The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-04 00:00:00

would be no compensation to a manufacturer for the loss of),
his sum-1y of gas or water for one clay. And as to the remedy
by action, why, in some cases, the expen,e of taking the
action would amount to more than the sum to be recovered.
He would, therefore, move that the penalty be 201. an hour,
if any Hon. Member would second it.
Mr. FOX MAULE—This was certainly a very important
point; but he perceived by the preceding clause that a
power was given to gas and water companies to take actions
against railway companies, in the event of the latter causing
damage to the works of the former. Now, he would wish to
know if tradesmen and manufacturers had any facile mode of
gal ing compensation for the deprivation of gas or water for
a day?
Lord G. SOMERSET said there was a clause in the Bill
giving compensation to such for any damage unfairly occa-
sioned. But it should be remembered that neither gas com-
panies, nor water companies, nor extensive manufacturers,
were generally so impoverished as not to be able to sustain
an action in a court of law in such cases. _ _

Mr. SPOONER—The Noble Lord had stated that the
clause gave a remedy against all damages " unfairly" done.
But he would ask how that could be said to be " unfairly"
done which was done under the sanction of an Act of Parlia-
ment and the direction of an engineer? He knew an in-
stance where a gentleman's park pailings had been broken
down by a railway company, and when he sought compensa-
tion for the injury, the answer he received was, that nothing
had been done that was not necessary and unavoidable. And
as to the gas and water companies not being impoverished,
why that was very true; but what remedy were individuals
of small means to have in case of such injuries?
Mr. FOX MAULE perceived that the Noble Lord op-
posite had not made out his own case as strong as he might
have done; far he (Mr. Fox Maule) found that the clause
alluded to by the Noble Lord, as giving a remedy by action,
gave that remedy without anysuch expression as " unfairly."
—( A laugh.)
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND conceived that 201. a day
was a very severe penalty ; but he thought if it were made
20/. an hour, very vexatious use might be made of it. And
as to a remedy by an action at law being too expensive, he
could not see how any remedy was to be had by any other
means

Lord G. SOMERSET said there were subsequent
clauses in the Bill by which a summary mode of recovery
was provided for all injuries sustained under the value of 201.
After some further discussion, the Committee divided.
when thereappeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it...
Sir W. JOLLIFFE believed it was the intention of the
Noble Lord to introduce some amendment into this clause,
and it would, therefore, be very advisable for the Committee
to be informed at this stage what the amendment would be.
—( Hear, hear.) As the clause stood, it was highly
objectionable. He did not wonder at landed proprietors
complaining of the encroachments made upon their property
by railway companies, for it was impossible to say to what
extent a company might not carry the powers contained in
this clause. As to a landed proprietor obtaining anything
like compensation for the injury Bane to his property, it was
quite out of the question. No idea could ever be termed
the amount or description of damage likely to be done as this
part of the question rested almost tritir ly with the engineer
of the company, who seldom or never gave a proper notice
of the proposed encroachments. The extent to
which the power conferred by these clauses was
acted upon was most incredible. A piece of land
might be covered with chalk, and there it remained not only
for a short period of time, but to the permanent injury of the
lands and the general disfigurement of a fertile and verdant
estate. Such a system as this, all must admit, was most in-
jurious to the rights of individuals; and he, therefore, hoped
some amendment would be made in the clause to put a stop
to it.
Colonel SIBTHORP fully concurred in what had fallen
from the Hon. Member who had just sat down. 'fhe inju-
ries done by the engineers of railway companies to the
property of private individuals was most unjust,
and called loudly for a reniedy.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.)
Not content with making encroachments in the day time,
these Mohawks of engineers—(Laughter)---took advantage
of the darkness to commit these trespasses, which their mo-
desty would not suffer them to do at another period.—
(Laughter.) Why, it was only a short time back that an
Hon. Friend rose one morning and found a ied flag stuck up
before his door—(Laughter)—and were such depredations as
this to be tolerated? %Whenever a gentleman met a stran-
ger upon his lands, he would certainly turn out to be
the engineer of some railway company or other.
They had nothing to do but to ask, " Who are you?"
then the party replied, " I am the engineer of such and
such a railway, and am acting under the law."—(Laughter.)
But if he were the owner of the Jana, he would take care
that the fellow should be promptly conveyed beforeta neigh-
bouring in agist rate.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had
very properly asked, " Where, or how, are you to get com-
pensation?" "Go to law," was the reply. Go to law, in-
deed 1 How was a poor farmer to contend against an irre-
sponsible body? Well, then, if they conferred such enor-
mous powers upon a railway company, why should they not
compel them to afford full and ample compensation for the
injury they d;d to the rights of private property?
Mr. DARBY suggested that, if the Noble Lord intended
to make any alterations in the clause, he ought to state
them to the Committee.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that he should propose that the
first blank in the clause, limiting the distance at which the
company could interfere with private roads, should be
filled up with 500 yards instead of 1,000, and the second
blank with 200 yards instead of 250. This was an
important alteration ; as to the remuneration for damage
done, he should propose some alterations on that head in
the 29th clause. With regard to the present clause, he could
not see that any alteration could be made beyond that which
he had just mentioned.
Mr. FOX MAULE said the clause still gave the company
the power of coining on private roads or approaches, and un-
less some alteration was made, this power would be strongly
objected to.
Mr. DARBY had an insuperable objection to this part of
the Bill.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said the alteration he had
proposed would greatly restrict the power of the otherclauses
of the Act. A month's notice must be given to proprietors,
and the company were bound to give good security for com-
pensation for any damage or injury they might do. This
was a very important advantage. The clause would also
give every means of obtaining compensation for those lands
winch were temporarily occupied.
Mr. DARBY said railroads had so increased, that these
powers had now become much more injurious in t heir operation.
Mr. STANSFIELD thought that the compensation might
be made a special part of each railwa:,-
Lord G. SOMERSET was ready to adopt any practical
suggestion, but with regard to making the compensation a
special part of every Bill, he must observe that these clauses
were only to act in cases where no special agreement nad
been made. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent those
special agreements being made.
Mr. AULIONBY said it seemed as if the clause was meant
to give a bonus and advantage to laxity of engineering. It
said if the line was properly laid down, it was well, but if it
was carelessly laid down, it was well also, and the railway
company might. have the benefit of its own carelessness. He
snould wish the engineers to be compelled to be as strict as
possible in the first instance, that the public might know
how far they were injured by any railway. The altera-
tion which was proposed to be made in the 29th clause
did not meet the case of interference with private roads.
The power was taken by this clause to take 500 yards for the
purpose of private roads. In the first Bill they had a power
of deviation of 100 yards; then there was a further power of
deviation, and now they came for 500 yards snore. Now this
was sufficiently onerous in itself; but after having taken the
use of these private roads, there was not a single word
said about the repair of these roads when the company had
done with them. Not the slightest provision was made in the
29th clause for these repairs, although that clause did give
the right of compensation. [Mr. Fox Maule here handed
the Bill to the Hon. Member.] He saw by the suggestion
of the Right lion. Gentleman, that the provision for repair-
ing private roads was made in the 43d clause, but still he
thought the right of private roads to such an extent was
very objectionable, though of course his notice of a want of
provision for repairs fell to the ground.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that his attention had not been
drawn to the former but to the latter part of the clause. By
the amendment which lie intended to propose to the 29th
clause, he had provided all the compensation for private
rights which money could give.
Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said that this clause was so
utterly objectionable, that he did not think either the House
or the country would suffer it to be introduced into any Bill.
He did not wish to place a railway company in a worse po-
sition than any other company, but by having the power of
making a deviation of 250 yards, they would he acquiring aright
which might prove of the utmost detriment to an estate.
This deviation might bring the centre of a tunnel close to a
mansion, or it might fall upon a lot of brick earth. He knew
of an instance in which a plot of 23 acreswas taken in the very
centre of a property. In the inis.dle of this was a clay pit, with its
brick- kilns and other buildings, that covered the whole of this
area of twenty-three acres. And not only was there the
nuisance of making the bricks, of which not less than
13,000,000 were made during the occupation of the land, but
there were not less than 300 labourers encamped upon it for
the space of three years; and this nuisance might have
existed for seven years, for that was the time allowed for the
construction of the railway. For half a mile on all sides the
trees and shrubs on the estate were injured and checked
in their growth. This he conceived to be an immense nui-
sance. But there was a further evil, for he understood that
while these labourers were domiciled on this property, the
small-pox broke out among them, and created a serious
danger, not only to the family of the proprietor of the land,
but also to all the other residents in the neighbourhood.
Mr. FOX MAULE said that the objection might be taken
on a subsequent clause, when the obstacle might be obviated
by inserting the words, " that the terms of this clause shall
not apply to private walks and avenues."
On the words being put,
Mr. HAYTER said that he did not object to the words
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, but before the
words were inserted ho thought that it was ad-
visable to ascertain what was the provision of
the clause. The thing to .be considered was, whether
it was better to use a private road or no road at all?
Which would occasion the most damage? By the 43d clause
full compensation was given to those who suffered, and this
was one of the two parts into which the clause naturally
divided itself. The second part refers to the deviation.
Now it was necessary to take this deviation, for the company
required it for four purposes—for side cuttings, for depositing
their spoil earth, for private roads for the railway, and
for agricultural roads. The first object for which tlfey re-
quired the deviation was for side cuttings. Now, by the
evidence of the most eminent engineers last session, it
was proved that it was utterly impossible for human wis-
dom to foresee the precise line which a railway ought to
take, for it was not until they arrived at a particular
place that they could ascertain what cuttings were necessary.
He thought that there could be no objection to the provi-
sions for enabling the makers of railways to deposit the
spoil somewhere, and to draw materials from the imme-
diate neighbourhood of the line, especially as care was
taken to secure compensati,:n for the injury they might do

Mr. WODEHOUkE said that the whole coaersaiion on
the clause convinced him that the extraordinary powers pro-
posed in it should not be given. He hoped the Noble Lord
would postpone it, for the purpose of receiving such sugges-
tions as might lead to an abatement of the nuisances.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET would be happy .to
postpone the clause, if be received any practical suggestion
for its improvement. He had given the enactments all pos-
sible consideration, and he did not see how the postponement
would lead to any useful alteration.
Mr-RICE said theta were practical inconveniences attend-
ing t'ne clause which they ought to diminish as much as was
consistentwith carrying on these great works.—(Hear.) He
also thought that roads ought to be protectgd as well as land.
Itr.r. I'. EGERTON had sat on railway Committees for
several years, and he was convinced that the clause would be
un,.tecessary, if the engineers were required to state before
ti-,e Committee precisely what land they would require for
the objects of this clause—cuttings, the deposit of spoil, the
raising of. materials, and the formation of temporary roads.
But the statements of those gentlemen before the Committees
was always of the most vague and unsatisfactory nature, so
that no person along the whole line could ever I
tell to what
ro
extent his land might be daaged.—(Hear.)—lie would
move the omission of the clause.
Mr. STAMI.4I.dP said that it vas too Mticl) to extend these
....