Sitting of 6 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Law of Copyright.
Petitions presented. By several hon. Members, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates By several other hon. Members, from various places, against the abolition of Church-rates. —By Mr. BAGSHAW, from merchants of London, to promote steam communication with India viâ the Red Sea.—By Mr. WILKS, from householders of Cripplegate Without, for a reform of the Corporation of London.

LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAYS.
Mr. Curteissaid, that it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had presented several petitions from a Mr. Mills, asking for a Select Committee on the ground that the promoters of Ste-phenson's line had given false evidence before the Committee on private bills. These persons were reported to have alleged, that they had complied with the standing orders in every particular. Now,
1216
in no less than thirty-seven out of fifty-five miles, they had not complied with the standing orders. There were, besides, twenty-one other instances of non-compliance with those orders on their part. He next came to that part of the notice in which he had declared, that he should call before the notice of the House the conduct of Government respecting the several Brighton Railways; and he felt he could not possibly be placed in a situation of more difficulty than that in which he now stood, being most unwilling to make any violent charges against a set of gentlemen to whom he had ever given his most cordial support; and it was only from his sense of what was due to a very large body of his constituents, that he had been induced to take this course. Two requisitions, most respectably signed, had that day reached him, desiring that he would call the attention of the House to the conduct pursued by his Majesty's Government on a late occasion. He felt most strongly the injustice of the usage his constituents had received. If he were to consult his own feelings, undoubtedly he should use stronger language; but he would then only say, that, considering gross injustice to have been done to a large portion of his constituents, he never would consent to sit quiet, whether he were an adherent of one Government or another, without raising his voice in reprobation of that injustice. A requisition was almost momentarily got up, and signed by nearly 400 persons, calling a large town meeting to take this subject into consideration. He would move, that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. Mills, which was presented on the 2nd of May last, relative to the conduct of certain parties in respect to Stephenson's line of Brighton Railway, and to the conduct of Government with respect to the same Railway."
Captain Pechellmust say, that it appeared to him that Ministers had acted partially; as he could not conceal from himself the fact, that they had lent themselves to a party against which a large majority of the Committee of that House had decided. The conduct of his Majesty's Ministers had excited an extraordinary sensation amongst his constituents; and if such conduct were continued, he must cease to give them that support which he had hitherto so strenuously, cheerfully, and

1217
cordially given them. He thought, that they had been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. P. Thomson). Delay was the object of all these proceedings, and to that delay the Government had most unjustifiably lent themselves. With respect to a statement which had been made on a former evening as to a noble Lord, the Member for Hythe (Lord Melgund), voting on this Bill, forty-eight hours after he had taken his seat; he (Captain Pechell) could state, that that noble Lord had been canvassed by the other party for his vote, almost, he believed, before the writ was sent down to Hythe; and what was also extraordinary, the noble Lord (Lord A. Lennox) who made the accusation, had himself attended only four days out of the twenty-seven during which the Committee had sat.
Mr. C. Barclayopposed the motion. It would be highly inexpedient for the House to appoint a Committee, for it could lead to no result; and he did not, for a moment suppose, that the hon. Member would divide upon the question. The charge against the Ministry he considered to be totally unfounded; the course they had taken, was one which they had a perfect right to take.
Sir H. Verneysaid, that in his opinion, so far from the Government deserving censure for the course they had adopted on this occasion, he was inclined to charge them with neglect in not having adopted some such course before. It was not, however, now too late; and he thought it was the duty of the Government immediately to appoint a Commission of Military and Scientific Engineers to inquire into the subject of all Railroads—a subject which involved such an enormous amount of property—and to report thereon to the House. This course would be much more creditable to the House, and more advantageous to the country.
Mr. Humethought, that the motion of his hon. Friend would not answer the object he had in view, and he therefore hoped he would withdraw it, and allow his (Mr. Hume's) motion on the same subject to come on.
Mr. Curteissaid, as he saw the feeling of the House was against him, he would not give it the trouble of dividing.
Motion withdrawn,
Mr. Humerose to move, that all the documents Find surveys relating to Mills's
1218
line of Railway to Brighton, be referred to the engineer, who should be directed to report upon it in the same manner as on the other lines. He brought forward this motion in consequence of the proceedings that had taken place on a former evening in that House, regarding the Report of the Committee on the Brighton Railways, when the Report of the Committee was set aside, and the matter referred to a military engineer. The proceedings of that day had entirely altered the rules of the House with regard to the Committees, and he thought it highly important that some final decision should be come to. He must say, that in his opinion the conduct of the Government on this subject, was quite inconsistent. They were condemning the course one day, which they recommended and established on the next. When some short time since his hon. Friend, the Member for Southwark (Mr. Harvey), proposed that the Government should appoint some person to make inquiry into every line of Railroad before a Bill was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, objected to it; and shortly after, when the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir H. Verney), brought forward a motion for the appointment of a Commission of Military Engineers for the same purpose, the right hon. Gentleman also objected to it. What was the result? On Thursday last, the Committee which had decided in favour of Sir J. Rennie's line, brought up their Report. If the usual course had been followed—if justice had been done —if the Government had not interfered, that House would have affirmed the rule laid down; but the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, overruled this, and told the House, that he was not satisfied with the Report of the Committee; and in consequence of the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, by a majority of 164 to 157, the Report of the Committee was set aside. This was in the face of three decisions of the House. He was sure, that the object of referring those lines to an engineer, was to obtain the best line; and there could be no objection to his motion, the object of which was to send Mills's line also to the engineer, so that he might choose out, of the three lines which was the best. This appeared to him to be extremely fair; and he would, therefore, conclude with the motion to this effect.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that if the course which had been adopted on this occasion by the Government, had been pursued two years ago, it would have saved upwards of two millions to the public. The present system was injurious to the public and disgraceful to the Legislature.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonmust say, with reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, he could scarcely believe that the hon. Member was in earnest in making this motion. The hon. Member for Middlesex said, that an engineer was appointed by order of the House to consider certain defined lines of Railway, and that it would be a hard case if they did not take that opportunity of admitting the other (Mills's) line, that its merits might also be ascertained. The hon. Member seemed to forget, that the standing orders stated the practice of the House with regard to private bills; and he seemed also to forget the grounds upon which these orders rested. They were for the protection of private property. Mills's line, as far as he could recollect, came in the ordinary course before the House, and was rejected because the parties had not complied with the standing orders. The subject was mooted in that House, and the House was of opinion that it was impossible to admit this line without contravening the standing orders, and that the parties ought to suffer for the negligence, or omission, or whatever else it was, of the persons who had the introduction of the Bill; and the House declared, that it was impossible to allow the Bill to proceed under these circumstances, unless they were prepared to set aside altogether the standing orders. It seemed to him utterly impossible that this line could be referred under any circumstances with the other two, to the military engineer. He would come, then, to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex, with reference to the motion which had been carried the other day, for referring those lines to an engineer. He must complain of the conduct of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had not given himself any trouble whatever to understand this question, or of learning the course which he had recommended. He was not surprised, seeing clearly the hon. Member did not understand this question, that he should have charged him with inconsistency. He thought he could show
1220
most clearly, that so far from there being any inconsistency in his course, he had been consistent throughout. The charge was, that he had declared himself opposed to a proposition for referring all Railroads to the judgment of some Government engineers; that he then said he was determined to abide by the decision of the Committees, but that he now took a different course. He certainly did declare against referring these Railways, in the first instance, to Government engineers, who should decide upon their merits. He had never stated, that the House was to be guided by the decisions of the Committees; on the contrary, the Report of the Committee in 1836 was in direct opposition to this opinion—this opinion was in direct opposition to the practice which prevailed, and which he had invariably endeavoured to press upon the House. He could refer to the Report of the Committee of 1836, to show that he was correct in this statement. The Report, after stating certain rules and regulations for the conduct of Committees, went on to state, that the Committee most earnestly impressed upon the House the absolute necessity of giving their attention to Bills which came before them upon the further consideration of the Report, and attentively to consider the Report submitted to them, so that the House might be enabled, when competing lines were brought before them, to come to a decision upon the comparative merits of each. These were the principles which he had never ceased to press upon the House in all their discussions. All the information which he (Mr. P. Thomson) had to guide him in this question, was that afforded him by the Committee in the Report, which was made in pursuance of a special order of the House, with a view to assist the House in determining which of the conflicting Railways they should send back to the Committee, for the landowners to be heard with respect to their claims. Now, he had examined this Report, and he could not see that it afforded any satisfactory information on the particular point which the House had to determine, and with a view to determine which this special Report was called for. He would ask any Gentleman who had studied the Report, whether he had found it sufficiently explicit to enable him to make up his mind as to which line should be selected? He thought they would all agree, that the information which

1221
they required was not contained in this Report, and, such being the case, they were called upon to seek it by other means.
Mr. Curteisthought the Committee on this Bill had been very unfairly treated, and that they ought to be allowed to have the military engineer before them, to see whether he was a competent person to give an opinion in the matter.
The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 71: Majority 38.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Musgrave, Sir R., Bt.

Alsager, Captain

O'Brien, W. S.

Alston, Rowland

O'Connell, D.

Beauclerk, Major

Parry, Sir L. P.

Bonham, R. Francis

Pechell, Captain

Bowring, Dr.

Polhill, Captain F.

Bridgman, H.

Ruthven, E.

Chapman, M. L.

Sinclair, Sir George

Collins, W.

Stanley, Edward

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir Geo.

Crawford, W.

Thompson, Colonel

Curteis, H. B.

Tulk, C. A.

Duncombe, T.

Verney, Sir H., Bart.

Elphinstone, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Fector, John Minet

Villiers, C. P.

Forbes, William

Wakley, T.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Walker, Richard

Gordon, R.

Wallace, R.

Hamilton, Geo. Alex.

Wigney, Isaac N.

Hodges, T. T.

Williams, W.

Jervis, John

TELLERS.

Marsland, Henry

Gillon, W. D.

Mullins, hon. F. W.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Heathcote, G. J.

Bailey, J.

Hector, C. J.

Balfour, T.

Heron, Sir R., Bart.

Barclay, C.

Houstoun, G.

Baring, F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lennox, Lord George

Bewes, T.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Biddulph, Robert

Lowther, J. H.

Blunt, Sir C.

Lynch, A. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Mactaggart, J.

Brotherton, J.

Marshall, William

Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde

Maule, hon. F.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Maunsell, T. P.

Chaplin, Colonel

Palmer, George

Clive, Edward Bolton

Pelham, John C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Plumptre, John P.

Dowdeswell, William

Pryse, Pryse

Dunbar, George

Pusey, P.

Fergusson, R. C.

Richards, Richard

Fitzroy, H.

Ross, Charles

Goring, H. D.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Graham, Sir J.

Russell, Lord John

Guest, J. J.

Sandon, Viscount

Hastie, A.

Sanford, E. A.

Hawes, B.

Sheppard, Thomas

Hay, Sir A. L., Bart.

Somerset, Lord G.

1222

Stanley, Lord

Wilde, Sergeant

Steuart, R.

Williams, W. A.

Strangways, hon. J.

Winnington, H. J.

Surrey, Earl of

Wood, Colonel

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wortley, hon. J.

Thomas, Colonel

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Thompson, C. P.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Thompson, Ald.

Young, G. F.

Tooke, W.

TELLERS.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Hope, Henry T.

Vivian, J. H.

Lefevre, Charles S.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Poor-laws (Ireland) Bill.
The Clauses from 49 to 59 were agreed to.
The House resumed; Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord HATHERTON, from Sudbury, that the rates upon small tenements may be paid by the landlords.— By the Bishop of ROCHESTER, the Archbishop of YORK, and the Earl of HAREWOOD, from various places, against the abolition of Church-rates. —By the Earl of FITZWILLIAM, from Morley, in the West Riding of York, for the abolition of the Corn-laws.

PRIVILEGE — COMMONS' RESOLUTIONS.
Lord Ellenboronghsaid, that when the noble and learned Lord opposite had given notice a few days since of his intention that day to take notice of the resolutions which had been recently adopted in the House of Commons, he had ventured, with very great respect, to submit to the noble and learned Lord, that no motion, under the circumstances, ought to be submitted to their Lordships without mature and grave consideration, inasmuch as it would lead to difficulties of no ordinary nature, if they were to entertain a question of privilege without being absolutely obliged to entertain it. He had stated his conviction of this when the noble Lord gave notice of his intention, and since then the consideration he had given the subject had strengthened him in his first impression, and he would therefore venture again to press upon the consideration of the noble and learned Lord what he had then ventured to state; and also that in reference to the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons, although their Lordships could take notice of them in the proceedings of their own, or on a communication to the House of Commons, yet that being so, still as these resolutions had not been communicated to their Lordships, as there had been no step taken for this purpose, and also as the House of Commons had not yet acted upon them, the time had not yet arrived when it would be proper to make a motion with respect to them. He would therefore venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord whether he would not reconsider his determination.
The Duke of Richmondalso hoped that his noble and learned Friend would postpone his motion.
Lord Lyndhurstjoined with the noble Duke and noble Baron in requesting of the noble and learned Lord to postpone his motion. As nothing had yet been done with respect to the resolutions, there was not an absolute necessity for their proceeding immediately to their consideration.
Lord Denman: When the noble Lord opposite, a few nights since, expressed his hope that I would not proceed upon a matter of such very great importance as this without mature consideration, I assured the noble Lord at that time, that I had given it my most mature consideration, and I will venture to say, that the observations which he then made, and
1214
which I considered of very great weight, have since received from me the most full and mature consideration. They have all passed in my mind; but notwithstanding all these considerations, I thought it was the less evil on my part to take some notice of what had passed, than allow matters to go on without noticing it at all. My Lords, I cannot very sincerely say that I think it better at present to forego the consideration of a question of such immense importance. Although these resolutions have not been communicated to your Lordships, and although no steps have been taken concerning them by the House of Commons, I certainly thought, as they were upon the votes which are regularly laid on your Lordships' table, and more particularly as those resolutions are not confined to the assertion of the privileges of that House, but refer to the privileges of both Houses, I certainly am of opinion that the circumstances that have taken place, give me a fair and proper opportunity to bring the matter before your Lordships. My Lords, I consider myself as an individual standing in a situation of accusation, if not of conviction. I find my conduct has been considered rash in doing that which, as one of the sworn judges of the land, it was my duty to do; and which duty I should have deserted had I not done as upon that occasion I did—that is, in laying down the law as I believe it in my conscience to be. I see no cause to change my opinion from the discussion that has taken place. I am ready, my Lords, to lay down that opinion the very moment I am convinced that it is incorrect; but to which I will adhere to the very last moment of my life as long as in my conscience I think it is correct. I certainly thought that it was my duty to take the first opportunity of disclaiming the charges of acting with rashness and impropriety. In making these observations, I wish not to become the voluntary censor of so important an assembly as the House of Commons; but I thought that the opportunity was given for entering into the consideration of an important subject, and to which we were invited—and at least of checking the adoption of resolutions on the part of others, which, I confess, from anything that has passed, ought to be founded upon better arguments than any that I am yet aware of. Though I felt that I was bound to discuss the subject now, yet it is impossible for me to resist an impression

1215
which I think I perceive to be general among your Lordships. I have to thank the noble Baron opposite for the courtesy with which he gave his advice, and I am sure any thing that falls from the noble Duke will always be entitled to the utmost respect on my part. I think I see an impression among your Lordships that this matter ought not to be brought forward, unless there is something like a necessity for it. I, however, beg leave to say, that in adopting that advice, I do not withdraw the notice of a motion that I gave, but I reserve to myself at some future period, when other events may make such proceedings necessary, the right of bringing this matter before your Lordships. I should wish to name some other day to which this notice might be postponed. I am told that on Thursday it is quite impossible to expect that there should be any attendance here, and I should be sorry not to have the matter considered by an inconsiderable number of your Lordships. On Friday your Lordships' time will be occupied by an important matter. Monday happens to be the last day of term, and it is well known that judges on that day cannot attend anywhere but in Westminster-hall. I shall therefore beg leave that this motion may remain on your Lordships' books till Tuesday, reserving to myself the right, if I then think proper, of calling your Lordships' attention to it.
Motion postponed till Tuesday.