The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-08 00:00:00

Majority against the motion
PUBLIC RAILWAYS.

_ ....
Mr. GOUL BURN said there were other views besides
those that were connected solely with engineering; it was
necessary also to consider which line would take in most large
towns and possess other commercial advantages. It was not
to be expected that an engineer in professionally looking at a
line, and avoiding engineering difficulties would give this
sufficient consideration. With reference to the convenience
it would afford to those gentlemen to visit their constituents,
as bile Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite
(the Att )rncy - general) had remarked, he ( Mr. Goulburn)
thought that those Honourable Gentlemen who anticipated
that convenience should subscribe towards defraying the ex-
penses of the survey.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said the great point was, to decide
which line would be best as an engineering line, and at the
same time combine the other advantages that were required
for a railway. This was important to kscertain, in order to
he able to judge of the probability of its remunerating those
concerned in it.

C. FEL:U.; USSON believed a Commission would be
attended with good effects.
Mr. AG LIONBY said that both lines were attended with
difficulties ; it was, therefore, not so easy to judge between
them.
Mr. WALLACE said they merely asked an umpire. This
had been granted in the Brighton case, and why shouLl it not
be granted to them ?

------- •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the parties were really interested in the matter, and might be
brought to agree %ithaut difficulty.
Sir R. INGLIS did not feel that a sufficient case had been
made out to justify an address to the Crown.
4! that Government had offered to survey
lie to Edinburgh, and from Lancaster to
• of tits competing projectors desire it.

i • ' 114Esn I
itii
11,
~ ~ •, _ .6 a_...: •
....,
- ~.,...i , .fa..? • ...tt ~
, *-
-• '• - --..,.._ ~

42 Y.

the honour of presenting to them. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed to
inquire into subjects contained in the petition of the landowners
and others connected with the principality of Wales, pre-
sented en the 10th of May, 1238.
Mr. RIC H A RDS seconded the motion. It was a subject
which required the immediate interference of the Legislature.
It had produced serious grievances amongst poor holders of
land in Wales, and he trusted the evils arising from those pro-
ceedings would not be suffered to exist much longer. He had
a personal knowledge of many facts which would prove the
extent to which those oppressions had reached ; but he was of
opinion that before a Committee would be the most fitting
place to state them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, when he
heard the petition read, felt that if the Hon. Gentleman
founded his motion in conformity with it, the House would not
be justified in granting a Committee to inquire into those alle-
gations without the consent of the Crown. If the object of
the motion were to bring the question of the right of the
Crown before them, the House could not take any step with-
out the consent of her Majesty.—( Hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber who had introduced the motion had, however, said that he
did not demand an inquiry into all the allegations in that pe-
tition ; he only demanded an inquiry into certain subjects con-
tained in it. It was competent for the House to entertain cer-
tain subjects contained in that petition he would admit ; but
be would ask of what use would the Committee be if they
did not enter upon the very question to which they could not
proceed without the consent of her Majesty, namely, the
right of the Crown ? If they omitted this question, the
object of the Honourable Member would not be effected.
A gentleman had been very distinctly alluded to in the course
of the Honourable Gentleman's speech, who did not by any
merit the charges that were very plainly made against
him—he alluded to Mr. Wilkin. That gentleman was not to
blame for any proceedings of the Crown. With respect to the
motion, he should not give his assent to it, because the House
could not institute such an inquiry as was sought without the
consent of the Crown. The Hon. Member had alluded to the
game in Wales, and he had no doubt that some dispute amongst
Welsh gamekeepers had been mixed up with other matters in
this subject.
Colonel WOOD approved of a Committee, not for the
purpose of trying titles, but for the purpose of affording relief
an those cases of grievance which were so numerous. In the
county of Radnor large sales of Crown manors had taken
place ; the Crown at the time of sale conveyed to the pur-
chasers all the encroachments which had been made previously,
and the consequence was that immediately after actions were
taken by the purchasers against those who held land that was
included in the encroachments. The actions failed, because
having been twenty years in possession, that time established
their claim as against the purchasers ; but it tequired a posses
sion of sixty years to establish a claim against the Crown, and
therefore the Crown accordingly commenced actions as from
itself against those who occupied the encroachments. This
was decidedly an unfair degree of harshness. It was resuming
functions which for many years the Crown had not exercised.
Lord LOWTHER had no connection with those proceed-
ings alluded to, which were commenced at the direction of the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and so far from the
number of actions at law being very numerous, there had been
but fourteen from the year 1820 to 136, and only one verdict
for the Crown.
Mr. HALL thought that a Committee, consisting., of gentle-
men, many of them perhaps having personal and pecuniary
interests concerned, was not the best mode of settling the ab.
atruse legal points that would doubtless he raised in connection
with that subject ; therefore he had made up his mind to
oppose it. He should wish that some inquiry was instituted
into these cases of hardship upon poor holders of land which
undoubtedly existed. The Crown had acted with an unusual
degree of severity in some cases. He was of opinion that it
was the poor who required the protection most against the
Crown ; the rich holders were able to protect themselves.
Sir JOHN 0 WEN said a Commission would be very ex-
pensive, which a Committee would not be, and he therefore
thought a Committee ought to be granted. He was anxious
for an inquiry into those cases of severity.
Mr. WARBURTON should vote against the motion.
Colonel WOOD explained.
Mr. JERVIS would oppose the Committee because it could
lead to no good. The motion of his Hon. Friend, which was
a direct attack on Mr. Wiikin and the Woods and Forests,
would do anything if agreed to but benefit the parties it pro-
fessed to serve.
Mr. M. ATTWO OD said, a Court of law was the proper
tribunal to try the issue raised by the parties petitioning in
this instance. He must say that the uncalled-for vehemence
shown by the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward this mo-
tion appeared to him a strong proof that he would be found
completely in the wrong.—(Laughter.) That Hon. Gentle-
man was himself one of the parties between whom and the
Crown a question had been raised and Yves pending ; acd,
while he gave the Hon. Gentleman full credit for not assert-
ing any claim which be did not consider founded in justice.
he must say that he believed the Gentleman whose name hid
been introduced in this debate on account of the part which
he hid taken in maintaining the rights of the Crown (Mr.
Wilkia) quite as incapable of urging any claim on the part of
the Crown which was not perfectly just and equitable. The
course adopted had been fully approved by every Government,
and particularly by Mr. Huskisson. If the motion were to
be agreed to he ( Mr. Attwood) weuld divide the House on
the name of every Gentleman connected with the principality
of Wales, if any such were proposed on it.
Mr. C. W. WYNN did not deny the right of the Crown,
but he thought those rights bad been exercised in an oppres-
sive manner towards the landowners. The question of the
right of the Crown ought certainly not to be submitted to a
Commission appointed by the Crown.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if a case of grievance could be made out he, on the part of the
Crown, would afford every help ; but he believed the best
mode of inquiry would be by Commission.
Mr. BRISCOE did not wish to censure the Government
for the course they had pursued, but he thought the claims of
the present landowners ought to be considered.
Mr. 0. GORE having shortly replied, said it was his in-
tention to divide the House.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Mr. H. HlNDEthenrOse to move an address for the ap-
pointment of a Commission to ascertain and report on the best
line for a communication by railway from London and the
manufacturing districts of England to Edinburgh and Glas-
gow. If a Committee had been appointed at an earlier period
much expense would have been spared and better lines
adopted. The lion. Gentleman then proceeded to observe
upon the existing lines of wav, and to point out the advan-
tages which would have accrued it a Committee had been ap-
pointed before any lines of road had been entered upon, and
gave it as his opinion that such a line of road ought to be a
public undertaking.
Sir J. C AMPBELL concurred in the opinion with respect
to the advantage of such a Commission, and would willingly
second the motion, which he hoped would meet the concurrence
of Government and the consent of the House generally. It
was a question of great importance to the trade and commerce
of the country.
Sir G. STRICKL AND had been on a Committee with
respect to railro ids which was appointed this session, and it
was their opinion—an opinion in which he concurred, for he
thought. they had come to it upon good grounds—that Govern-
mint ought not to interfere in those matters, but leave them
to private speculation and individual competition, which would
always be most likely to insure the best and most desirable
lines of road in almost all cases.
Sir A. DA LRYM PLE was of opinion that the appoint-
ment of a Commission would be a great public advantage.
Mr. HUME would not support the motion if he thought it
involved any unnecessary public expenditure; but as it seemed
to him to be a question merely where a doubt was entertained
by two parties it would, in his opinion, be desirable that Go-
vernment might undertake to decide between them.
Mr. PO UL ETT THOMSON said that if the question
was what the Hon. Member for Kilkenny appeared to think it,
Government might be able to concur; but the proposal of the
Hon. Member who made the motion was not what the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny appeared to think. An application
somewhat like the present was made to the Committee which
sat in 1836. Witnesses were examined, and the difficulties
discussed; but the resolution to which the Committee came
was, that there could accrue no practical good to Great Bri-
tain from the appointment of a Commission, as it was impos-
sil-le that local interests could be properly considered by that
Commission. The acceding to the present motion would be
bre eking through the principle adopted by that Committee.
After a few words of explanation from the Attorney-Gene-
ral, Mr. P. Thomson, and Mr. Hinde,
Mr. PEASE should support the motion for a Commission.
He was anxious to see the best line adopted ; by the best line
he meant that which would:- be most advantageous to the
country generally. He was anxious to avoid the ruinous ex_
penses before Committees.

In that case all that was necessary to be done was to apply for
such survey.
Sir GEORGE CLERK trusted that the motion would
be agreed to, and that the expense being so trifling Honour-
able Gentlemen opposite would not further oppose it.—
(No, no.)
Mr. BAINES thought the better way would be to leave
the speculators in railways to find out the best lines, and not to
trammel enterprise by any Government interference.
Lord DUNGANNON thought that the Hon. Member for
Leeds, in opposing the motion, had brought forward the
strongest reasons in support of it.
Mr. H. HINDE then read his motion.
The House then divided.
For the motion 53
Against it 53
The numbers being even, the SPEAKER voted against
the motion, which was consequently lost.
Captain BOLDER° moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the petition of Lieut. Charles Hill, Royal Navy.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
House.

An animated conversation ensued on this motion, in which
Captain Dundas, Captain Boldero, Lord Dungannon, Mr,
Brotherton, Sir A. Dalrymple, Sir R. Inglis, and Mr. Wa.
lace, took part.
The House then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority

-43

Mr. C. WOOD opposed the motion of the Honourable and
Gallant Member.

Sir A. DALRYMPLE opposed the motion.
Sir IL INGLIS thought that this House was the last place
to which the decisions of the competent tribunals over the
army and navy ought to be brought.
After a short conversation,

Captain BOLDERO would not press the motion to a divi.
sion. The question was then put and the motion was nega
tived without a division.
VOTE BY BALLOT.

Sir H. VE RNEY did not intend to trouble the Howe
this session with the motion of which he had given notice with
respect to Vote by Hillot. He withdrew the motion, because
he was anxious to facilitate the important measures before the
House respecting Ireland, and in consideration of the late pe-
riod of the Session.

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned, at Half-past One o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 7.

Lord SHAFTESBURY, as Deputy Speaker, took seat on
the Woolsack, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, at Five
o'clock, when several private Bills upon the table were ad.
vanced a stige, and some wore read a third time and passed.
POOR LAWS.

Lord PORTMA N presented a petition from the Guardians
of the Uttoxeter Union, in the county of Stafford, expressing
unqualified approbation of the Poor Laws' Amendment Act,
and of the reaulations of the Commissioners.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

A message from the House of Commons brought up scveri
Private Bills, which were read a first time.
SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from New
castle-upon Tyne for the better observance of the Sabbath.

NIAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

The same Rev. PRELATE presented a petition from Wor•
cester for a better regulation of Maynooth Col!ege.
NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP,

The REV. PRELATE also presented petitions front Lam-
beth and other places, for the abolition of Negro Appren-
ticeship.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a number of
similar petitions from places in Durham, Yorkshire, and
other counties.

IRISH POOR-LAWS.
The Marquis of DOWNSI-lIRE presented a petition from
the Grand Jury of the city of Dublin against the Irish Poor-
law Bill.