Sitting of 21 April 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Denbigh County, v. Sir Watkins Williams Wynn, Bt., Steward of Bromfield and Yale; for Peebles-shire, v. William Forbes Mackenzie, Esq. Commissioner of the Treasury; for Leominster, v. Charles Greenaway, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Malt Drawback.
5°. Colonial Passengers.
Reported. — Infeftment (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland).
3°. and passed:—Customs (Import Duties).
Private.—1°. Calvert's Estate; Boileau's Divorce.
2°. Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton Railway; Wilts, Somerset, and Wreymouth Railway; Cromer Protection from the Sea; Direct London and Portsmouth Railway; Chester and Holyhead Railway (Mold Branch and Purchase of Chester and Birkenhead Railway) (No. 2); Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); Southampton and Dorchester Railway; Lynn and Dereham Railway; Dunstable, and London and Birmingham Railway; Northumberland Railway; Edinburgh and Northern Railway (No. 2); Saint Ives Junction Railway.
Reported.—Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Turn; Bridgwater Navigation and Railway; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Port.
3°. and passed: — Wallasey Improvement; Devonport Gas and Coke Company; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir John M'Taggart, from Portpatrick and Stranraer, for better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By several hon. Members, from an immense number of places (198 Petitions), against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Sir R. Peel, from several places, in favour of the Grant to Maynooth College.—From Royston, for supplying Grant to Maynooth College from the Revenues of the Established Church.—By Mr. Barneby, from Worcester for Relief from Agricultural Taxation.—By Colonel Powell, from Tregaron, for Establishment of County Courts.—By Sir James Graham, from the Vicar of Alton, for Alteration of Law relating to Highways.—By Mr. J. Bailey, Mr. H. Berkeley, Mr. Hussey, and Mr. Warburton, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of Insolvent Debtors Act.—By Sir J. Graham, and Mr. Henley, from several places, against Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace Bill.—By Mr. Langston, from Guardians of the Poor of Oxford, against Parochial Settlement Bill.—By Lord J. Russell, from University College, and King's College, London, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Bankes, from Mold, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.—By Mr. Henley, from Witney, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Beer.

ABSENCE OF MEMBERS FROM COMMITTEES.
Viscount Palmerstonappeared at the Bar, and reported from the Committee on the Lynn and Ely Railway Bill, that Mr. Wyse and Mr. Berkeley were not present that morning for one

1055
hour after the time fixed for the meeting of the Committee; that in half an hour after they attended; but that the Committee had not suffered any inconvenience from their temporary absence.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that as this was the first instance of non-attendance, and as they were then commencing a new system, he did not wish to take any notice of the circumstance; but in future he should take steps to enforce attendance, in which he hoped the House would support him, by moving that Members who should be absent without sufficient cause should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. Wysewas understood to say, that his absence was accidental, and to express a hope that it might be passed over.
Mr. H. Berkeleysaid, that having many other things to occupy his mind, he had altogether forgotten the hour of attendance. He suggested that when Members were named on a Private Bill, they should have a note sent to them reminding them of the hour.
Lord G. Somersethad no objection to adopt that suggestion, but in the present case the hour of attendance was mentioned in the Votes of Saturday.
Subject dropped.
After a short time,
Mr. Barnebyappeared at the Bar, and reported from the Barnesley Junction Railway Committee, that from the time fixed for the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Joseph Somes was not in attendance for one hour; that in half an hour after that time he attended, and stated that his absence arose wholly from his having made a mistake as to the hour; and that the Committee had not suffered any inconvenience from his temporary absence.

STANDING ORDERS ON RAILWAYS—THE BOARD OF TRADE.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to move, according to Notice, that Section 11 of Standing Order No. 87 which requires Committees on Railway Bills to make a Special Report to the House of the reasons which may induce them to adopt or reject the recommendations of the Board of Trade, be discharged. The Standing Order in question having been read, the hon. Member proceeded to say, that in asking the House to agree to the discharge of this
1056
order, he hoped he might be allowed to state his belief that the time had arrived when they ought to come to some understanding as to the position in which the House stood in relation to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, more particularly when they recollected that the Committees of the House had that day commenced taking into consideration a portion of the many Railway Bills introduced in the present Session. The decision on those Bills involved an immense mass of property—not less than 100,000,000 l. in value, and an extent of 4,000 miles of railway. On the decisions of those Committees would depend the fortune or the ruin of thousands. The time had arrived, therefore, when the public ought to know whether the Committees of that House were to be the mere puppets of the Board of Trade, especially when they looked at the dissatisfaction given by the Railway Department of that Board throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland. The public ought to know whether the House would submit to be the subordinate branch of a subordinate department of the Government. How these Committees were to perform the duties required of them he could not understand. To Committee A. there were referred no less than twenty-three Railway Bills, including the Kentish and South-Eastern lines; twenty, three lines would have to be decided on by the five Gentlemen who had the misfortune to sit on this Committee. An attempt had been recently made to restrain the number of speeches of counsel before Railway Committees; but even if the proposition had been agreed to, still they would have twenty-three opening speeches, twenty-three speeches in opposition, and twenty-three speeches in reply on every Bill—in all sixty-nine speeches from the counsel on these twenty-three Bills. In addition to this, they would have the opposition incidental to all railways, emanating either from other companies or private parties. And, besides all this, there was to be, it seemed, a third party before the Committee. It was to be obliged to report the reasons why it differed from the recommendation of the Board of Trade in reference to any competing line; thus, supposing the Board had recommended one line in preference to another, the Committee was to draw out its reasons for dissenting from that recommendation. The Railway Department

1057
of the Board of Trade was far from being efficient. As an instance of the manner in which they sometimes discharged their functions, he would remind the House that not long since the Speaker had called their attention to a clause that had been inserted in the Midland Counties Railway Bill by the company, which empowered them to go through any land, and even within a mile of the dwelling-house of the proprietor, without notice to such proprietor. That clause had not been discovered by the Board of Trade, nor was it seen till the Speaker called the attention of the House to it. The fact was, that the Bill came before the Board of Trade as an unopposed Bill. The agent did not intimate that there was in the Bill any departure from the usual course, and the Board of Trade, therefore, did not institute any inquiry. This mode of performing their duties on the part of the Board of Trade was not at all satisfactory to the public. They did not preserve secrecy, and the manner in which information as to the Great Northern and its competing line had transpired, had led to some strange proceedings in the money market. The information had caused a great change in the price of shares in the Direct Northern and the London and York lines. He must also complain of the manner in which the Board came to their decisions, laying down a great principle one day, and infringing it the next. This was particularly the case with regard to the London and York, the Newcastle and Berwick, and the Eastern Counties Railways. The Board usurped powers which were never intended to be exercised by it. As an instance of this, he would refer to the circular addressed by them to the agents for Bills, in which they expressly referred to their supervision of Bills during their progress through Parliament. Now he denied that by the Standing Orders they had any such power. All they had to do was to examine the different projects before they came to the House. After that they had nothing to do with them whatever. He had felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to this Standing Order. It had been agreed to at a time when there were no Members of the House present but the Members of the Government. Had the attention of the House or the public been called to the subject, that Standing Order would never have been passed. He now called their attention to it, in the hope
1058
that the true position and duties of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade would be ascertained.
Sir G. Clerkbegged to make a few remarks in reference to the conduct of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. After the insinuations which had been uttered in that House, and out of doors, he was anxious to know what charges were to be brought against the conduct and proceedings of that Department. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Reports which had emanated from that Department, and their discussions in reference to the various schemes brought before them, had given general dissatisfaction. He believed the very reverse of this was the case. In general, the public were highly satisfied with their Reports, and the only dissatisfaction which was expressed in reference to them had been expressed by parties immediately and directly interested in those schemes against which the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had thought it their duty to report. The hon. Gentleman, in common with others, had borne ample testimony to the assiduity and diligence with which the President of the Board of Trade had directed the proceedings of the Railway Committee of the Board. He would not claim to himself any share of the merit which those had a right to claim who were chiefly concerned in making the Reports. He was, however, very ready to take his share of the responsibility which devolved upon that Department. The importance of railway legislation had for many years past attracted the attention of that House, and several Committees had observed upon the imperfection of the system of legislation which formerly obtained upon that subject. These Committees had uniformly concurred in viewing Railway Bills not so much as private and Local Bills, as measures affecting the general interests. The local interests involved in them would receive attention from proceeding in the ordinary manner upon them; but it was found that there were public interests which could not be attended to unless the care of them should be committed to some Public Department, regularly constituted for that purpose. It was the object of the Committee of last Session, that all railway schemes, before being brought under the notice of Parliament, should be submitted for previous investigation to a Department of the Board of Trade; and they distinctly averred that their recommendation

1059
did not contemplate the superseding the authority of that House, but that the duties of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade should be merely to collect information, and to give to the House the result of their investigations, with regard to all questions affecting the public safety, or in any way involving the general interest. Although willing to admit that the question was not entirely free from difficulty, he believed that the course which had been adopted by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, was strictly in accordance with the views of the Select Committee of last year, and that it was calculated to carry into effect in the most complete manner the recommendations of that Committee. When he heard surmises made, and insinuations uttered against the Members composing that Department, that they, with a view of favouring the gambling speculations of certain parties, had given information to these parties, prior to the public notification of their decisions in the Gazette, he begged the House to recollect the difficult position in which these Gentlemen were placed, who were thus liable to such general accusations, which it was impossible for them to meet, notwithstanding the explicit declaration which had already been made in that House and elsewhere, that the utmost secrecy had been observed, by all the parties charged, and no word had been breathed of what these decisions were, until they appeared in the public Gazette. He would again, on behalf of the Board of Trade, declare explicitly, in that House, that no Member of the Railway Department ever did, either directly or indirectly, convey to any parties interested in these schemes the slightest inkling of what their decisions were likely to be, until the public notification had been made in the Gazette. The hon. Gentleman referred to the sudden change which had taken place in the value of the shares of the Direct Northern and the London and York schemes, immediately previous to the notification of the decision of the Railway Committee in regard to them. But that was the result of speculations on the Stock Exchange, and was totally uninfluenced by the Department complained of. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to the coalition which had taken place between two lines — the Direct Northern and the Lincoln and Cambridge. That coalition was determined upon by the parties interested themselves, and the
1060
decisions of the Board of Trade in respect to them had no connexion with that proceeding. It was perfectly well known the day previous to the notification of these decisions appearing in the Gazette, that this coalition had taken place; and that coalition itself was likely to lead to the change which had taken place in the value of the stock of the Direct Northern and the Lincoln and Cambridge lines. The Committee had, in every case on which they had reported, stated fully and distinctly the grounds of their several decisions, and the results which they contemplated would ensue from the adoption of their decisions by the House. They left it to the Committees of the House to judge how far they were borne out in their recommendations by the facts which would necessarily be submitted to these Committees, appointed for the purpose by the House. With regard to the Standing Order sought to be rescinded by the present Motion, that Order required the Committees of the House to report which of the recommendations of the Committee of the Board of Trade they had adopted. If, in the majority of instances, the Committees adopted the recommendations of the Board of Trade, that would be a proof that the House had adopted the wiser course, in subjecting railway schemes to the preliminary examination which they underwent before that Department; but inasmuch as all matters of merely private and local interest were, by the terms of the appointment of the Committee of the Board of Trade, excluded from their consideration, it might frequently happen that Committees of that House might be disposed to reject schemes which, on public grounds alone, were approved of by the Board of Trade, because they might find such strong obstacles of a private and local nature as would prevent the possibility of their giving them their sanction. It would be only in furtherance of the views of the House, that its Committees should make a Report to the House as to the instances in which they deemed it proper to adopt the views of the Board of Trade, as well as to those in which they did not. At page 55 of the Standing Orders, in cases of Railway Bills, it was laid down that if any Report, made under the authority of the Board of Trade, on any Bill, was laid before the House, such Report would be referred to the Committee on the Bill. The House then having resolved, as part of the experiment which they were about to

1061
try, for the first time, that, in the first place, all Reports from the Board of Trade should, as a matter of course, be referred to the Committees on the respective Bills in question, and also required that these Committees should report to the House which of the recommendations of the Board of Trade they had adopted, and which of them they had rejected. He trusted that the House would not at present agree to any alteration in these Standing Orders, and that they would concur with him in the view which he took of the matter, that it would be infinitely better to give the experiment adopted a fair trial, and wait until the end of the Session, and see in what manner the Reports of the Board of Trade were dealt with by the several Committees on Railway Bills. Experience would then much better enable them to suggest any alterations which it might be expedient to make. He wished to suggest to the hon. Gentleman, as he had given notice for certain Resolutions which he intended to move to-morrow, and as he had only the same remark to make with regard to them, that they were questions for future consideration, that it would be better to postpone these Motions to the end of the Session. He had only to say that he believed the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had fulfilled its onerous duties ably and satisfactorily to the country; and he trusted that, before the House expressed a decided opinion upon that subject, they would wait to see what might be the judgment of the several Committees, to whom the Reports of that Department were referred, and whose duty it would be to investigate them fully, and in detail, instead of prematurely pronouncing an opinion upon the subject.
Mr. Laboucheresaid he apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend in making this Motion was to express to that House an opinion that the Reports of the Board of Trade were not entitled to credit. He confessed that he was not inclined to take that view, believing it to be altogether premature. They had imposed on the Board of Trade a most arduous duty, in the performance of which they had prepared various Reports. He was not prepared to say either that those Reports were or were not entitled to credit; but by the end of the Session, when the Reports of the Committees had been made, there would be abundant material for judging whether they were entitled to confidence, or whether they deserved the
1062
reproach which had been cast upon them. He was much too well aware of the extreme difficulty of the task submitted to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, to be desirous of passing any harsh censures upon the way in which they had carried that task into effect; and he was quite ready to bear his testimony to the industry, impartiality, and integrity with which the business of that Department was conducted. He considered, however, that the composition and constitution of that Department was quite anomalous as contrasted with the other administrative arrangements of the country; and it was his opinion that the Committee of the Lords of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Trade ought to have reserved to themselves the sole responsibility of that part of their duties which related to the affairs of railways. In his opinion, the constitution of that Department, as a separate tribunal, was a mistake, and a mistake from which important consequences had followed. It was a most cumbrous and inconvenient machinery; and he hoped the Government would reconsider the subject, with a view to discover whether they could not make some improvement in it. Without wishing to cast censure on that Department, he could not help thinking that in some degree they had been mistaken in the nature of the task which had been submitted to them. The Railway Department ought to be the instrument of affording information to the Committees of the House of Commons; they ought not to pronounce peremptory decisions. In many cases he thought the decisions they had come to were too peremptory. They appeared to him to meddle with some topics which they ought to have avoided altogether. The errors to which he meant to refer were of this description: for instance—in some of these Reports this very important consideration was introduced; they said, "We recommend this or that railway, because we have obtained from them an agreement that their fares shall be very reasonable and low;" but then in other Reports relating to other railways, he found this stipulation was omitted altogether. Thus the whole communication between London and the West of England was given to one company. He did not mean to say that that was not very right; but then he found no bargain of this kind in favour of the public had been made with them.

1063
The general error which he thought the Department had committed was, that principles and considerations were not suggested for the guidance of the Committees of the House; but down they came with peremptory decisions on this and that point, and not always in consistency with what appeared in others of their Reports. Still there was nothing he should more regret than to leave on the House an impression that he cast any censure on this Department, or that he was not sensible of the great difficulties which surrounded the subject. Thinking the Motion a most unparliamentary and injudicious course to pursue, he should oppose it.
Mr. Gladstonehoped that the House in general, and the hon. Member for Finsbury in particular, would acquiesce in the construction which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had put upon the Motion now under discussion. It was, he thought, perfectly plain, that, whatever merits might attach to that Motion, yet those merits were not such as, under the circumstances, would render it advisable to agree to the Motion. For they now stood in this dilemma: every one of the Reports which had hitherto been made by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade was upon the Table of the House. Some of them had been referred to Committees, which had already been constituted, and others were about to be referred. The objections which were made to the Railway Department and their proceedings might or might not be well founded; but the evils connected with them had taken place, and the House had the Reports before them which were the result of the system. Now he submitted that unless all these Reports were positively mischievous in themselves—not only of little value, but positively worthless and worse than useless—they could not take a more illadvised course than that of depriving themselves of whatever information and assistance might be afforded, even in the worst view that had been taken in these Reports. Generally speaking, he considered the Reports were manifestly documents of great value; for even if they were not right in their conclusions—and he had a strong opinion upon the generality of them with regard to their conclusions—no one could help perceiving that generally they opened up the question
1064
from the very root, and therefore would be of the greatest value in directing the course of inquiry by the Committees of this House. He thought, therefore, that at this moment there was neither argument nor shadow of argument for withholding these Reports from the consideration of the Committees. If such authority had been assigned to these Reports as to render it necessary for the Committees of this House to give reasons, pro and con, for accepting or rejecting the Reports of the Board of Trade, he thought there would be some force in the Motion; but he thought it was desirable that they should assure themselves that the attention of the Committees had been called to particular Reports. There were some other points upon which he desired to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman staled that the Standing Order was almost smuggled through the House in the last Session, and complained of the lateness of the period when the debate on the Standing Order came on. He agreed with the hon. Member in lamenting the lateness of the debate, but could assure him that no person was to blame for that. Not a day was lost from the beginning to the end of the Session, and the Minute of the Board of Trade constituting the Railway Department was brought forward as early as possible. He begged to say also that the Standing Order was not smuggled through the House. This very point was fully discussed in the last Session, and there certainly appeared at that time an almost unanimous acquiescence in the propriety of the plan. He did not mean to say that the whole question was not surrounded with difficulty, and if any error were committed it might be to some extent pardonable; but, at the same time, he believed that it was not possible to have conducted the business of the Railway Department, such as it had been during the last six months, in the manner pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, that was, as one among the many branches of the Board of Trade. Whether the present was a convenient arrangement or not, he should say most confidently that the railway business could not possibly be conducted as part of the general business of the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the enormous mass of business connected with that Department of the Board, he would be of the same opinion. For the time it lasted

1065
it demanded undivided attention, and unless the Board of Trade were prepared to perform the duty in a very slovenly and unsatisfactory way, it would be utterly impossible for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman said the Railway Department had misconceived the task submitted to them; and he (Mr. Gladstone) agreed with him thus far—he thought that the Reports had gone further with regard to the number of details they went through, the views they presented, and the decisiveness of the tone they assumed—he granted, as a matter of fact, that they did go further than was in the contemplation of the Select Committee last year. But he begged the House not upon that account, at this moment, to pronounce or imply any condemnation of the Board of Trade. The fact was that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade were greatly in advance of the Committee of last year in respect to experience; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was prejudging the case, as well as the hon. Member for Finsbury. He agreed that the Reports were not conform upon the question of making stipulations as to fares and tolls for public advantage; but it did not follow, because that course was taken in one case with good and sufficient reason, that, therefore, it must be taken in every other. They must not look for a rigid uniformity as to the rules which the Railway Department were to adopt. What they were to expect was, that the recommendation of the Board should be truly adapted to the circumstances of each case as it arose. If any company expected to make great gains, they might put limitations on it with advantage to the public; but in cases where the company had no such expectation, it would scarcely be right to impose any limitation. But with respect to those Reports, he thought the sentiments of the public were in favour of them; and if they were to go before the Committees for consideration, nothing could more distract the minds of the Members of those Committees, or of the public, than to take opportunities of this kind to attack those Reports, and raise exparte arguments upon the subject. The hon. Member for Finsbury had particularly made the Report on the London and York Railway the subject of attack. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that nothing could be
1066
more mischievous than making attacks on those Reports, especially on that particular one, at a time when they were, as in that instance, about to be submitted to the most stringent investigation. There was another point to which he wished to refer, the want of publicity to the proceedings of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. He would grant that want of publicity to be an objection perfectly unanswerable, if it were true that those Reports would carry any undue weight and authority with them before the Committees—if they were to be made excuses for avoiding examination, and if they were to be anything more than mere guides to the Committees in their investigations. If they were to be more than that he would grant that the objection of want of publicity would be a fatal one. There might, probably, be cases in which the Board of Trade might turn out to have been wrong; in such cases he did not believe that their Report would place the parties, to whom it was adverse, in any disadvantage. The Reports would be subjected to the strictest examination; and if justice had been in the first instance not awarded, the parties would succeed in obtaining it just as effectually as if there had been no Report whatever from the Railway Department. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, he sincerely trusted, not that the House would reject it, but that the hon. Gentleman himself would not press it to a division.
Mr. Gisbornedid not wish to attack the composition of the Board; but he thought that it was impossible for the Board to do its duty to the public, considering the disadvantages of the situation in which it was placed. The Railway Department of the Board of Trade engrossed the whole railway system of the country. He believed that their Reports would have the greatest influence on the Committees; and when these Committees found themselves in any difficulty, they would seek to escape from it by referring to and acting upon the suggestions of the Reports. How were these Reports made? The process had been described in a very able pamphlet, which said, "That the ingenuity of man could scarcely have devised a more certain means of error." He now asked, if, in addition to all the other labours they were about to put on the Committees, they would impose upon them

1067
the burden of determining whether the Reports of the Board of Trade were right or not? This engrossing Department—if he might so call it—not content with giving Reports as to the merits of the lines submitted to them, had become general essayists on railway legislation; and though the House might not be in a position to judge of the value of their opinions upon the several cases on which they had reported, they were in a position to judge of the value of their essays. It would be remembered that one question that arose last year in reference to this subject of railway legislation was, whether competition was generally conducive to the public benefit or not? That question the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had, in one of their essays, taken upon themselves to answer. They had decided that competition was not generally advantageous to the public; and, as confirming that view, had quoted a long passage from the Report of the Railway Committee of last year. It was well known, he believed, however, that the public had derived great advantage from the competition in railways, in increased accommodation and cheaper fares; and the complaints which were made last year were now no longer heard of. This was the result of competition; and if the lines now projected were carried out, the benefits of competition would be extended to all parts of the kingdom. On this subject it was manifest therefore, he thought, that the Members of the Railway Department had not become wiser than they were last year; and he should not be surprised if it should turn out that the authority which the writer of the essay quoted in support of his views was his own. It would appear, in fact, that the Commissioners proceeded upon the supposition that those railways which had done the least before for the public convenience, were those most likely to do most in future. Look, for instance, at the Cambridge line, which in eight years had completed only thirty miles of railway, and of which it might be said, as the nigger said of his pig, that "though little, it was d—d old." He might quote the cases of the Harwich lines, and many others, as showing that the Reports of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade did not carry with them much weight. He thought that Department might well have been entrusted with the
1068
duty of classifying the several schemes that came under their notice. He could see no reason why the decisions of the Board of Trade should be published so long—in some cases as much as two or three months—before the publication of the Report containing the reasons for those decisions, unless it were for the purpose of raising the shares of one railway and depressing those of another in the share-market, and encouraging speculation. Then it was impossible, take what precautions they would, to keep their intentions altogether a secret previous to the publication of their decisions. They could not ask questions of the parties connected with the line without showing at least an indication of their leaning; and that, he thought, by giving an impetus to the spirit of unfair speculation, and encouraging gambling transactions, was a mischief so great, that no advantage which could result from these one-sided Reports—drawn up, he admitted, with great ability, in many instances; but still, from having heard one side only, in ignorance of the whole facts and bearings of the case — could counterbalance. He thought it essential that a Parliamentary or legislative constitution should be given to this Board, if it should continue to exist, for it was most objectionable that such great powers — powers affecting property to so large an extent, should be as it were picked up by a Department of the Government on the unadopted Report of a Committee.
Colonel Sibthorpthought every day's experience showed the correctness of the opinions he had so often stated to the House. With regard to the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench, and those who lately sat on the Treasury Bench, he hardly understood their position. He did not know whether the right hon. Member for Newark spoke as the President of the Board of Trade, or only as the late President of the Board of Trade; for, though speaking on behalf of that Department of the Government, he still found him sitting on the benches below those occupied by the Treasury Members. There was one hon. Gentleman, however, (Mr. Pringle) whom he supposed he might now look upon as a late Member of the Government; and much as he had honoured the hon. Gentleman before the event which had made him a late Member, he honoured him much

1069
more since. Nothing could be more objectionable than the constitution of this Railway Department of the Board of Trade, and nothing was more calculated to encourage gambling speculations than their Reports. In a Report which had been made to that House in 1808 he found described the evils of an extensive system of gambling, such as was now going on with regard to these railway speculations. It was then shown that ruin, crime, madness, and suicides were the inevitable consequences of such practices. Let them look at the number of these railway schemes brought forward, and the immense amount of capital thus involved: it was impossible for any Board to consider them in the time with sufficient attention to be enabled to make anything like a satisfactory Report upon them. If five angels came down from heaven, and sat four hours a day as a board, they could not do it; and yet they were told that these five Gentlemen, who constituted this Railway Board, had given the fullest consideration to every railway scheme upon which they had reported. In one instance he found they decided in favour of one of two competing lines, on the ground of economy. Why, what did it matter to them if one company would spend ten millions to complete a line, upon which another would spend only five? What they should look to was the public accommodation to be given. But the proceedings of this Board were only a part of the same system that pervaded all railway business. He remembered the Railway Consolidation Bill—a Bill containing 476 clauses — was brought forward for consideration one day at twelve o'clock, in a House consisting, for a great part of the time, of not more than fifteen Members. He wished to know what was the nature of the hon. Member for Finsbury's Motion. If it had been for censuring the Government who had brought forward this Board—who had packed it, and made it their own—he would have supported him; but the present Motion was so mysterious, that he could not understand its object. As it appeared to him, the object was to do away with the independence of the Committees. He could not support that; though he confessed, not being on the Treasury Bench — and he was not sorry for it—for he never would be—he did not know what independence now meant.
Mr. Bernalwas convinced that a vast deal of benefit would accrue to the public from the consideration of this subject, and pursuing it to some definite and prospective end. A great deal had been said on the constitution of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. Now, all he could say was this, that they were incepting a course of experiments, and could not say yet how they would turn out. But he remembered what was said by the right hon. Baronet on the other side when the subject was under discussion in that House; and the right hon. Baronet was rather severe upon him (Mr. Bernal) for the observations he then made: he would not enter into that further than to say that he then entirely dissented from the views of the right hon. Baronet, and all he would answer was, that he hoped the experiment would be successful. He hoped, too, that the Committees who were appointed to sit on railway projects, might turn out advantageous and beneficial in a practical point of view, and might have the effect of counteracting the existing evils, and putting a check upon the inordinate speculations which were going on, and which would some day end in the ruin of thousands. He repudiated the notion that there was any ground for impugning the integrity of those Gentlemen who constituted the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. With one of the Members of that Department he was acquainted, and he honoured that gentleman not only for his integrity but for his ability. The other Members of that Department he knew by reputation; and he was convinced that not one of them would be guilty of such dishonourable conduct as disclosing the facts of which they were officially cognizant, and so affecting the interests of persons who had embarked their property in railway projects. When a numerous deputation attended the Board of Trade, and made representations to that Department which were supported by arguments, and upon which opinions were expressed, it was not surprising that some intimation of what occurred at such interviews should be given to the public. He believed that the reports which were so frequently current on these subjects, and which produced most mischievous results, might be traced to this source. He thought the hon. Member for Finsbury had misunderstood the Standing Order of the House which he proposed to rescind;

1071
and he (Mr. Bernal) would move the following Amendment—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that all Documents and Statements received by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, in relation to any Railway Bill or Project upon which that Railway Department has reported, be laid before this House; and that the promoters and opponents of every such Bill, and their counsel and agents, shall agree to inspect, and at their own expense obtain copies or extracts of such Statements or Documents."
He was aware that this Amendment might be somewhat irregular in point of form; but if such were the case he hoped the right hon. Speaker would assist him in rendering it conformable to the rules of the House.
Viscount Howickseconded the Amendment. He thought that the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury for having brought this subject forward in the manner he had. He agreed, however, in the reasons assigned for not pressing the Motion to a division. He thought that the hon. Member had not correctly read the Standing Order, and that there did not exist sufficient ground for rescinding it as proposed. But the offer made by the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, to place the originals of the documents in question before the House, would be a most valuable concession, and one quite sufficient for his hon. Friend to obtain. It was most important, however, to have had an opportunity of discussing the weight of the authority which ought to be attached to these Reports of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) had stated, that it was premature at the present time to discuss the manner in which their duties had been performed by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, and to go into the merits of particular Reports. On this point he did not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman. These Reports were calculated to exercise a certain degree of weight on the deliberations of Committees, as coming from a Department of the Government, and, unless some discussion in this House should prevent it, they would have the effect of making out a sort of primâ facie case in favour of those
1072
schemes for which Reports were made, and unfavourable to those against which the Board of Trade had decided. If, however, any prejudice were thus created to the disadvantage of projects against which the Board of Trade had decided, an injustice would certainly be done. They should, therefore, look to the manner in which its duties had been exercised by the Board. And he might be permitted to say that, in his opinion, no blame whatever attached to any individual Member of the Board. They had all conscientiously performed their duties. He went further. In his opinion they had shown considerable diligence and considerable ability; but still he did not believe that their duties had been satisfactorily performed — not from any fault of theirs, but because Parliament had burdened them with duties which it was physically impossible for them properly to accomplish. But, then, if these duties were not properly performed, it was only justice to the parties affected by them that the fact should be brought before the House; and he took this opportunity of stating, that in his opinion both the manner in which the Board of Trade had carried on its proceedings, and the Reports which were the results of those proceedings, were in the highest degree unsatisfactory. First, as to the mode of carrying on business. The course of proceeding was this. The Board of Trade received the statements of parties—they looked into these statements, but without submitting to opposing parties the data and reasonings of their opponents. No opportunity was afforded to those interested of pointing out errors in point of fact, or refuting mis-statements or misrepresentations which might be made. In the same way interviews had taken place, at which only one party had been heard. Now, was this mode of proceeding likely to succeed in eliciting the real facts of a case? How was it possible that in this manner the Board of Trade could detect errors or ascertain misrepresentations contained in the statements laid before them? Accordingly, if they looked to these Reports they found existing in them direct and palpable blunders, in point of fact, of the most serious importance. He would not go into a number of these cases, but he might point out one instance which had already been brought under the notice of the House. A petition was lying upon

1073
the Table from the Croydon Railway Company, complaining of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Kentish and South-Eastern Railway. To this petition there was a distinct allegation of material errors in point of fact in the Report of the Board of Trade; and the parties preferring it were so sure that they could make good their statements, that all they asked for was to have the Report referred back to the Board of Trade. An hon. Member connected with the part of the country interested, the Member for Maidstone, had made a Motion to that effect; and it did so happen, that, taking an advantage of a technical difficulty in a point of form, the right hon. Baronet representing the Board of Trade avoided the discussion upon the point. Now, the allegations in this petition were specific, and capable of being at once proved to be unfounded. If such were the case, then, under the circumstances, he could not hesitate to assume that these allegations of error were correct. They were told that the Report of the Board of Trade had fallen into these errors. First, they had stated, in comparing two lines, that one—that reported against — had considerably heavier earth-works than the other. Now, this was denied in point of fact. Then there was an allegation with reference to the number of miles of new railway required to supply due accommodation to the public. In this point also an error was ascribed to the Board of Trade. But blunders of still greater importance were pointed out. One of them was with respect to the fares proposed to be charged. The Report of the Board of Trade stated, that one company had agreed to carry at lower rates than the other, while it omitted to observe that the latter had offered to carry at still lower rates than those the concession of which upon the part of the former was made use of as an argument in its favour. Then it was a recommendation of the original Committee upon Railways that the Board of Trade was to direct its attention specially to matters connected with the public safety. Now, had this been done? The General Committee had pointed out two facts affecting public safety, which were to have been specially attended to. When a long line merged into another shorter, and possessing a smaller extent of traffic, and used two or three miles of it as a main route, there
1074
was a special recommendation that, in all such cases, a distinct notice should be given of that portion of the pan by the Board of Trade. Now, there was such an arrangement proposed upon the Kentish and South-Eastern lines; but, in the Report of the Board, that important fact was not at all introduced to the attention of the Mouse. Again, the House entertained such strong objections to a railway crossing a public road, particularly at a level, that, by the Standing Orders, any such case was ordered to be pointed out for the consideration of the Committee on the Bill. Now, in dealing with these South-Eastern schemes, how had the Railway Department of the Board of Trade performed this part of its duty? The fact was, that the line of railway which they recommended had twenty-five such level crossings, including four over streets in the populous town of Deptford; but not a word was to be found upon the subject in the Report of the Board of Trade. But to show, however, that such parts of plans were not considered immaterial by the Board, he held in his hand extracts from another Report of that body, referring to a different set of lines in Scotland; and in that Report he found it stated that the Board directed the attention of the Committee on the Bill to a crossing proposed to be made in the line of the Glasgow and Paisley Railway over the turnpike road from Glasgow to Govan. Here they had one crossing mentioned in the Scotch line, while the four proposed to be made in Deptford were passed over without notice. There were also omissions of particular facts, and errors in respect to others, which made those Reports most untrustworthy guides for the deliberations of the House. They did not fulfil their main object, of affording good materials for the House upon which to come to a decision with respect to Railway Bills presented to them. Besides, the more he looked at these Reports, the more he was struck with their inconsistencies. As regarded fares, short distances, and gradients, the recommendations of different Reports differed in toto from each oilier. And more than that, he could not help noticing a circumstance pointed out by the right hon. Member for Taunton, namely, that these Reports resembled rather the ex-parte recommendations of an able advocate, than the judicial decisions of an impartial tribunal. In many cases—perhaps in a majority of

1075
cases—he coincided with the conclusion arrived at; but even when that was the case, it struck him that the Reports were impressed with the character he had attributed to them. Every point which made against the line recommended, and in favour of that rejected, was passed by either without notice, or kept as much as possible in the back ground, while every point in favour of the line recommended was against that rejected, and urged with great minuteness and ability, and put in the strongest light. Now he did not mean to insinuate that this was wilfully and knowingly done, but it was the case to such an extent that some explanation was desirable. Admitting that such was the character of the Reports, he thought that it might be accounted for upon the supposition that the Board of Trade had come to their decisions some time before they drew up the Reports. Perhaps two or three months elapsed from the time when they decided upon the general character of a Report, to the period at which it was actually prepared. What was the legitimate inference? Why, that being oppressed by business, and anxious to get through as much as possible, the Board, on a superficial examination of the documents before them, made up their minds as well as they could; and having done so, published in the Gazette what their determination was, and then proceeded to another case. Having in this way advertised their decisions in a great number of cases, they proceeded afterwards to draw up their Reports. In the meantime these decisions were criticised—their justice questioned. There arose, therefore, naturally a strong disposition on the part of the Board of Trade to make out as good a case as they could in favour of their own decisions. In one of the most important of these Reports, the whole argument was drawn obviously from a speech delivered at a public meeting some months ago by one of the promoters of a line. It was a statement ridiculously partial—open to answer in fifty places; but the obvious answers were left unnoticed, and this glaring ex-parte statement was adopted as being worthy of guiding the determination of the Board of Trade and of Parliament. But the blame of all this rested with themselves. Great mischief was, no doubt, done by these imperfect, unsatisfactory, and ex-parte Reports; but it was the House which was to blame. As had been
1076
admitted by an officer of the Board of Trade, it was physically impossible for that Board to enter into a close scrutiny of opposing statements, and draw up Reports in which all the facts established should have been sifted out from the mass of conflicting evidence. And indeed, when they looked back to the original Railway Report, they could not but be struck by its vague and unsatisfactory character. He admitted having been a consenting party to the adoption of the system recommended in that Report, not having very clearly perceived the inconveniences which would result from it. But be the blame whose it might, he thought that they had adopted most hastily and rashly the Report of the Committee on Railways; for when they agreed to the Standing Order now proposed to be rescinded, they did not think that they were investing the Board of Trade with such a power as that of virtually deciding on all the railway schemes which came within their notice. If they had, they would have proceeded much more cautiously. They would have limited the powers to be granted, and laid down some general rule for the guidance of those into whose hands those powers were to be put. But if they intended that the Reports of the Board of Trade should be used in some other way, they should have adopted precautions to prevent the public from being deceived by the notion that five subordinate Members of a Government Department, sitting almost in secret conclave, were to be allowed to dispose of property to such a vast extent. However, the mistake had been committed, and it was not easy to see how it could be remedied. He hoped, indeed, that Committees upon Bills would not take the Reports of the Board of Trade in favour of certain schemes for anything more than mere statements of the cases of the lines which they recommended. But if this was all that the Board had effected, the Gentlemen composing it had been put to much unnecessary trouble; inasmuch as solicitors and agents could have got up ex-parte statements just as well as the Board of Trade. If the Report were to have more authority than ex-parte statements, he wished to know how much more, and where the line limiting the degree of authority was to be drawn. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade admitted that the Reports had gone further

1077
than Parliament had intended them to go. Now, he entertained great jealousy of a body of this sort going beyond the line of inquiry committed to them. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, contended that in acting as they had done, the Board could not have been actuated by mere abstract love of labour. He admitted that although there might be no such thing as abstract love of labour, there might be—whether abstract or not—a love of authority, which would lead those feeling it to go further than they ought, as in the case in question he believed that the Board of Trade had gone. He hoped that this discussion would neutralize any evil which might result from the mistake of last Session. It was admitted that the duty of Committees on Bills was to weigh well the Reports laid before them, to see how far the facts stated there were correct—not to take it for granted that the Board of Trade had made that examination, but to search for themselves. If such would be the case, no great evil would, perhaps, after all arise. But before they came to another Session, it was incumbent upon them to do one of two things, either to put an end to this system of the Board of Trade, or else clearly to define and describe the functions to be entrusted to it, and then to invest it with adequate powers for the performance of its varied duties. His own leaning was in favour of putting an end to the system altogether. It would always be a matter of difficulty to use the agency of any Department of Government in assisting Parliament in the discharge of its legislative functions, without allowing those whom they meant to be their servants to become substantially their masters, and the virtual authorities upon the subject. He concurred with the opinion so well expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that they should not allow such important functions to be transferred to other hands. He believed that the system of legislating for private business would, on the whole, with all its abuses, be infinitely better than the plan adopted in other countries of placing such business in the hands of the Executive Government. He believed that the latter system led to greater abuses and more dangerous corruption. We ought, however, to improve to the utmost the machinery of our private-business legislation. He trusted
1078
his hon. Friend would accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Weymouth; and by its adoption he was sure a circumstantial advantage would be gained.
Lord G. Somersetwas glad to be able to concur in the latter observation of the noble Lord. He owned he was very much astonished at the misconception which prevailed as to the Reports of the Board of Trade; for although they were drawn up with great ability, and though in most instances he was inclined to agree with them, they were never looked on either by the Committee that recommended the appointment of this Department, or by the Board itself, as at all binding. He had always thought that many of the misapprehensions that prevailed in the public mind would have been removed, if the language of the Committee which appointed the Railroad Department of the Board of Trade had been referred to. That Committee merely pointed out the necessity of taking evidence and making a Report, without at all saying it should be decisive. He was perfectly incompetent at that time to determine whether the decisions of the Board of Trade were correct or not. The matters decided on would be subject of consideration by separate Committees, and it was not until those Committees had pronounced their opinions that he should be prepared to say how far the experiment had been successful. Every one of these Reports of the Board of Trade would be severely scrutinised by a competent tribunal. As to the objection that these Reports were not recognised, there was a Standing Order of July last, in which it was laid down "that such Reports should be referred to the Committee on the Bill." It was impossible to say that the Resolution constituting the Railway Department of the Board of Trade was adopted without full and fair consideration. To the Motion before the House he entertained decided objections. Though he did not agree with some of the Reports, he thought on the whole that by the end of the Session, after the investigation of the Committee, they would be found generally satisfactory.
Mr. Hawessaid, nothing was mere remarkable in the administration of the several Departments of our Government, than the purity of those connected with them. This was the only Department that had ever been suspected; and though he believed it had been very improperly

1079
suspected, still the suspicion groundless, was calculated to do harm. This Department should have been at all events careful as to the facts which it stated. But, as an instance of their mode of doing business, he might state that a more careless and inaccurate Report, and in which there were more important omissions, than the London, Croydon, and South Eastern Report, had never issued from any public body. He did not blame the tribunal itself so much; for he believed it was found utterly impossible to get through the mass of documents in many cases; and so overwhelming was the amount of business, that he understood one very able Member of the Board was completely knocked up. The noble Lord who last spoke said that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had no power of deciding the questions which arose as to the various lines. How, then, was to be understood the language of the circular addressed to the agents of the various Bills? It was this:—
"I am directed by the Lords of the Privy Council of Trade to call your attention to the course of proceeding as to the Railway Bills entrusted to your charge, and which will become necessary in order to give effect to the proposed supervision of the Board of Trade over such lines during their progress through Parliament."
Was it intended by this, that the Board of Trade should have the power of backing up their Reports by instructing the Members of the Committee that sat to examine, or employing agents for that purpose? Then the investigation took place with closed doors; and documents, which were often not accredited, through some inadvertence, were accepted by the Board of Trade after the notification as to a particular line in the Gazette. They often considered topics, too, which did not fairly come before them. In the Report as to the Newcastle and Berwick line, they went into the respective merits of the atmospheric and locomotive systems, showing they were decidedly biassed as to one in preference to the other. The best proof that the House was not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the Board of Trade was, that it had since appointed a Committee to collect information on this very subject. He confessed he rather gathered from the tone of the noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) that some alteration was contemplated in this Board. If he were
1080
right, he hoped that Parliament would clearly define the duties to be performed by any Board hereafter appointed.
Mr. B. Denisondid not wish to take any part in the discussion, connected as he was with the London and York Railway, which had been reported against by the Board of Trade, and he would rather have refrained from saying anything until after the Bill had been considered in Committee, where its merits could be fully discussed; but after the pointed allusion which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he could not help making two or three remarks. He certainly did say that he was in a condition to prove that four days before the decision of the Board of Trade was published, a report was circulated in the City, and letters went into the country, to the effect that the London and York line would be reported against, and that the Cambridge and Lincoln line would be favourably reported upon, and that a portion of the Direct Northern (and this was the most singular part of the matter) would also be favourably considered. This intelligence was circulated on the Saturday, and the decision was not given in the Gazette until the Tuesday following. It was an extraordinary thing how the Direct Northern should have retired from the contest, and consented to an amalgamation with another line, unless the Directors had known they were to be reported against. It was quite clear that they must have had some foreknowledge of the facts. If the Direct Northern had been reported against as a whole, that would have been intelligible; but he wanted to know how they could have ascertained that part of the line was to be reported on, unless they had received some communication from the Board of Trade on the subject. He had been in communication with these authorities, but merely laid certain statements before them without asking a single question, because he thought that improper. In his opinion the Board of Trade had far exceeded the powers intended to be given to it, and had in many respects lowered itself in public estimation by the inconsistency of its Reports. The London and York Report was quite inconsistent in various parts. It would have been much better if the Board had confined itself to the written

1081
statements sent in to them; but unfortunately, the officers of the Board had entered into conversation with different parties, in consequence of which those parties had been induced to go into the City, and speculate for or against railroads. He submitted that the decision in the Gazette and the Report ought to have come out simultaneously. There was no doubt that parties did go to the Board of Trade and make representations respecting lines which had been gazetted, in consequence of which alterations were made in the Reports. With respect to the documents that had been laid before the Board of Trade, he thought the public ought to be allowed to inspect them, because he believed in some cases they would contain the very language which had been adopted in the Reports. He knew an instance of one gentleman complaining to another of the inaccuracy of a Report; on which the latter said, "For Heaven's sake don't decry it, for I drew it up myself." He thought the exertions of the Board of Trade would have been very beneficial if they had confined themselves to a classification of the Bills, leaving the Committees to decide upon their merits; but his conviction was that the Reports of the Board of Trade would in many instances puzzle the Members who constituted the Committees, instead of assisting them. He thought it would be much better for the Committees to deal with the groups of Bills themselves, and relieve the Board of Trade from the irksome duty imposed upon them, which they had so unsatisfactorily discharged.
Sir G. Stricklandsaid, that the whole Rules and Orders and mode of legislation on this subject, were in a deplorable state of confusion. To both landed proprietors and to speculators in railroads, the greatest injustice was done by the legislation of that House. The Reports of the Board of Trade, from their mistaken mode of proceeding, had greatly aggravated this injustice; and he trusted that the House would not separate this year without considering what were the rules and regulations and orders, in order materially to revise them. It was evident that the rage for making railroads was increasing; and next year they would be overwhelmed with railroad schemes. He believed that the public was dissatisfied with the Reports of the Board of Trade; and the impression was that it had lost sight of the public
1082
interest in sanctioning railroads, which had given too much weight and power to the existing railroad monopolies, in order to increase their profits. They had generally set their faces against private and new speculations, in favour of those which were brought forward to aggrandize existing railroad companies. He was sorry to say that he thought the Reports of the Board of Trade would throw no light upon the subject; and in his opinion the Committees on the various Bills would be still less able to do justice to the public interest than they would have done had the Reports never existed; The general rule proposed to be enforced with respect to the railway profits was, that wherever they exceeded 10 per cent. the public was to reap the benefit of the surplus by the reduction of the fares; but, in order to evade this regulation, the railway companies threw out branch railroad schemes, not with the expectation of deriving any profit from them, but in order to spread the surplus profit of the original line over these new lines; so that it was not so much a question whether these branch lines were absolutely wanted, as whether it suited the interests of the companies to construct them; and the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had, in the vast majority of instances, decided in favour of these branch roads. He, therefore, felt justified in asserting that, by their proceedings, the Railroad Department of the Board of Trade was cutting up the country in all directions by sanctioning these branch lines, which he felt convinced would never pay one shilling of profit on the capital expended, but would merely enable the old companies, by whom they were constructed, to avoid lowering their rates of transit charges, by expending the surplus above the 10 per cent., yielded by the old lines in bunging the rate of profit on the branch lines up to the 10 per cent. guaranteed to the shareholders. The noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) had expressed his desire to suspend his judgment on the different railway projects until they came under the consideration of the Committee. He (Sir G. Strickland) wished to draw attention to the effect which this mode of proceeding would have. He would suppose that one of these branch railways went through the property of some one who was not an affluent man The company offers him a small or rather an inadequate compensation, with which

1083
he is dissatisfied. How does the matter work? The noble Lord said the decision would be deferred until the railway project came before the Committee. But then the person whose property was thus inadequately compensated for was not able to go before the Committee to oppose the Bill because of the expense, and therefore the branch railway would succeed in passing through the ordeal of an examination before the Parliamentary Committee, especially if the Board of Trade had already repotted in its favour. For the reasons he had assigned he highly approved of the hon. Member's Amendment; and he trusted, before the next Session of Parliament, the Reports of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade would be entirely put a stop to.
Mr. Bankssaid, that the impressions created in his mind by an attentive consideration of the Reports of the Railway Board had led him to form the same conclusions to which the hon. Baronet who spoke last had come—namely, that the Railway Board had almost invariably given a preference to the existing rich and powerful companies, and had thus thrown a damp over the projects of new companies; in many respects he considered this to be highly injurious, by arresting free competition; and likewise, extremely prejudicial to the interests of individuals. There was also another injurious effect resulting from giving so decided a preference to the old companies, namely, that the complaints and remonstrances of individuals against the new lines projected had far less hope of obtaining that fair attention to which they were entitled, when they came in competition with the old and powerful companies, than they would have had were they directed against new companies. He thought the Board of Trade had greatly exceeded the powers intrusted to it by the Mouse, and this in more respects than one. He held in his hand a Report issued with respect to the Great Western line, by which the Members of the Railway Board not only assumed the power of sanctioning a junction formed by this company with another railway company; but they also constituted themselves umpires in case any dispute should arise between the two companies thus coalescing. Now, no such power as was arrogated had been granted to that Board by the House, and moreover it appeared that the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade considered itself to be a
1084
regularly constituted permanent authority. If it did not so consider itself, how could its Members assume the power of deciding upon the future quarrels of companies? The whole proceedings of that Board had tended to throw additional power into the hands of companies already extremely powerful, by which means the complaints and remonstrances of those whose property was injured or depreciated by the railway operations, did not meet with that attention or obtain that redress which they would have received from smaller and less powerful companies. He held in his hand a statement containing grave matter of complaint against one of the railway companies. The complaint proceeded from a person of rank, and it had already been made the subject of comment in another place. He would merely state what its nature was at that moment, as he was sure the House would receive it with attention. The complainant was a lady of high rank, Lady Georgiana Fane, who resided in the mansion of her ancestors, near which one of the projected lines of railway was to pass. Unhappily for this lady, she was in this case opposed to one of the powerful companies, and they made a boast that they could command a hundred votes in that House. They had, by this statement, obtained the assent of a number of the proprietors through whose lands their line passed, who were alarmed and intimidated. But the lady in question would not assent to a proceeding so injurious to her house and property. He would cite one of the allegations of her petition, which at a future day he should ask leave to lay on the Table. The petitioner stated, that at the latter end, about the 25th, of January last, an agent called and showed her the plans and maps of the projected railway, and stated at the same time that no deviation would be allowed of a greater extent than 100 yards on either side of the line, of which he then gave her notice; and he was at that time informed that the petitioner would never consent to a line which approached so near her mansion. The petitioner went on to state, that on the same day on which she had expressed her dislike of this proposed line of railway, the agent called on one of her tenants, who declared his intention of being guided by his landlady's wishes, and who was induced to sign a paper upon its being represented to him that his landlady had given her assent to the line—she having expressed her strong dissent from it that very morning. He had referred to the petition in question,

1085
as he understood the proceeding therein complained of was an every-day occurrence; but the answer made by the railway companies to this lady's complaint was, "Oh! she must get used to railways as others have done." He was quite ready to admit that the rank or station of the lady in question made no sort of difference in the facts; nay, more, he would recall an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, who said that one advantage which would result from the Reports of the Railway Board was, that they would be sifted before the Committees by the wealth that was ranged on opposite sides. But there was in many instances no wealth to sift these Reports. It was quite true the case to which he had just referred was one wherein a person of rank and wealth was the complainant; but how many cases of similar oppression and injustice were there in which neither wealth nor rank could be brought to the assistance of the injured party? All these evils resulted from giving a monopoly of the lines of railway to large and wealthy companies, who could muster, as they boasted, a hundred votes in that House. In the light in which he had exhibited it, the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had proved injurious to the individuals whose property was affected by the great lines of railroad, and not beneficial to the country. What the companies chiefly, indeed solely, considered, was the benefits which they should reap, and not those which the country would derive from their operations. He would cite another instance of a different character to the one he had referred to as exhibiting the nature of the railway companies' proceedings. It happened, that on the same line of railway as the one already alluded to by him, the property of a gentleman of rank and station was affected to a very considerable degree. He accordingly set about meeting the company, and in a manner much more effectual. He had their surveyor taken up under the Wilful Trespass Act, who was fined 5l. This prompt and vigorous proceeding alarmed the company; and when they came to recollect that this gentleman had connexions in that and the other House of Parliament, they consented to make a very considerable deviation from their originally projected line, which put them to a considerable expense. But with respect to the lady to whom he had referred, he must observe that there was this peculiarity about her case to those of others similarly
1086
circumstanced, that she had had no notice of the line of railway until January—just sufficient to legalize the proceedings in that House. She, therefore, had not had time to take any steps to oppose the company, and she had no other resource than to throw herself upon the mercy of the Committee, which he trusted would pay that attention to her remonstrances, and do her that justice, which her case called for. It was, he must say, one of those cases which were marked by great hardship, for a deviation of half a mile only would remove her objection entirely to the line; whereas, not only had this slight accommodation been refused, but she had met with insult when she remonstrated with the company. Under the circumstances, he rejoiced that the discussion had taken place, and he was convinced that the more the nature of the proceedings of the Railway Board were considered, the greater would be the difficulty in deciding as to what the functions and duties of that body really were. All he could say with respect to the results which had attended the constitution and the proceedings of the Board was, that the 21st day of April had arrived, and yet there had only been that morning for the first time instituted three Railway Committees.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that as an allusion had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark, he would beg permission to make a very few observations on the subject under discussion. It certainly was very true that last Session he had expressed an opinion favourable to the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade; but he must say that, after hearing the discussion of that evening, and after listening to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he no longer entertained that opinion. For even the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so doubtful on the point, as to have asked the House to suspend its opinion until the Reports of the Railway Board came under the consideration of the Committees of the House. For his own part, he was by no means sure if it was possible for any preliminary inquiry to be such as would prove satisfactory to all parties; for what was it that the Board of Trade was called upon to do? There were about 200 Bills placed before it; and without examining any one of the parties, without any evidence, with difficulties to wade through which were very great, and

1087
with questions of the most perplexed nature, such as would puzzle the brains of the Committees which confined their attention to only one Bill, with all the aid of counsel and witnesses, the Railway Board came to decisions which they qualified as accurate, and pronounced their opinions upon the conflicting lines in the most positive and authoritative terms. He had always understood the Railway Department of the Board of Trade to have been constituted for the purpose of offering suggestions only to the Committees on the Bills. But they did not confine themselves to that occupation. They pronounced their peremptory decisions by the medium of the Gazette, and these decisions often preceded the Reports by several weeks. These decisions had produced an effect in the money-market that it was not too much to state gave rise to dangerous speculations. Indeed, unless their reports and decisions were founded on larger views and more general principles, not the smallest benefit could be expected from them. In many instances so narrow were the grounds of the decisions as to be quite at variance with the other reasons for portions of the same line of railway pronounced upon. His attention had been called to one of the Reports from the Board of Trade in which a certain set of gradients were laid down—it was on the Birmingham and Gloucester line; and he found it stated in the evidence of one of the engineers—a man of skill and eminence—that the part of the line to which the gradients applied would be rendered quite dangerous thereby in consequence of the declivity. Such discrepancies as these greatly shook his confidence in the decisions of the Board; nor did he think the Committees on the Railway Bills would be much assisted by them. He thanked the hon. Member for Finsbury for having brought the subject before the House in a tangible form; and although he thought that the hon. Member was quite right in withdrawing his Motion in favour of the Amendment, he considered that great benefit would result from the discussion.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he was happy to give his assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth, the more so as it was one of the Resolutions which it had been his intention to move on Tuesday; and, consequently, its adoption that evening would
1088
save him and the House some trouble. At the same time, he must observe that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) had not given any distinct or intelligible answer to a question which he had put to him, and which his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth had reiterated, namely, what degree of authority was to be given to the circular issued by the Railway Board to all the Parliamentary agents, whereby that Board assumed to itself the power of supervision over the Railway Bills whilst going through Parliament. He wished to know by what right the Board of Trade demanded that a printed copy of every Amendment in Committee should be deposited by the agents of the Bill at the office of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade at least three clear days before the Report should be brought up and received by the House. He wanted to know whence the Board of Trade derived their right to call upon the agents for a copy of the Bill as amended by a Committee of that House. He maintained that the Board of Trade had the single duty to perform of examining all railway projects previous to their entering the House, and to give such suggestions as they might think right, founded upon the facts before them. The moment they had made their Report and had laid it on the Table, their functions ceased—they had no right to go before the Committees; much less had they a right to order copies of the recommendations agreed to that they might have a "supervision" over the Bills. Such a word was an assumption of power, and a very impertinent assumption of power, and he wanted to know what they meant by it, and whether the right hon. Baronet did claim for the Board of Trade any right of supervision during the progress of Railway Bills through Parliament? It was strange that some twenty Gentlemen should have spoken in the course of that discussion, and that not one had risen to uphold the Reports of the Board of Trade. They had indeed been told, on the contrary, that their Reports should have no more weight with the Committee than the paper on which they were written; and that appeared to be about their value. He was very glad that this discussion had taken place, as it would show to the public the real value of those Reports. The private business of that House had been thrown back at least for a full month waiting for those

1089
Reports, and now they were worth nothing. With the leave of the House he would withdraw his original Motion and accept the Amendment in its place.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the word "supervision" was that which had been used by the Committee of that House in determining what powers should be intrusted to the Board of Trade. One of their duties was to consider the different schemes previous to their introduction into the House; and another was, to watch the Bills themselves, that they might point out to the House any clauses that might be desirable to insert, and prevent the insertion of improper clauses. It was necessary to that end that they should have the power complained of by the hon. Member.
Mr. T. Duncombehoped the Parliamentary agents would not comply with the request of the Board then. Such an order could only come with propriety from that House. If he moved an Amendment to any one of those Bills, was the Board of Trade to send down to the agents for it to see whether it squared with their views? He considered it to be a gross infringement of their rights as Members of that House.
Motion withdrawn, and Amendment agreed to.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee to vote the Maynooth College Grant out of the Consolidated Fund,
Sir R. Inglissaid: I trust, Sir, I shall be excused for calling, not your attention, but that of Her Majesty's Ministers, to the clock. I ask whether it befitting that the most important stage in this Bill should be commenced at the present hour? The question at issue is whether the Consolidated Fund of England shall be charged in perpetuity with the amount which Her Majesty's Ministers propose for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. I ask this House, and especially I ask Her Majesty's Ministers, whether it be fit to commence such a measure at such an hour as the present? I believe that many Gentlemen—one I know on the opposite side of the House has done so—have expressed an opinion that it is impossible to commence such a discussion at such a time. I, therefore, must resist the pressing forward of this measure at this hour, and I hope it will not be necessary
1090
for me to resist it in any other way than by appealing to the right feeling of my right hon. Friend. It is now a quarter past ten o'clock, and I feel that it would be unworthy the magnitude of the subject and of the sense that the people entertain of it, at such a time to commence this discussion. I trust that Her Majesty's Ministers will not rely solely upon their numerical majority, but will yield to what I think is a most reasonable request on my part.
Sir R. Peelsaid: I sincerely regret that my hon. Friend makes any objection to the progress of this Bill. I did understand from an hon. Gentleman who has given notice of a Motion on this subject, that he should hardly think it his duty to bring forward his Motion at a later hour than ten o'clock, and I may as well tell my hon. Friend that I do not mean to give him the advantage of the opportunity of saying that I have hurried on this business unnecessarily; but I do at the same time think, considering that the measure is now introduced, and considering the manner in which it has been received, that it is of vital importance that no delay should take place. I may say also that no effort on my part shall be wanting to conduct it to a successful issue. With the exception of business of pressing importance to the Public Service, I will not bring forward any Government measure until it shall have been disposed of. I shall, of course, fulfil the pledge which I gave—not for seeing the extent of the opposition which this measure has met with—to the Members representing Scotland, and on Friday next state to the House the general outline of the measure which it is the intention of the Government to propose with respect to banking in that country, in order that those hon. Members may have an opportunity of considering it. I am sorry I was obliged to give that pledge, but I should be also sorry to break it, and I therefore feel myself compelled to adopt the course I have stated. Trusting that those hon. Members will be satisfied with the announcement of the general principles of the measure, and content to reserve the discussion of it for a future occasion, I therefore propose that we shall enter into a Committee upon this vote on the earliest day I can propose, namely, Wednesday next. At the same time I have no power to compel Gentlemen who have notices for that day in reference to Bills undertaken

1091
by individuals, to give me precedence. If they are willing to wave their right in that respect, I shall certainly avail myself of the permission, and bring forward this measure on Wednesday; if unwilling then, I must only bring it forward on Friday immediately after I shall have given an outline of the measure affecting the banks of Ireland and Scotland. But I repeat, that no effort upon my part shall be wanting, to advance the measure now before the House with the utmost expedition.
Mr. Hindleythanked the right hon. Baronet for giving way on this occasion, and considering the measure to be of a highly injurious character, he should oppose it to the utmost; at the same time he was sure the right hon. Baronet would not injure his own cause by not proceeding with that indecent haste which he had attempted on a former occasion. Those who opposed this measure, had been charged with bigotry; but he had just as much right to make a charge of robbery against those who supported it. If, as a Dissenter, he was obliged to support his own church, to build his own chapels, and to endow his own colleges, he asked what right the Government had to put their hands into his pockets and make him pay for a religion which he did not approve of? He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Their cause, and the cause of the Irish people, he had at all times promoted by his votes in that House. As far as regarded civil privileges, he should continue to do so; but he thought it extremely uncivil that they should desire to put their hands into his pockets for the support of their religion.
Sir R. Peelhoped that if the consideration of the measure was to be postponed, hon. Members would not now attempt to raise a discussion on it.
Viscount Howickregretted that they could not at all events commence the discussion that evening. However, as the right hon. Baronet thought it better to yield, he had nothing more to say upon the point. But he could not help suggesting to the right hon. Gentlemen that the Scotch Representatives would, he thought, be very willing to relieve him from the pledge which he had given to begin the business of Friday by a general statement of his plan respecting Scotch banks, if he would consent to postpone his
1092
measure upon the subject to another Session. He was prepared to support the right hon. Baronet in all his measures upon the subject, his opinions being much the same as those upon which the right hon. Baronet founded his measure of last year; but, looking to the mass of business upon the books, and to the certainty that they should soon, perhaps immediately after Whitsuntide, begin the process of lopping off Bills, he would ask, whether they might not consider this Scotch measure as one of those which had better be reserved for another Session? He could not help thinking that the remedy which the right hon. Baronet wished to apply to the evils existing in the currency of Scotland, was not pressingly required at this moment, and that probably a little longer experience of the working of the English measure might facilitate in a future year the passing of a measure with respect to Scotland and Ireland. It was clear that if the right hon. Baronet proceeded with his intended measure, it would be met by a vast amount of opposition. They all knew that when hon. Gentlemen began to talk about paper money it was not easy to foresee when they would stop; and locking to the Maynooth and other momentous questions to be disposed of in the present Session, he strongly recommended the right hon. Baronet to postpone his banking measure, and proceed with that now before the House on Friday.
Sir R. Peelthought there could be no objection to his stating the nature of the measure, which included Ireland as well as Scotland, on Friday next; particularly as he did not feel it consistent with his duty to comply with the request of the noble Lord.
Order of the Day read and postponed.

CUSTOMS' (IMPORT DUTIES) BILL).
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved that the Customs' Import Duties Bill be lead a third time.
Mr. Kemblerose to call the attention of the House to the case of the holders of staves on which the duty had been paid in the bonding warehouses on the 14th of February, and not since removed. He insisted upon the grievance sustained by those parties who still held staves on which they had paid the duty, in being brought into competition with the holders of staves which had been imported since the duty had been removed. He considered that

1093
their claims to a return of the duty rested on the same grounds with the claims lately set up by the holders of sugar. Indeed, their case was stronger; for it was evident to every body that the Sugar Duties would be altered this year, whereas the duty on staves had been so lately altered by the Tariff in 1842, that no one could suppose a second alteration would take place within so short a period. There could be no fear of fraud in this case, because relief was only asked for those who had their goods under the Queen's lock; and, as the principle had so lately been admitted in the case of the Sugar Duties, he trusted no objection would be made to the relief in this case.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the House would recollect, when the propriety of allowing a drawback on the sugar was under consideration, he stated that it would give rise to applications from every person having goods in bond where the duties had been reduced. Notwithstanding, the House thought that sugar was an article on which they ought to make an exception; they did it principally on this ground, that the time fixed for the expiration of the Sugar Duties had been anticipated by about three months. He was not disposed to acquiesce in the proposition of his hon. Friend with respect to staves, because there was no peculiarity in the article which did not apply to others where the duties had been reduced. There was this peculiarity also against a return of the duty—that the coopers themselves urged the abolition of the duty; now, a certain number of them came forward to get a return of the duty upon their stocks in the Queen's warehouses; thus obtaining a preference over those who had taken their goods out of bond. On these grounds he could not accede to the proposition.
Mr. Hawessaid, the application was made, not by the coopers, but by merchants who had bonded staves for the use of the coopers. He thought that wherever it was possible to estimate the loss, and the goods were in the state in which they were unsorted, Government ought to allow the drawback.
Mr. Humesaid, that when the Government undertook a great measure like the present, they ought to act upon general principles, not to favour one party because they had powerful advocates in this House, and oppose those who were weakly supported.
1094
The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not rest upon any principle, and it was against all the precedents that had been established for the last sixty years. The precedent was, that whenever Government abolished duty on goods, they relieved those goods that were previously liable to duty wherever it could be done. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: Never.] That was invariably the case. He would challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name an instance to the contrary. Whenever goods were under the lock and key of the Excise Office that was done; and those goods being under lock and key of the Customs, he did not see that there was any difference.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, what the hon. Member had stated was quite true of the Excise, but not of the Customs; and, for this simple reason, that when the duties were increased, the increase was not laid upon the goods in bend. The principle had only been violated in the case of sugar, and that for the special reason be had mentioned.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the analogy that had been attempted to be drawn between this case and the wholesale dealers in sugar would not hold, for he recollected that in that case the remission of the duties was forced upon the Government, not simply on the ground that it was impossible to commit fraud, though that was a necessary part of the case, but on the ground that the alteration of the Sugar Duties took place three months earlier than parties could have anticipated. It appeared to him that the House was treading on slippery ground in discussing a question of this kind. In 1842, a large number of sweeping reductions were made without affording any relief to a single party. It appeared to him that the Motion of the hon. Member, under the colour of equity and kindness, would yet, if adopted, give rise to infinite embarrassment.
Sir Robert Peelwas altogether opposed to the principle of allowing drawbacks in any case. The general rule on the remission of Customs' duties ought to be to make them without compensation to any parties. The hon. Member for Montrose had warned them of the evil of giving way to powerful interests, and not giving weak ones the same advantage. Now it happened that they were resisting the claims of the wholesale importers of staves, because

1095
they knew it would injuriously affect the interests of coopers and small dealers, who had already paid the duty for staves, and used them so soon as they were imported. There had been a great outcry against the duty on staves. It was said, "Repeal the duty, remove the restriction, and the trade will flourish." Well, they had removed the duty, and the parties in that trade would, of course, derive the benefit of it. As a general rule, the importer should take the increased trade consequent on the decreased duty as a compensation for any small additional cost he might have paid for the article as duty before its reduction. In the case of the holders of bonded sugar there was a peculiarity, which distinguished it from the present case of the holders of staves. The Sugar Duties were imposed annually, and according to the Act of Parliament those duties would not have expired until the month of July, so that the parties importing sugar had a right to calculate that the duties would continue until that period. But even in the case of the Sugar Duties, the allowance of a drawback was a measure rather forced upon the Government than as one proceeding from them, as it was in opposition to the general rule, which he considered it was always desirable, if possible, to adhere to.
Bill read a third time and passed.

PHYSIC AND SURGERY.
Sir J. Grahamsaid he intended to make certain alterations in the Physic and Surgery Bill, which then stood for its Second Reading, but he was not prepared to state what they were, arrangements being still pending with regard to them. Considering the state of the Session, he wished to make some progress with the Bill, and, though he did not think it right to press the second reading of either the Physic and Surgery Bill or of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons Bill that night, he proposed to fix the second reading positively for Friday next; and he trusted that then the House would allow him to take the second reading of the two Bills. On a subsequent night he should propose to go into Committee pro formâ, in order that he might introduce into the Bills all the alterations and amendments which he had in contemplation. He should next move, on an early day after the Whitsuntide holidays, that the House should go
1096
again into Committee, for the purpose of discussing the details of the Bills.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that until the alterations were made, they did not know what they had to discuss. There was much anxiety felt on this subject, in consequence of the profession considering that there was a great disagreement between the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman and the Bill he introduced. I They did not consider that the right hon. Gentleman had carried out his own views in his own Bill; and one of his correspondents had suggested that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in taking out a Bill from one of his official pigeonholes, had hit upon a wrong Bill. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that before Whitsuntide he would go into Committee upon the Bills pro formâ, and that then he would have them printed, so that they might be in a perfect state in the hands of the profession. If the profession had an opportunity of considering them for a fortnight or three weeks after the alterations were made, he (Mr. Wakley) should have no objection to this arrangement.
Bills postponed.
House adjourned at twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Death by Accidents Compensation.
3a. and passed:—Sheriffs (Wales).
Private. — 1a. Wallasey Improvement.
2a. Amicable Society Assurance; Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate; Forth and Clyde Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Bishops of London, Bangor, St. David's, and Down, Earls Falmouth, Fortescue, Roden, Clare, and Eglintoun, Marquesses of Londonderry, and Breadalbane, and by Lords Brougham, Farnham, Stanley, and Wodehouse, from Clergy and others of Merston, and numerous other places, against Increase of Grant to Maynooth.—By Earls of Winchilsea, and Fortescue, from Carn Madryn, and 9 other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance, especially on the Sabbath.—By Bishop of London, and Earl of Winchilsea, from Clergy and others of the Archdeaconry of Essex, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Grand Jury of Carnarvon, and from 5 other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop of Manchester.—From Merston, for the better Regulation or Beer Houses.—By Bishop of Down, from Kilsyth, and Newtown Barry, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl of Clare, from Bishop of Down and Connor, and Dromore, and of Clergy of the united Diocese, and from Inhabitants of Kilbride, and numerous other places, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Earl Fortescue, and Lord Stanley, from Tradesmen and others of Congleton, and several other places, for Repeal of 57th Clause of the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Bill, except as to Debts not exceeding 5l.—From Landowners and others of County of Rutland, for
1048
Protection to Agriculture.—From Congregation of the Free Church of Pollockshaws, and 6 other places, for Inquiry into the Course of Instruction adopted at Maynooth College.—By Earl of Clare, from Lisburne, Kilkeel, Downpatrick, and Dundalk Unions, for Alteration of Poor Law Act (Ireland) in respect to Repayment of Money advanced for building of Workhouses; and from Inhabitants of Ballyeulter and Inch, for Revision and Alteration of the Rubrics.—By Earl of Haddington, and Bishop of Down, from Dunbar, in favour of the Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—By Earl of Eglinton, from Ministers and Elders of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

MAYNOOTH.
The Earl of Rodensaid, he had a great number of petitions on that absorbing subject which now occupied the Protestant mind of this country. They, however, differed in their effect, some of them being directly opposed to the Bill now in progress in the other House, and these he should not present to their Lordships at that time, but should reserve until the period when the Bill should be before their Lordships' House. He had other petitions of a general nature, praying their Lordships not to agree to any endowment of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, and also petitions praying their Lordships to appoint a Committee of their Lordships' House (prior to their agreeing to the second reading of the Bill) to inquire what were the tenets, dogmas, and class books taught at that college. With respect to the petitions connected with this last subject, he confessed that he could conceive nothing more fit, more natural, or more right, than that their Lordships, before consenting to such a measure as was now in progress in the other House, and against which so large a portion of the Protestant population had entered their dissent, should appoint a Committee up stairs to inquire into the tenets which were taught at Maynooth College, and which it was now proposed should be taught to a greater extent by the means of additional funds given for that purpose. It was desirable that a Committee of Inquiry should be appointed, because then an opportunity would be afforded of proving, if possible, that what was taught at Maynooth College was not what it ought to be, but had interfered in many respects with the well-being of the country at large. On the other hand, if this were not the case, a Committee of Inquiry would afford an opportunity of disproving the allegation to that effect, and this would tend very much to allay that very great excitement which now prevailed in the Protestant mind

1049
throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland. Should it, however, appear that the tenets and class books taught at Maynooth College were highly detrimental to the best interests of the country, then he thought that Her Majesty's Ministers in that House would not venture to carry this Bill into a law. He did not wish now to say anything that would excite discussion, nor would he say whether what was taught at Maynooth was right or wrong; but the best means of arriving at the truth was by appointing a Committee of Inquiry before the second reading of the Bill in their Lordships' House, and with that view it was his intention (if he should have the opportunity) to propose, before such second reading, that a Committee be appointed up stairs for inquiring into the subject. The noble Lord then presented petitions to the effect stated.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had to present a petition to the same effect as the bulk of those presented by his noble Friend, from the members of the Independent chapel in Wellington-street, Portobello. Though he greatly respected these petitioners, as well as others whose petitions he had presented on the same subject, he was under the necessity of saying that he differed from them; and he could not help wishing that his noble Friend who had just sat down, had pursued the same course. But every one was convinced of the entire honesty and conscientious conviction of his noble Friend in respect to any matter on which he delivered his opinion, and more especially on a matter which had so long occupied his attention. But, as to his noble Friend moving for more information on this subject, perhaps it would be more convenient to those whom he represented, and whose vehemence shone forth in their petitions — it might be more beneficial to their cause, that if statements were to be made with respect to Maynooth College, they should be made in the freedom of debate, than upon oath before a Committee. It would be better that such assertions should be made with that manly freedom with which persons were in the habit of asserting things in debate, and which was very different from statements made upon oath and liable to cross-examination. Not that he meant to say that he should not give credit to any statement made by his noble Friend; he should believe him just as much in one capacity as in the other; but should prefer
1050
if those persons whom he so justly represented in that place, would give their body of facts in any way rather than in sworn evidence before a Committee, where they must submit to be cross-examined. But it would not do for them to prove, even if they could, that those bad books and doctrines were taught in Maynooth College; it would not do to say—"Don't add so many thousands to the old grant." Why, did not his noble Friend come forward every year, and with the same objection, for fifty years back? If it was bad to give 30,000 l. to this College, was it not bad to give 9,000 l.? The amount did not alter the state of the case as to principle. The opponents to the increased grant reminded him of the frail lady who admitted that she had had a child, but said it was only a very small one. They objected to the present proposition, yet they never said a word against the grant before. He was astonished to see the great flame which had been raised against this increase; whereas the old grant had been received with total silence from year to year. But he was more astonished to hear people say that this grant was an endowment of Maynooth. It was not an endowment. It was the grossest perversion of intellect, and the greatest abuse of language, to represent it as an endowment. But, let that be the case or not, they would only just be endowing what they had been endowing as hard as they could for the last fifty years; yet all at once the four corners of the world were to be set in a flame by the report of the endowment of a Popish College. He felt humbled, degraded, and mortified, in the greatest degree, to see so many of his fellow countrymen led away by such furious nonsense. With all possible respect—not with all respect, but with all possible respect for the petitioners, he did not agree with them in thinking that by agreeing to the increased grant to Maynooth they would be putting souls in jeopardy, or that statesmen would be guilty of every sort of departure from principle. Why was that said? Oh! because it was an endowment of Maynooth College, and the next thing would be an endowment of the Catholic clergy. Why, that did not follow. Parliament might stop where they were. But suppose they did go further, they would only do what had been done before. Twenty years ago he supported Lord Francis Egerton in the House of Commons in a resolution to this

1051
effect:—"Resolved, that it is expedient,"—not that it is irreligious, not that it puts immortal souls in danger, not that it is endowing heresy, and error, and idolatry; no such thing; but "that it is expedient to grant a sum sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, exercising their religious functions"—those functions now called superstitious and idolatrous—"in Ireland." That was carried by 200 odd votes against 160 odd, giving a majority of forty-three. At that time he heard nothing like what was advanced at the present time. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present First Lord of the Treasury took this ground:—"They said they had not the least objection to the principle," but, said Sir R. Peel, "I should vote for it if the Catholic question were carried. That Resolution involved the endowment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy in Ireland to the extent of 240,000 l. It was carried by a great majority, and would have been finally, had the other question been carried. It was called the clerical wing, and the other the freeholders' wing; and the two were to go on pari passu. But, the one being rejected, the other was not carried; otherwise there would have been an endowment of the clergy as a condition and stipulation for the security of the Protestant Church in Ireland. For one who had wished well to the progress of human knowledge, he must say that he had hoped never to hear such sentiments as he now heard upon this subject, and he repeated that he could not support the prayer of the petitioners.
The Earl of Mountcashellsaid, he was of opinion that it was contrary to the usage of their Lordships' House to have any question discussed in detail on the occasion of presenting a petition. He could answer every word of the noble and learned Lord. He could prove the fallacy of what the noble and learned Lord had stated, but the proper time was not yet come; when it did come, however, he would be ready to take up the subject. He had no doubt that when the question should come before their Lordships in the regular way, many things would be brought forward that must mate some of their Lordships pause before they came to a decision. It would be very much better for noble Lords to listen, first of all, calmly and fairly to all the arguments which could be advanced on both sides, and
1052
then decide, and not come forward on the presentation of petitions and make assertions, and say,—"I have made up my mind to give my vole in a particular way before I examine into the merits of the question, or hear them discussed." He thought such a course unconstitutional and improper. He, therefore, found fault with the noble and learned Lord for setting a bad example in that House. He trusted their Lordships would not follow that example.
Lord Broughamconfessed that he stood corrected by the noble Earl, and he felt deeply grateful to him for not inflicting upon him the punishment he had threatened — for not doing what he said he would—answer him. No doubt the noble Earl would answer him; but he hoped the noble Earl would give him a further respite. In fact, he did not wish ever to suffer under that infliction, after the specimen the noble Earl had given that evening. But he must say that when he found how his noble Friend who preceded him had entered largely into the question while presenting petitions, he certainly thought that what was good for one would be good for another.
The Earl of Claresaid, that, in consequence of the lamented death of his noble Friend the Marquess of Downshire, he was called upon to present certain petitions to their Lordships. In doing so he would take the opportunity of saying how deeply he regretted the cause by which this duty had devolved upon him—the death of a nobleman who, from his admirable conduct in his sphere of action—from the way in which he discharged his duties as a landed proprietor—from his liberal encouragement of every institution in both countries for the improvement of society, and from the part also which he took in the debates in that House—he must say that he considered the death of that nobleman was both a great public and private loss; but he believed that his memory would be warmly cherished with undiminished affection by every person in every class of society who had known him.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he had made some inquiry with regard to the refusal of the coroner of Thetford to make a return of the number of inquests held on infants, and found that there was no record at the Home Office of any reply to the coroner's letter, as to the payment for his trouble in making out the return; but

1053
if the noble Earl would now move for a special return from that coroner of his inquests on infants under one year old, for the ten years ending June 30th, 1842, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would take care that the gentleman should be told that he must make the return, without trying 10 make any stipulation whatever with respect to payment.
The Earl of Mountcashellmoved accordingly; and the Return was ordered.

DEATH BY ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL.
Lord Lyttletonmoved the second reading of this Bill. At present, a person who suffered by an accident arising from the negligence of another, might obtain compensation in damages if he recovered from the injury, but if he died, the right of action died with him. By this Bill his family, or his parents, if he left no wife or child, would be entitled to the same remedy as he would (if he had survived) have been entitled to. This was the law already in France; and as the value of a man's life was calculable, juries would soon get into the habit of assessing damages quite as well as for an injury to his person.
Lord Campbellthought the Bill a most signal amendment of the law, and gave his entire approbation to the principle at least; indeed, he should hardly venture to abolish the system of deodands, however absurd, until there was some check upon negligence substituted. There had been suggestions to give a power to coroners to inflict a fine upon those who might be in fault; but they were often very much excited by the sight of the dead body and the detail of the circumstances, and he did not think that the proper tribunal which would mete out equal justice between the parties. He hoped that the Deodands Bill, which he had suspended, would go pari passu with this Bill, and that their march would be triumphant through the other House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had no disposition to oppose this Bill, especially as his noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice of England, approved of its principle. He thought, however, that it would require a considerable alteration in its details, and recommended that it should go to a Committee up stairs. If compensation were required to be given to the children of a murdered person, application must be made to the Secretary of State
1054
to suspend the execution of the murderer. He should not object to the second reading of the Bill, and recommenced that it be referred to a Committee above stairs, to see in what shape it could be put in order to fulfil the object of the noble Lord.
Lord Lyttletonwas understood to consent to this course. Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.