. They were now in the same situation with respect to improvements in the Metropolis in which they had been placed with regard to railways when those great national undertakings were first projected. When railways were first planned, perhaps the fittest course would have been to appoint a commission of able practical men, to survey the whole of the country adjoining the proposed railway, and lay down the course of the main line of road; but now they were so far advanced, that it was almost too late to legislate on comprehensive principles with respect to them. He hoped that nothing would be done with respect to the remaining improvements of the Metropolis till the various plans proposed had been impartially considered, that due foresight would be used as to the probable extension of the Metropolis, and that not only the present, but the future, convenience of the public would be consulted. It was manifest that very great improvements might be effected, and he hoped that Government would not hesitate to consent to a temporary advance of the public money, if that should be necessary. He did not mean to say, that the public should sustain any loss; he had always maintained that the Metropolis had no greater claim on the public funds than the rest of the empire; but if great benefit could be secured to the Metropolis by a temporary advance on adequate security, he thought that would be a perfectly legitimate application of the public money. He thought that if it were possible to appoint a commission in which the public might have confidence, to take an enlarged view of the question, such a step would be very desirable.
Mr. O'Connellmoved, as an amendment to the motion, that the said Select Committee do inquire into the state of the law relative to Lotteries, foreign or otherwise, in which schemes have been advertised or circulated, or tickets or shares disposed of, in the United Kingdom, and to report their opinion thereon to the

563
House, and whether any and what alteration in the law be desirable, or if the resumption of State Lotteries for national purposes, under the control of Government, be advisable. Every hon. Member, he said, must be aware, that notwithstanding the law condemned Lotteries, such schemes, both foreign and British, were openly carried on, and advertised in every newspaper. The law prohibited the sale of tickets, but not the purchase of them. It was notorious that a drain of money from the country to the amount of at least 200,000 l. yearly took place owing to these speculations. If there was any necessary immorality in Lotteries, the House ought not to permit them for one moment, and when he considered that no Member of that House could move from his residence at night without meeting twenty or thirty gambling-houses open in his way, he thought there were ample grounds to induce them to entertain this question.
Sir E. Codringtonseconded the amendment.
Mr. Humesubmitted to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that this was a proper subject for the investigation of a separate Committee. There was no sort of connexion between the two objects proposed [hear], and he thought the two inquiries might easily be conducted so as not to interfere with each other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas very glad that the subject of Foreign Lotteries had been introduced. His attention had been lately directed to the question, and he was engaged in preparing a Bill, which he believed was calculated, in its operation, to redress some portion of the evils which were complained of regarding them. He should introduce it in the course of a few days, and the House would see whether it answered that purpose. If it did not, he should support the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. Undoubtedly, the evils to which these speculations gave rise called for an immediate remedy.
Mr. O'Connellwould not press his amendment.
Original motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
Lord J. RussellOn the motion of Lord J. Russell, the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Registration of Voters Bill was read, and the Bill recommitted.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On Clause 4, for establishing a Court for the Revision of the List of Voters, the Court to consist of not less than twelve Barristers, to be appointed by the Speaker, vacancies to be filled up by the Lord Chancellor,
Mr. Wakleymoved, that the words "His Majesty" be substituted for the words "Speaker of the House of Commons," and "Lord High Chancellor."
The Committee divided on the original clause—Ayes 58; Noes 38: Majority 20.
Mr. Macleanmoved, that the Barristers be required to have practised three years below the bar, and three at the bar.
The Committee divided on the amendment, Ayes 113; Noes 2: Majority 111.
On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
Lord Granville Somersetobserved, that there was a very important matter to be taken into consideration, namely, the time which would be taken up in effecting the registration. The Bill proposed that every district should have the registration effected once in each year. Now, he had found that last year 475 days were taken up in completing the registration. The hon. Member opposite might reply that that was an extraordinary year; but he would take the two years preceding, which were not extraordinary, and the average number of days occupied in the registration was 323, in which computation Sundays were not included. It was evidently a physical impossibility that the number of Barristers to be appointed could perform this duty, and he should therefore divide the Committee against the clause.
Mr. Warburtoncontended, that every question must be decided by the balance which appeared between conveniences and inconveniences. He did not agree with the noble Lord in thinking that so much time would be consumed in the registration as had been wasted under the old system, owing to the incompetency of the tribunal which had to decide on questions relating to that subject.
Sir W. Follettsaid, that in his judgment, it was not so much a matter of importance whether the number of Barristers was large or small, as whether the appointment should be vested in the Government. He had a strong objection that the Revising Barristers should be creatures and nominees of any Government. It was objectionable in the highest degree to invest the Ministers of the day with the power of appointing officers filling

565
such important stations as these Barristers, who had a power of deciding on the validity of all the voters in every town and county in the United Kingdom. This was too dangerous a power to be thus flippantly bestowed. The House, in adopting the clause, would be acting with gross inconsistency. In cases of petitions against the return of Members at contested elections they did not leave the matter to the decision of the Ministry, nor even to the decision of a majority of that House; but they required a Select Committee appointed by the Ballot. The proposition of investing the Ministers with so tremendous a power as the nomination of Commissioners, on whose decision the elective franchise all over the Kingdom was to be in most cases decided, was so objectionable and unconstitutional, that he should support the proposition of the noble Lord if he pressed for a division.
The Committee divided on the clause,— Ayes 88; Noes 55: Majority 33.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to.
On the question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that by this clause, if the Revising Barrister should be taken ill, a Deputy was to be appointed. Now, was it intended that they, having enacted that the Revising Barrister himself should be prevented from sitting in Parliament for any borough, city, or county, for which he had revised the list, that the Deputy to be appointed should be placed under the same restriction?
The Attorney-Generalconsidered that they ought to be placed on the same footing with the Revising Barristers themselves, and it would be necessary to introduce a proviso to that effect.
Sir James Grahambegged to enter his protest against the propriety of vesting the appointment of Revising Barristers in the officers of the Crown.
Mr. Jerviscited, in justification of the proposal, the case of the Welsh Judges, who, until within a few years, had always been appointed by the Crown, upon the same principle that it was proposed now to adopt with reference to the Revising Barristers.
Sir James Grahamremarked, that the precedent put forward by the hon. Member for Chester was an unfortunate one, inasmuch as the manner of appointing the Welch Judges had long been a theme of general and deserved reprobation, and in
566
consequence of the objections that have been raised, the practice in that respect had been altered.
The Attorney- Generalbegged to remind the right hon. Baronet, that there was a wide difference between the cases of the Welch Judges, as formerly appointed, and that of the Revising Barristers to be appointed under this Bill—namely, that the Welch Judges did sit in Parliament, which gave rise to the charge of political jobbing as against them, while the Revising Barristers were expressly incapacitated from holding seats in Parliament, not only for the time being, but for a period of eighteen months, after being employed in that capacity, in respect of the places for which they had revised the lists, whether city, borough, or county.
Sir Frederick Pollockbegged to ask if no jobbing could be done unless the parties had seats in that House? If it was considered necessary to exempt certain individuals from sitting in that House, was it not sanctioning a much worse principle, to say that persons under the influence of the Crown should have the power ministerially to decide the question as to who should sit in that House?
Mr. Charles Butterwas strongly disposed to join in the objections that were taken to this clause. It certainly was a most extraordinary principle that the Revising Barristers were to be appointed by one person, while the substitutes for the Revising Barristers, when a necessity arose for their appointment, was to be appointed by another, who could not be so well acquainted with their fitness as he whom they had excluded.
Mr. Macleancontended that the Lord Chancellor might appoint a person as a supernumerary Revising Barrister, who might not be of more than two or three years standing; and the scale of payment of these individuals was to be determined by the Lord Chancellor; he was to award what he should deem meet. He had great objection to lodging this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Warburtonhad no objection to postpone the clause.
Clause postponed.
On the question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, the Committee again divided—Ayes 107; Noes 67: Majority 40.
Clause agreed to.
On its being proposed to consider Clause 18, there were calls for "Mr. Brotherton."
Mr. Brothertonrose, and said that he owed an apology to the House for not persisting on a former night in his motion for an adjournment of the House at twelve o'clock. He had submitted, however, on that occasion, to a power which he felt that he was not able to resist. He had not undertaken the task of moving the adjournment at twelve o'clock at night from any unworthy motive—from any morbid love of notoriety—he had undertaken it because he felt that the system of midnight legislation was not only injurious to the health of hon. Members, but was also highly prejudicial to the interests of the country, and to the sober and deliberate judgment which those interests imperatively required. He desired on all occasions to act impartially, and he hoped that he had done so. He was sorry, however, to observe that there seemed in certain quarters to be a desire to break through the very wholesome regulation on this subject, to which the House agreed at the commencement of this Session. He therefore felt himself called upon not to give way to-night, and he should therefore move, that the Chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that the hon. Member for Salford had not fairly stated the regulation to which the House assented at the commencement of the Session. The understanding then was, that no new matter should be commenced after twelve o'clock, but that was not to prevent the matter in hand at that hour from being brought to a conclusion. He considered that the hon. Member, in making his present motion, was guilty of a decided breach of the understanding which had formerly been made between him and the House.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he had never understood that the hon. Member for Sal-ford had consented to let business go on till three or four o'clock in the morning, because it had commenced before twelve o'clock at night.
Mr. Praedexpected the hon. Member for Salford to persevere in his Motion; and reminded him that he had frequently moved the adjournment of the debate when a new Speaker rose at five minutes past twelve o'clock.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that if the hon. Member for Salford felt any hesitation in pressing his motion, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridport, he
568
would take upon his own shoulders the responsibility which the hon. Member declined, and would move that the Chairman do now report progress.
Mr. Aglionbywas not aware that the House had ever come to any understanding on this subject with the hon. Member for Salford. For himself, he had not been a party to any such understanding, nor would he now. He would not let the hon. Member for Salford be the sole judge whether the House ought or ought not to sit after twelve o'clock. He should certainly divide the Committee on the question of reporting progress.
The Committee divided on the motion for reporting progress.—Ayes 39; Noes 85—Majority 46.
Colonel Sibthorpmoved that the House do adjourn.
Sir John Hobhousehoped that this motion would be resisted. If the House determined not to sit later than twelve o'clock at night, hon. Members must make up their minds to continue sitting to that hour till the middle of September. He, therefore, hoped that hon. Members would not obstruct the public business by making motions of this kind. He denied that Government had ever come to any understanding with the hon. Member for Salford on this question.
Mr. Wallacesaid, the hon. Member for the University of Dublin himself spoke frequently fifteen or twenty times after twelve. For his part he never did and never should adhere to the rule of adjourning at that hour. It was departed from almost every night. He did not wish to make any harsh observations upon the course pursued by the hon. Member for Salford. No hon. Member ought to be permitted to dictate to the House what was or what was not important business, or prescribe a time for closing their discussions. They were sent there to do the public business with the greatest possible speed. He must remind the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that while that hon. Member was absent in Dublin, in the discharge of his duty, he and others must be in that House at all times during the Session. It might be very convenient for hon. Members to concur in a motion for adjournment, who were not in their places all day watching the public business. Were they, after proceeding so far with this important Bill, to give it up at so early an hour as twelve?

569
If this rule were to be observed, they must meet at twelve at noon, or the business of the Session could not be gone through.
Mr. Brothertonwould take with calmness the observations of the hon. Member for Greenock. He had never pretended to make himself a judge on this matter, and as a proof of it, he would appeal to the House whether he had ever divided it before to-night on the question of adjournment.
Colonel Sibthorpobserved, that though the hon. Member for Greenock had alluded to the hon. Member for Salford as "the guardian of the night," he had never yet been under his control; and if the hon. Member for Salford intended to vacate his present post, he was prepared to take possession of it. He was determined to take the sense of the Committee again on the question of adjournment, and he hoped that hon. Members would support him in so doing.
Mr. Shawreminded the House that the understanding with the hon. Member for Salford, which his Majesty's Government now repudiated, was a compromise made with a certain party in that House. He was sure that hon. Members could not have forgotten that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had given notice that he should move the adjournment every night at ten o'clock, but that promise, like several others from the same quarter, had never been performed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was quite clear that the continuance of such desultory conversation tended only to exhaust the patience of the House, without advancing the business of it in the least degree. That the Bill before them was of importance no one denied, and that it was one of exigency, in point of time, was equally admitted. It had been re-committed a third time, and, therefore, it remained to be shown by hon. Gentlemen who knew that they were a minority, whether they would interrupt public business, not for the purpose of reserving points upon which a difference of opinion was likely to arise—rbecause he was willing to reserve any such points—but for the purpose of retarding the business of the House. We say, that with a view to give the people of England a remedy for admitted evils, let us proceed with the points upon which we are all agreed.
Mr. George F. Youngdid not wish to impede the business of the House, but
570
his experience had convinced him that the business was always unsatisfactorily conducted at late hous.
The Committee divided on the question of adjournment—Ayes 30; Noes 83— Majority 53
Clause 18 was then agreed to.
On Clause 19 being put,
Colonel Percevalbegged leave again to move, that the Committee do adjourn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentreated the House to go through those clauses to which no objections were taken, and postpone the rest to another evening. It was not wished to entrap hon. Gentlemen into an acquiescence to clauses against which they entertained any objection. But if they would oppose clauses now, to which they would at another hour assent, why then let the country understand that such was the spirit in which these hon. Gentlemen were prepared to legislate.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that a great number of Gentlemen, who were the best informed upon the subject of this Bill, and on whose judgment he and his friends placed implicit reliance, were gone home, upon the understanding, that the proposition which was made at the early part of the Session for adjourning the House at twelve o'clock, would be adhered to. He did, therefore, feel it his duty, under those circumstances, to persevere in his endeavour to prevent the Bill going on any further to-night.
Sir John Hobhousewould ask, whether anybody could deny that the opposition now offered by gentlemen on the other side of the House was not a most fruitless, injudicious—he would not call it unfair, because nothing was unfair in that House,— and most unfounded opposition. If those respectable Gentlemen, who so well understood the provisions of the Bill, were gone away, still he begged leave to say, that many Members who had taken part in the debates upon the Bill, and who seemed to understand its details were still present. There were the hon. Member for Oxford, the hon. Member for Yarmouth, and the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln—a wise gentleman in his generation—all those who seemed to understand the subject best, still remained. If public business was to be impeded, let it be understood by whom it was so impeded, [laughter, amidst which, the laugh of Col. Sibthorp was distinguishable.] "There is a well-known Latin proverb," continued

571
the right hon. Baronet, "which rendered into English, signifies, that 'nothing is so foolish as a foolish laugh.' It is more foolish, I think than agitation is. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been kind enough to say something of its being the wish of the Government to postpone public business. He must, on consideration, know, that that is not our intention."
Colonel Sibthorp: As what passes in this House afterwards finds its way out of the House, nothing ought to pass within it which would not be suffered to pass unnoticed out of it. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to say anything which was personally offensive to me—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state whether such is his intention? After a few more words, which were not heard, the hon. Member resumed his seat, and immediately afterwards left the House.
Mr. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his address to the House, was good enough to use my name. Before he did that, he said that those respectable Gentlemen who understood this question had left the House, laying some little emphasis on the word respectable. I presume the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply that those whose names he mentioned were not properly designated by that term?
Sir John Hobhousebegged to deny, in the most express manner, any intention to make the slightest possible reflection on the hon. Gentleman; and if he had said anything which was the least injurious to the hon. Gentleman, or which in any degree was hurtful to his feelings, he begged to express his sincere regret that any such unintentional circumstance should have happened.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, that the only way to put an end to this discussion was by forty members putting down their names, and declaring that they would remain there till six o'clock in the morning, in order to go through the business of the House.
Mr. Bonhamhoped the House would not be deterred by any threat from doing its duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was an important question and ought to be treated with calmness. If hon. Gentlemen would not allow the business to go on, undoubtedly they had the power to prevent it. He had hoped that the mode
572
that he had before suggested would have been adopted, but as that was not the case he could only advise his hon. Friends not to waste their time by raising their voices any longer against adjourning the further consideration of the Bill, by using their power of resisting, as hon. Gentlemen opposite did of proposing, that course. All the gain would be on the side of hon. Gentlemen opposite; therefore he was not disposed to enter into a contest which must end unprofitably. He should accordingly move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Question agreed to.
The House resumed.
Mr. Bernal(The Chairman of the Committee) begged to acquaint the Chair, that certain words had passed between the hon. Member for Lincoln (Col. Sibthorp) and the right hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir John Hobhouse), in the progress of the Committee whose proceedings he had just reported, on which false constructions might be put; he therefore considered it his duty to report the fact to the House. It would be for the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to take that notice of it which he should deem necessary.
The Speaker: Are the hon. Members in the House?
Mr. Bernal: No, Sir.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, I must say, Sir, that I did not hear any words used by the right hon. Member for Nottingham, which any man in his common senses could take offence at.
Mr. Wasonbegged to suggest the propriety of both the hon. Members being taken into custody forthwith.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersubmitted, that the proper course of proceeding would be, to move that both the hon. Members be ordered to attend the House. This would bring them under the jurisdiction of the House, and they could then proceed as they thought proper. He begged to make the motion.
The Speakerput the question, that Sir John Hobhouse and Colonel Sibthorp be ordered to attend in their places.—
Ordered.
After a short interval, Colonel Sibthorp entered the House.
The remaining orders being disposed of,
The Speakersaid, that seeing the hon. Member for Lincoln in his place, it became his duty to acquaint him that the Chair-

573
man of Committees had reported to him that certain words had passed between the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Nottingham, which had been, in his (the Speaker's) opinion, misapprehended and understood in an offensive sense by the hon. Member. He, therefore, required to be informed by the hon. Member whether or no any such feeling existed in his mind?
Colonel Sibthorp: I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, that I have entertained, and must continue to entertain, such an impression, until I find an inclination on the part of the right hon. Member for Nottingham to disavow such an intention. I have but one course to pursue, Sir; I determined upon that course, Sir, when I first entered public life; and I hope the course I have uniformly pursued, both as a military man and a civilian, has never been irreconcileable with the course I ought to pursue. Sir, I have but one course to pursue; it is the maintenance of, I hope, unimpeachable honour, and, I trust unimpeachable courage. I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, that I did receive those words, and that I shall continue to receive them, in a manner offensive to me. As a man of honour, I have but this course to pursue; and this being the case, it is my inflexible determination to pursue no other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas quite certain that the general expression of opinion which had fallen from the hon. Member, contained those principles by which every other hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to regulate his own conduct. For the moment, however—he meant no offence in this—he wished to leave the hon. Gentleman entirely out of the question, and to appeal to the personal and political friends who sat around him. He appealed to them for the accuracy of his interpretation of what had taken place. He really did not apprehend that any circumstance had occurred in the course of the debate in Committee, of which any hon. Gentleman had a right to take personal notice. He wished it to be understood that he was not now arguing the case of the hon. Member for Lincoln, because he wished to remove him altogether from the scene. The occurrence was simply this: a laugh took place on the Opposition side of the House; it might have occurred on the Ministerial side. Upon this, his right hon. Friend,
574
translating a Latin proverb, said, "few things are more foolish than a foolish laugh." Now, he put it to hon. Members whether if an hon. Gentleman took such a remark as this to himself, he might not with equal propriety construe almost every remark which was made in that House into a very serious personal affront. No personal offence could have been intended. The hon. Gentleman laughed certainly, but so did other hon. Members. He would put it to the hon. and good-humoured laughers opposite, whether they had felt affronted by the observation of his right hon. Friend? Well, they had not felt it any very heavy personal offence. The hon. Member for Lincoln should remember, too, that he had deprived his right hon. Friend of a reply, by leaving the House first. In his absence, however, his right hon. Friend had replied; and in that reply he had unequivocally stated that he had meant no offence whatever to anyone. Under these circumstances, he put it to the judgment and good sense of the hon. Members around the hon. Gentleman, whether it would not be misapplying the powers of the House and the functions of its Speaker to interfere at all in the present case.
Mr. Eatonfelt bound to state, for the information of the House, and the satisfaction of the gallant Colonel, that he had been informed by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Poulett Thomson), that he was quite sure no personal offence had been intended by the right hon. Member for Nottingham.
Colonel Sibthorp Colonel Sibthorp, being loudly called for, said that so long as he was under the Speaker's authority, he was bound to abide by his decision; but he would rather vacate his seat in Parliament than bend to anything which was contrary to his feelings, or yield to anything which he considered an affront, or, he would add, an insult. If the communication he had heard, however, came from the right hon. Member for Nottingham, himself, he had no other course to pursue but to say that he was perfectly satisfied with it.
Subject dropped.

MINUTES
Petitions presented. By Lord DACRE, from Stanstead, for the Abolition of Church-rates—By Earl GREY, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for their Lordships to reconsider the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill; and from Stanstead, far the Abolition of Church-rates.

BIRMINGHAM AND BRISTOL RAILWAY.
The Marquess of Clanricardemoved that the Birmingham, Bristol, and Thames Junction Railway Bill be read a third time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had a clause to propose for the purpose of attaining the object which he had on a former evening explained to their Lordships. He did not understand that there was any objection on the part of their Lordships to some measure of this description being adopted. At the same time he had seen in circulation a paper signed by certain persons interested in railways, in which they set forth their objection to a clause of this nature. He conceived that it was in the power of their Lordships to attach any condition they might think it their duty to impose on any parties who came before them for powers to construct a railway or any other kind of work; and, as railways were in general a novelty in this country, and as they were now carried on to a very great extent, he thought it was expedient that Parliament should have time to consider the subject, in order that they might be able to make such regulations as might he found necessary to render them beneficial to the public, and prevent their becoming monopolies in the hands of particular individuals; for which there would be no remedy whatever except the construction of other railroads, to the great injury of private property, and the comfort and happiness of those living in the line of direction of these works. Under these circumstances, understanding, as he did, that some members of the Government, and gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, had turned their attention to the subject, and intended to bring in a Bill to enable Parliament to regulate these works to a greater extent than it at present had the power to do, he felt it his duty to propose to their Lordships to add a clause to the Bill to the following effect: —Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to the exemption of this or any other railroad from the provisions of any general Act or general Acts for the regulation of railroads, which may be passed with a view to the advantage, protection, and security of the public, before the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act, if Parliament shall be sitting at the expiration of such period of one year, or

541
if Parliament should not be then sitting, before the end of the then next session. The noble Duke concluded by moving that this clause be added to the Bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to the clause, not with reference to this particular Bill, but he objected to it because he thought it was inexpedient and unjust for Parliament to introduce such a clause in any of the Railway Bills that were now in progress through Parliament. If it was necessary to adopt any measure whatever for the future regulation of railways, it ought to be made retrospective, and should apply to all Bills that had been passed by Parliament. It was ridiculous to say, that because certain Bills happened to be a few days later than others in their passage through the two Houses, therefore certain restrictive provisions should be applied to them, from which all other Bills were excepted. In point of justice, he contended that the case was as strong in favour of the Bills now pending, as if they had actually passed through Parliament. If their Lordships would turn to the Report of the Select Committee, which sat on the standing orders, with respect to Railway Bills, they would see that the Committee directly stated, that although, on examination of the standing orders, they deeply felt that some change was necessary, yet considering that all the Bills which were then pending had been introduced on the faith of those orders, they thought it advisable to make as little change as possible in any regulations by which those Bills might be affected. Large sums had been subscribed upon the faith of Parliament requiring only their standing orders to be observed, and it would be unjust now to turn round upon the parties and take advantage of the mere circumstance of their Bills not having actually passed into a law. If their Lordships adopted the clause now proposed by the noble Duke, they would hold out to the country the assurance that they were about to pass some new law respecting railroads. Whenever any such measure should be proposed, he should give it full consideration; but he must remark, that no plan had yet been so matured as to be fit to be proposed to Parliament. In the speech of Mr. Morrison, published in the shape of a pamphlet, he found a plan suggested, to which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had the very greatest objection. He would not, however, discuss that plan at present, but would content
542
himself with saying, that it was most inexpedient to pledge the House to take any future steps on the subject, at a time when they were not able to say in what manner they could do so upon safe grounds. The consequence of so pledging themselves would be the putting a stop to all these undertakings for one or two years. That might be a good, or it might be an evil; but he would contend that it would be of the greatest disservice to the capitalist. There was a great mass of capital in this country that must be employed, and if it had no fair means of being employed here, it would be employed abroad. No doubt some of the speculations that were now on foot had been rashly and foolishly entered into; but all those great and useful works which were undertaken in other countries were undertaken by the Government of the country, and therefore the Government had a right to place what restraints they pleased on the mode of conducting those works; but in this country the case was quite different, joint-stock companies managed all such undertakings, and as a general proposition, those companies might be said to be most useful to the nation. He did not, however, mean to deny that every scheme to which Parliament lent its sanction ought to be well scrutinized; but he would repeat, that it was unjust to those who had embarked in these undertakings, and had entered into large contracts on the faith of Parliament, to subject them to restrictions beyond what the standing orders imposed; while it would be most unwise for Parliament to pledge itself to the adoption of a new course of legislation, without being capable of determining what that course should be.
The Earl of Mansfieldconfessed, that the clause of the noble Duke was not, in his opinion, satisfactory. It was not sufficiently definite in its object. Considering the great number of projected railways, and the vast sums of money embarked in them, he thought it very important that his Majesty's Ministers should take the matter into consideration with a view to bringing forward some plan for the regulation of these undertakings; and he hoped, if they were not able to do so this session, that they would be prepared to propose some measure for that purpose early in the next. If, however, any restrictions should be imposed that were too severe, the spirit and enterprise of the public would be checked, and this country, instead of being pre-eminent for

543
the accumulation of capital, and the judicious employment of it, would be deserted by the capitalists, who would resort to other countries where they would be at liberty to embark unfettered in their speculations. But while he deprecated any unnecessary restraint on the one hand, still some regulation was absolutely necessary for the protection of the public on the other; nor could any moderate restrictions be fairly or reasonably opposed by the joint-stock companies themselves. Those persons claimed a monopoly upon grounds that the undertaking would not only be beneficial to themselves, but would be for the interest of the public. If so, then unquestionably the public had a right to have their interests protected, as well as the interests of the companies in these undertakings. He perfectly agreed with the noble Marquess, that the standing orders of the House were alone the guide to parties who brought forward these Bills; but he was also of opinion that those standing orders required to be modified, so that parties might hereafter know what restrictions and conditions would be required of them, and what were the terms upon which they could apply to Parliament with any hope of success. This was the more necessary in consequence of the manner in which Bills were disposed of in Committee. Things might be introduced into private Bills in Committees, which if proposed in the House would not be sanctioned. The noble Duke endeavoured last year to provide for the better attendance in Committees; but his exertions had failed to produce any material improvement; with respect to the present clause, he thought it would be better to wait for the Report of the Select Committee that was now sitting on the subject, before they adopted it. There was one other point to which he wished to advert. Many of these undertakings, no doubt, might be attended with benefit to the public, though of no benefit to the individuals embarking in them. Still when persons had obtained legislative protection for their monopoly, and had made an acquisition of property by it, the public had a right to insist that the communications which were proposed to be made should be effected within a certain period, to be fixed by Parliament. He knew an instance of a Canal Company being formed, and six miles of the canal being cut, when the undertaking was abandoned, so that
544
the six miles of the canal was rendered totally useless, except being converted into a fish-pond. Some security ought, therefore, to be given to the public, that those communications from one part of the country to another, which was the ground of the monopoly asked for, and of the protection given, should be established and maintained, whatever might be the loss to the projectors; and this only could be done by making the subscribers responsible for a sum in addition to the amount of their own shares. He agreed with the noble Marquess, that it was perfectly impossible to apply this clause to Bills that had already been passed. Those companies had obtained a freehold, and their Lordships could not convert that freehold into a leasehold. It was an inconvenience certainly, but it was one to which they must submit. With regard to other Bills which might hereafter be introduced, it was perfectly true that there was a degree of hardship in having additional restrictions imposed on them, but it was, he believed, inevitable. One party might say, "How fortunate it was for us that these matters did not occur to their Lordships before our Bill was passed;" while the other party might exclaim, "How unfortunate it was that their Lordships did not slumber on for a few days more until our Bill had passed." What he would submit to the noble Duke was, that it would be better to postpone this clause, in order that they might apply to these Bills a positive rather than an unsettled and uncertain regulation. By the Bill as it was now framed, it would not apply in positive and express terms any greater obligation than was imposed upon the parties by the standing orders. But they accompanied it with a clause that held forth the threat of some future restrictions. They, in fact, made the measure like a pair of scales. In the one scale all the advantages were given to the projector, which were contemplated as the result of the speculation; while in the other scale they reserved to themselves the right of putting in a great additional weight, such as might counterbalance all those advantages. Because, after reading this clause, it as impossible for any one to say what it was their Lordships might hereafter be disposed to do. This clause would not give to the projectors of these undertakings the opportunity which they now had, under the positive regulations of the standing orders, of with-

545
drawing from the concern altogether, and of weighing in their minds whether it would not be better for them to submit to the expense which they had already incurred, and abandon the undertaking altogether, than go on with it. But by this clause the parties would be variously influenced. Some would be induced to believe, that the further restrictions that would be imposed on them would be so trifling as not to discourage them in prosecuting their work, while others, less sanguine, would apprehend that the restrictions would be so extensive, that they had better abandon the speculation altogether. Upon the whole, therefore, whether their Lordships should think it right at this moment to interfere with these companies, by any positive enactment or not, he thought it would, at all events, be improper to adopt this clause.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that even if it were admitted that their Lordships had authority to introduce a clause of this kind into the Bill, still he would submit to the noble Duke, that this was not the proper time for effecting his object. It was clearly desirable that all parties who were now prosecuting Railway Bills through Parliament should have notice that a similar clause would be applied to them. They were arrived, it was true, at a late period of the session, but it was equally certain that the session must last sufficiently long to allow the subscribers to these different projects to hold meetings, in order to consider whether it would be for their interest to accept their Bills on the terms proposed by this clause. To be sure, that proposition was open to one objection—namely, that even if they agreed to accept the Bill with this clause, they would still be kept in a state of uncertainty as to what measure of restriction they would be subjected to. The question then was, whether it was right or fair, at this period, to insert any such clause. He was of opinion that their Lordships could not, with justice, insert a clause of this description. There was no precedent in the case of private Bills, where the House had enforced on the parties any regulation or restriction of which they had not been given full notice in the course of the previous session. It was impossible to entertain this Clause without adverting to the principle of the measure to which the Clause itself had reference. He thought their Lordships
546
would be committing an act of folly to support a Clause of this description, because they would be supporting that which could have no effect. He did not agree with the noble Earl (Mansfield) that Railway Companies were likely to become monopolies. For his own part he saw no difference between a Railway Company and a Canal Company; and he should be glad to know from the noble Duke why he did not propose to apply this principle to canals as well as to railways? It was, no doubt, true that seventy or eighty years ago, when branch canals were beginning to be formed in different parts of the country, persons opposed them as being monopolies. The road trustees and the mortgagees of tolls opposed them with the greatest violence, and denounced them as monopolies. He would take, for instance, the Mersey canal, which ran through a great part of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Cheshire. It was stated in another place that a 50 l. share in that canal now sold for 600 l. No doubt during the war the profits of that canal were very great. But at the conclusion of the war, when the capital of the country was necessarily applied to projects of domestic enterprise, some parties suggested a railroad, for the purpose of competing with that canal. What was the result? The parties opposed it, and then a canal was cut between Liverpool and Manchester. But that was not all. No sooner had a new canal been cut, than a railroad was also formed, and thus three lines of communication were established; and yet this was called a monopoly. By these means the share which during the war had become worth 1,200 l., had been actually brought down to 600 l. The same result would happen with respect to railroads; when they had been established fifteen or twenty years, they would be subject to a like competition, and would cease, as canals had done, being monopolies. The proposal now made was scarcely a new one. When the Manchester and Liverpool Railway Bill was first introduced, it was rejected, and Mr. Huskisson turned the matter in his mind with a view to conciliate the opposition to it. It was proposed either to limit the time of the Act or the profits of the Company. Mr. Huskisson immediately felt it would be most unjust to check a speculation of this description by endeavouring to limit the time of the Act. It was a perfectly new

547
principle. He therefore proposed to restrict the amount of the dividends, and that the tolls should be reduced when the profits yielded more than 10 per cent. But he (Lord Hatherton) had often heard Mr. Huskisson himself acknowledge that that was a perfectly futile step, and must entirely fail, because there would always be means found for disposing of the profits, without the owners ever dividing more than 10 percent.; so that, in point of fact, all that was gained by the measure was the passing of the Bill without further expense to the parties. It was a proposition for taxing the stock of the railway companies. If they did so capitalists would go to Brussels, and even to Paris, and invest their money where they could do so without having it taxed. He had heard it said, that lighthouses were granted only for a term; but there was no analogy between the case of lighthouses and the case of railroads. It was also said, that the interests in turnpike roads were also limited; but still there was no analogy between turnpike roads and railroads. Turnpike roads were made by gentlemen for the benefit of their own estates, and who did not mind expending 1,000 l. or 2,000 l, for that purpose. But, unfortunately for the noble Duke, there was a complete analogy in the case of canals and railroads; but it never had been attempted to limit the profits of canals, and therefore they, ought not to do so with respect to railroads. References had also been made to the railways in the United States of North America; but then, again, there was no analogy between the two cases. The railways in America were not of the same description as this country. They were not constructed on the nicest regard to the gradients as they were here, nor were they attended with that enormous expense to obtain levels as in England. They were worked principally by horse power. They could never induce persons in this country to incur expense on these great undertakings, unless they gave them the fullest security for any profit that might result from them. He believed that the right plan for their Lordships to adopt would be, to scrutinise with great care all the projects that came before them, and unceremoniously to reject those which did not promise to confer some subtantial advantage on the public. He thought their Lordships would do only that which was prudent and right, if they rejected at
548
once all projects of this description which were not strongly recommended by convincing evidence of public utility. By adopting this course the public would be fully protected, whilst the parties more immediately engaged in the enterprise would only undergo the inconvenience of a year's delay; it being perfectly competent to them to bring the subject forward again in another session of Parliament. On the other hand, if their Lordships inserted a clause of this description in every Bill that came before them, they would be robbing the public of all that advantage which arose from competition. He, therefore, was disposed to think, that the clause proposed by the noble Duke, having reference to a measure not yet before Parliament, and of the provisions of which it was as yet impossible to form any judgment, was a Clause which could not be supported on the ground either of principle or sound policy.
The Earl of Wicklow The Earl of Wicklow, without any knowledge of the different Railway Bills which then lay upon their Lordships' table, thought that the effect of such a clause as that proposed by the noble Duke would be to paralyse the exertions of those who had embarked in those great enterprises from which, under proper regulations, so much national benefit was to be expected. At all events he felt convinced, that this must be the effect of the clause as long as the nature and character of the measure to which it was ultimately to apply, remained unknown. By adopting such a resolution, too, their Lordships must remember that they would be frustrating one of the great objects of their own Standing Orders, of which it was declared, that before any Bill in the nature of a Railway Bill should be allowed to pass through Committee, it should first be clearly ascertained, that there was a sufficient number of bonâ fide subscribers to complete the undertaking. As it was impossible that any one could know the nature of the Bill to which this resolution would hereafter apply, persons, however much they might otherwise be disposed to embark in enterprises of this description, would, whilst the uncertainty remained, be shy of becoming subscribers to any project of the kind. He, besides, conceived that nothing could be more unjust than to attach a condition of this kind to all Bills before the House, unless it were also made to have a retrospective effect,

549
and to apply equally to all Bills which had already passed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Mansfield) who spoke from the table, said, that he thought a Committee of their Lordships ought to be appointed to give a full and fair consideration to the matter. He agreed with the noble Earl in that opinion. He thought that their Lordships should appoint, at a very early period, a Committee for the purpose of considering how, consistently with the well-being of the country, with the maintenance of private property, and the interest of the public, they could so frame and model their Standing Orders as to meet the pressing demands which at present arose out of questions of this description. Unless this were done, he thought their Lordships would incur the blame of throwing great impediments in the way of those useful measures which were now in progress through the country. He was most anxious that that House should not be supposed to throw unnecessary obstacles in the way of such measures.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion, that if their Lordships appointed a Committee for the purpose of considering their standing orders, and of applying the result of that consideration to the Railway Bills then before the House, they would be adopting a much harsher measure towards them, than if they acquiesced in the clause which he proposed. The consequence of adopting the mode of proceeding suggested by the noble Earl, would be to stop all the Railroad Bills then before the House, until the result of the Committees' consideration of the standing orders should be made known. That which he proposed to their Lordships was, that they should insert into each of these Bills a clause, which should render the works proposed to be accomplished under them liable to any future general provision which Parliament in its wisdom should think fit to adopt for the regulation of all undertakings of this kind. The noble Lord (Hatherton) who spoke from the opposite side of the House, contemplated the possibility of rejecting these Bills, and of postponing the consideration of them till another session of Parliament, by which time some general provision might be adopted. But he did not desire to reject these Bills. He desired that they should go on; but since they had been before Parliament, it had been the universal opinion that some general provision should be made for their
550
regulation. That had been the expressed opinion of the other House of Parliament, and it appeared from what had been stated by his noble Friend near him, that it was the opinion of their Lordships' House also. He asked their Lordships, then, to adopt this clause, with the view of giving the public the advantage of the future consideration of Parliament, with respect to all those vast undertakings in the shape of railways which were at present advancing. The noble Lord (Hatherton) who spoke just now, said, that there was no chance of these establishments becoming monopolies. But he thought, that the noble Lord, at the very time that he made that assertion, stated enough to show that where successful these establishments were likely to become monopolies, and, moreover, that the remedy for the monopoly would consist of that very thing to which he (the Duke of Wellington)had objected, and expressed his anxiety to avoid, namely, the construction of other roads of the same description in the same parts of the country. This was the very thing which it was one of the chief objects of his clause to prevent. He had no objection whatever to the construction of these works where-ever it could be proved to the satisfaction of both Houses of Parliament that they would be useful; but what he desired was, that they might not have the country cut up in all directions by roads of this description, merely for the purpose of getting rid of monopolies, the establishment of which it should be the care of Parliament to prevent in the first instance. That was all that he wished their Lordships to provide for. He did not ask them to go into a long inquiry, or to frame for themselves regulations which might throw impediments in the way of these works. That which he asked them to do was, to provide the means of applying any regulation which Parliament, after due consideration, might think proper to adopt. Was it not better that they should adopt such a course than follow the suggestion of the noble Lord (Hatherton) opposite, and throw all these Bills over till another session of Parliament. That noble Lord had adverted to the case of the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, in which a limitation of profits was imposed by the Legislature. He (the Duke of Wellington) did not now recommend any such measure to their Lordships. In point of fact, he did not recommend any thing to them.

551
All that he desired was, that Parliament might hereafter have the opportunity of applying to all the Bills now in progress any general regulation which it might think proper to adopt. He said that there was a growing feeling in that House, and in the other House of Parliament, that the Legislature had gone too fast upon this subject, and that the subject did require further and more mature consideration. All that he entreated their Lordships to do was, to enable themselves and the other House of Parliament to consider the subject maturely in the course of this and the next session of Parliament.
Lord Ashburtonthought, although the matter came before them in the shape of a private measure, that a more important subject could not occupy their Lordships' attention. As regarded the question immediately before them, he confessed that after having looked at it with the best attention he could bestow, it did appear to him to be one of very considerable embarrassment, and he certainly could not take the very positive view of it either on one side or the other, that some noble Lords seemed disposed to do. The Bills, of which a number were then on their Lordships' table, had gone through the forms of both Houses, and stood, some of them, for a third reading that night. Of their Lordships' right, even in that last stage, to insert a clause of this description, he had not the smallest doubt. Their Lordships had not only the right, but it was their duty, before these Bills were passed into laws, to adopt any course with respect to them which they thought would be just to the parties, and advantageous to the public. Parties engaged in private Bills could not be considered as having any Parliamentary pledge, or any equitable pledge of any kind whatever, for the success of their undertaking, until those Bills had been read a third time by both Houses of Parliament. It would indeed be a bad precedent for their Lordships to establish, to say that any party should have a right to speculate, or to rely on what the decision of Parliament should be until that decision was finally given. But with regard to the present subject, Parliament stood in this position—that having passed some of these measures, scruples came over the other branch of the Legislature, as to whether the public were sufficiently protected against monopoly, or something else which might operate pre-
552
judicially; and a sort of reliance was thrown upon their Lordships for the adoption of some general provision, by which those anticipated evils might be avoided. He apprehended, therefore, that, if their Lordships read these Bills a third time without coming to some conclusion upon the point, the Commons would think that they had not given to the subject the consideration which its great importance demanded and required. He totally differed from the noble Lord (Hatherton) opposite, when he stated that there was no precedent for the insertion of a restrictive clause in measures of this description. He thought that a precedent was to be found in the very Bill to which the noble Lord had referred—that under which the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was constructed. In that Bill Mr. Huskisson introduced a clause to limit the profits. [Lord Hatherton: With the consent of the Company.] The Company were not brought very voluntarily to give their consent to a restriction of that kind. The Company certainly would not desire a clause of that description; and if they were induced to give their consent to it, he fancied there must have been exercised some strong persuasion, or perhaps even a little gentle enforcement. He thought, therefore, he might take the Manchester and Liverpool Railway as an instance in which a precedent was established for the insertion of a restrictive clause. The question for their Lordships to consider was, whether it were wise and prudent to insert into all Bills a clause of that description. He (Lord Ashburton) had a very strong feeling, not only that it was not the duty of Parliament to check the spirit of adventure in works of this nature, but that it should give every encouragement that a Legislature could give to the enterprise of the country, consistent with a due regard to the security of private property. When he first read the clause proposed by the noble Duke, it appeared to him to be most unobjectionable; but the difficulty attending it was this, that it would create uncertainty and doubt in the minds of those who had embarked in works in which the whole country might now be said to be interested. The clause imposed no specific restriction which the adventurers could know and understand before their works were commenced; but rendered them liable to any restraint which Parliament, in the course of another year, might think fit to impose. This would have the effect of deterring parties from

553
investing their capital in works of this description until the ultimate determination of Parliament were made known. He therefore thought that their Lordships should appoint a Committee to clear the matter up, and to hear the opinions of the parties who had suggested the necessity of this precaution. He thought that a Committee, sitting eight or ten days, would as satisfactorily settle the question as their Lordships could possibly do, by leaving it to be bandied about from this time till the next Session of Parliament. He thought it would be fairer to the parties, and more beneficial to the country, to give eight or ten days to a thorough sifting of the matter, than to leave it in a state of uncertainty for another year. To any limitation of time, he thought there would be many objections, but he saw none of the same reasons for objecting to a limitation of profits. The noble Lord (Hatherton) had stated, that the provision for limiting the profits of the Company in the case of the Liverpool and Manchester railway had been constantly evaded; but that must have been from the awkwardness of the manner in which the clause was framed. Any person of ordinary capacity, he thought, would be able to frame a clause which should be effectual. This, he thought would be a fit matter of consideration before a Committee. Then the noble Duke had stated a difficulty, and a very serious one it was—namely, that of having the country cut up by a variety of railroads running between the same places. This, again, was a fit subject for inquiry and consideration. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he thought it would be their Lordships best course to appoint a Committee, which would not sit more than eight or ten days, for the purpose of determining upon some general regulation which should be applicable to all Bills of this description. By adopting that course their Lordships would remove all the doubt or apprehension which would naturally exist in the minds of the parties engaged in these undertakings as long as they were rendered liable to some ulterior measure, with the provisions of which they were wholly unacquainted.
Lord Kenyonthought it would be most unjust that their Lordships should apply any restrictive clause to the Bills now in progress which was not made equally applicable to all Bills of the same description which had already passed. He had great doubt as to the good policy of the clause
554
proposed by the noble Duke. The subject was one which undoubtedly ought not to be hastily determined upon, and he therefore trusted that the Government would take it into their serious consideration.
The Marquess of Lansdownewould endeavour, in as few words as possible, to state the grounds on which he did not feel inclined to oppose the motion of the noble Duke. Although the matter came before them in the shape of a private Bill, he was not surprised, seeing the important view in which it had been taken up by the noble Duke, that it had attracted the general attention of the House, and been considered, as indeed it was, a public question of the first magnitude. He therefore was extremely glad to perceive the general attention which had been paid to it. Although the resolution proposed by the noble Duke contained some few words which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would rather see omitted, yet he must say that, looking at the general terms in which that resolution was framed, he did not perceive a design on the part of the noble Duke (nor did he think that there ought at that moment to be a design entertained by Parliament) to limit the parties engaged in these undertakings, in any one respect, with a view to any future enactment on this subject. He did not understand that the noble Duke wished even to prejudge so much of the question as might apply to the Bills which had not yet passed into a law. If there were any advantage to be gained by undertakings of this kind, which had already been completed, not being subject to any proposed new law which might be enacted upon the subject, he confessed he should not grudge to them any advantages they might gain from the exemption. He regarded these early undertakings as pioneers in the march of improvement, and in the advances of measures of public utility, necessarily encountering risks greater than any that could attach to those which followed after them, and consequently well entitled to any advantage which the comparatively different state of the law at the time they were undertaken might afford them. But when he said, that he did not grudge to those earlier undertakings any advantage they might possess, he did not mean to admit that by any new law that Parliament might adopt, any material disadvantage would be thrown on the undertakings now in progress, or under the considera-

555
tion of the Legislature, or even that they! might not derive a distinct advantage from the new regulations which the Legislature might adopt. It was on that account that he confessed he should rather see some of the words introduced by the noble Duke in his motion omitted, and that the clause should confine itself merely to this—that the parties should continue subject to any general Act or Acts for the regulation of railroads, &c, omitting the words, "with a view to the protection, advantage, and security of the public." It was possible, he thought, that these words might be interpreted out of the House in a way to create alarm in the minds of persons about to embark in such undertakings; and this assertion applied particularly to the word "advantage," because it might be stated that it would be for the advantage of the public that the tolls on railroads should be reduced to a degree which would entirely deprive the proprietors of the fair and just remuneration which they would have a right to expect. But to make all railways subject to any provision or regulation which the interests of the public might demand, and which, in fact, might be taken as including the interests of the Company also, he could not conceive the slightest objection. He was well aware of the immense advantage which the rapid mode of transit presented by railways afforded to commerce and manufactures; and he was sure Parliament would pause before it did anything to deprive the public of the advantage to be gained from such undertakings. He did not see that a railroad could in any way be compared with a turnpike road; they were, in fact, entirely different. The public could enter upon a turnpike road, and take possession of it at once; but how could the public take possession or make use of a railroad? Railroads were also different in their nature from canals; for on the latter the public were their own carriers. Still he thought it desirable that Parliament should take precautions to prevent the locking-up of a railroad, which might happen to be, in the particular district where it was placed, the best possible means of intercourse. He did not mean to discuss the measure, which, it was understood, would be introduced in another place; but he was glad to have the opportunity of stating that, in his opinion, such an enactment should not insist on certain periodical revisions being
556
made. It would be unjust to throw upon the parties engaged in railroad undertakings the burden of getting Acts of such a nature passed into law. The Acts ought to be considered as public instead of private, and there ought to be some competent authority to judge whether within a given time a revision ought to be instituted with reference to the public interest.
Lord Wharncliffetrusted, that whatever general measure might be passed, it would apply to the railroads which had already been sanctioned by the Legislature, otherwise great injustice would be done to those who had engaged in new under takings.
The Earl of Winchilseathought the House ought to feel indebted to the noble Duke for the proposition he had made. The subject was a most important one, for not less than 60,000,000 l. was embarked in railroad speculations. He was of opinion that some steps should be taken to protect the interests of those Gentlemen who were obliged to give up their property to enable these railroads to be formed, and who sometimes suffered considerably in consequence of the undertaking not being completed.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought that railroads forming under Bills which had already passed, ought to be subject to the operation of any general measure which might be introduced. The object of the present Bill was to extend the Birmingham and London Railroad into the heart of the city, and unless the general measure which had been alluded to had a retrospective effect, the consequence would be, that one portion of the railroad would be subject to its operation, while the remainder of the line would be entirely exempt from it.
The Duke of Richmondtook the present opportunity of observing, that one of the great grievances of which the public had a right to complain was the manner in which railroads were first undertaken. The House could not but be aware that the first step taken by the promoters of any railway was to apply to the great landed proprietors, and if they opposed the undertaking, their lands were purchased at more than ten times the value, and they then became supporters of the proposed railroad, while the small occupiers were compelled to take the promoters' price. He thought that some alteration

557
ought to be made in the standing orders, to the effect that, previous to the third reading of such Bills, the promoters ought to state to the House the agreements entered into between them and the land-Owners whose property was affected. If this were done, it would be seen that agreements for purchases had been made by them at sixty and seventy years' purchase. While he did not think it right now to interfere with parties who had expended between 50,000 l. and 60,000 l. on the faith of the standing orders and practice of Parliament, he should support the proposition of the noble Duke, and he should at the proper time also give his support to the motion of the noble Marquess (Salisbury) for the appointment of a Committee on the subject.
Lord Ellenboroughtrusted, that he never should give a vote that was not founded on equity, and he felt satisfied that he was not acting contrary to equity in giving his support to the proposition of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington). He saw a great distinction between Bills which had passed, and Bills which were to be passed, and he was convinced that it was infinitely better for the country that compensation—monstrous in amount as it might be—should be given, rather than that the faith of Parliament should be compromised. Noble Lords seemed to forget that there were always two parties to measures like the present—the promoters of the work, and the parties whose property was to be affected and injured, and it was for the protection of their interests and those of the public that he (Lord Ellenborough) acquiesced in the proposition of the noble Duke. It was said, that railroads had been most beneficial in manufacturing and commercial districts. He would not attempt to question that assertion, but simply ask what would be their effect in agricultural districts? There they would cut off the present easy means of communication; they would form an impassable torrent, an Alpine mountain of difficulty in that respect, and the parties whose lands were intersected would be compelled to come to Parliament for private Bills to enable them to construct and open new means of communication to the various parts of their lands. The promoters of this Bill received a been by its becoming law, and the clause proposed did nothing more than intimate to them that the been con-
558
ferred was to be accompanied by restrictions.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he would not withdraw his opposition to the clause proposed by the noble Duke. He stood upon the faith of the standing orders, upon which the promoters had relied.
The House divided on the question that "the clause be inserted," when there appeared, Content 33; Not Content 15: Majority 18.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Dukes.

Rodney.

Richmond.

Scarborough.

Marquesses.

Wicklow.

Clanricarde. (Lord

Lords.

Somerhill.)

Glenelg.

Earls.

Hatherton.

Burlington.

Kenyon.

Chichester.

Teynham.

Dartmouth.

Bishop

Mansfield.

Exeter.

Radnor.

Clause added, Bill read a third time, and passed.