The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-09 00:00:00

RIAL PA 11L1AME/c4 T.

HOUSE OF Ei h 45% May 6.
AL ASSENT.

The royal assent was given to-day, by Commission, to the
Stnyar Excise Duties Bill— The Auction Duties Repeal Bill
the Customs' Duties Bill—The Bastaidy.l3lll,
( Wales) Bill—The Colonial F =set e pin—The Companies
Clauses Cort.olidatijoh (Ehgland) Bill The CorrrieS
Clauses Cubsolidation ( Scotland) Bill The ands
Clauses Conso!idation (England.) „Bill The 'ands
Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill—The Railway Clauses
Consolidai,,si Bill— The Greenwich Hospital Fishk r's-
lane T.inprovemPat Bill —'l he Stipendiary Magistrates
(Manchester and Salford) Bill—The Forth and Clyde Naviga-
tion Bill—The Birmingham, Liverpool, and Ellesmere Junction
Canal Bill—The Wallassey Improvement Bill—The;Kingston-
upon- Hull Docks Bill—The Birkeihead Docks Bill—London
Crohan Asylum Bill—Tite Amicable Insurance Companies'
Sparrows Herne Road Bill—and the Bromyard Road
Bill,

'The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharn-
cliffe, and the Duke of Buccleuch,

A message fr.,m the Commons brought up several Bills.
Several noble Lords presented petitions from various parts
of the country again,t any additional grant to Maynooth.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a large number of peti-
tions, praying their Lordships to take steps for securing abetter
observance of the Sabbath. _ _

On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, the Fresh
Water Fish Protection Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented several petitions
complaining of the sale of intoxicating 'liquors on the Lord's
da
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition against
the Parish Settlements Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Rochdale in
favour of the increased grant to Maynooth. The Noble Lord
also presented a petition from the county of Salop, praying the
House to abolish imprisonment for debt altogether; and a peti-
tion from a landholder, whose property would be disturbed by
the progress of the proposed Syston and Peterborough Rail-
way.
Earl FITZWILLIAM considered that Parliament had
placed itself in an extraordinary dilemma, in consequence
of the want of proper regulations for conducting
the proceedings as regarded the management of these rail-
way Bills. Now it appeared that this railway went
within two hundred yards of the house of Mr. Sowerbys the
petitioner. Now, Parliament must either do that which would
be a great hardship, and perhaps an injustice to a private
individuals or, on the other hand, it must throw
out the Bill, and deprive the country of that which
would be a great public benefit. He thought it was the
duty of Parliament to take measures to avoid this dilemma and
to do justice to private individuals without depriving the
rublic of a railway which would be a great benefit to them.
Lord REDESDALE said there was one remedy, and one re-
medy only, which would he for Parliament to throw out a few
Bills which grossly interferred with the rights of private
property. If that were done in one or two instance,., rail-
way companies would be more careful to frame their
Bills in a proper manner. Of late years there had been an
opinion that railway schemes Mere co much to the advantage of
the country that Parliament was hound to look at railway Bills
favourably, and the consequence had been that the railway com-
panies had become eismpktely careless of the private rights of
individuals.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that the difficulty would be the
same. In order to avoid consenting to a hardship inflicted on
a private individual, ibuy would prevent the completion of a
railway which would be a great i,ublic good.
Lord REDESDALE—It would ooly be postponing it for a
year.

Lord CAMPBELL thought there could be no difficulty)
whatever in the present instanc,. The railway actually mat
through this gentleman's property, and in that case a "jury
would give him compensation, not only for the properay cut
through, but for the injury done to the remainder, and he
(Lord Can-ipbell y knew from experience that juries, u;.der such
circumstances always gave ample indemnity. It was a hard
case where a railway came close to an estate without touching
it, because then the individual had no reined,.
Lord BROUGHAM thought. his Nobla, Friend was labour-
ing under a misapprehension; the pet:itioner stated that the
railway rake! his land—.a most expressive term, the meaning of
which was well understood by Jis Noble Fr:end opposite. His
Noble and Learned Friend Vas also mistaken if he supposed that
juries were new to give proper compensation in rail-
way cases. Formelly they used to give extravagant compen-
sation,
wtiona,sbut the.; did not award extravagant compensation now.
-atirr'y to see that the railway speculators were now
set'; Ong themselves up as an interest in opposition to the landed
interest. He was sorry to see in the Railway Gazette such
an expression as the following ; " This is another job of
the land." This was said in allusion to the appoint-
ment of the Railway Commissioners for Scotland, as
if the landed interest was against railways. This was
very short-sighted on the part of the railway speculators. He
believed that the landed interest profited by the extension
of railways. He believed that the Syston and Peterborough
Railway would be of great public advantage, but he thought
it would be of great advantage to postpone for a year, as had
been recommended by his Noble Frieud, this and all other
railway schemes which "raked" the private property of indi-
viduals
without their consent. He wished on every account,
public as well as private, that Parliament should be prorogued
as speedily as possible. He hoped the Government would ex-
pedite the public business as much as passible ;* and whenever
the public business would admit of the prorogation taking
place, it ought not to be delayed one hour on account of any
Railway Bills ; those that it was proper to allow to go on could
be admitted ad eundem neat session, and in the meantime the
railway fever would have had time to subside.
The Marquis of SALISBURY complained that railway
speculation existed to such an extent that it was almost um-
possible to find a jury the persons composing which were not
interested in railways, and they never awarded landed proprie-
tors proper compensation. .
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that Mr. Sowerby's case was a
peculiar one? he was the lessee under a gentleman who was
again a lessee under some ecclesiastical body, and
under these circumstances it was exceedingly probable
that a jury would not award him that compensation
to which their Lordships might consider him entitled. He
wished that some principle should be laid down for the purchase
of land used by railways. On the one hand, each individual
was left to make his own bargain with the Company, without
any principle to guide him as to the price he was to ask ' • and,
on the other, there was no principle to guide the Railway Com-
pany as to the sum they were to offer, or the arbitrator, as to
the compensation which he was to grant. All persons had not
the same chance, and that was the difficulty which they ought
to get over; and if they could not do that, they
ought to do something to palliate the grievance. He
thought some principle might be laid down as a
guide tor that purpose. He was glad to see the Noble Duke
in his place, as he was sure he was of the sane opinion as
himself. He had no doubt if those who were in power would
put their shoulders to the wheel something might be done.
The Duke of WELLINGTON had long been convinced
of the hardness of the situation of proprietors of property, and
particularly small proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) Considering
that the undertakers of railways monopolized passengers and
goods to an enormous amount, and made most extensive profits,
be thought some principle ought to be adopted in order to en-
sure the proprietors of land full compensation for the injury
and inconvenience inflicted upon them.
The Duke of GRAFTON believed that in all compensations
in ti e case of railways the same principle was acted upon with
respect to the poor ns the rich.
The Eat] of WINCHILSEA thought there had been no
principle acted upon in giving compensation, and he believed
that the course that had been pursued by railways had dune
more to set the middling class againstthe higher then anything
that had ever taken place. If Railway Companies chose to
speculate and gamble, lie for one would do all in his power to
put an end to it.
Lord BEAUMONT complained of the Bill being hurried
through the Horse, and said, that according to the
principle laid down by the Noble Duke, no land
(amid be taken far the purposes of railways, without
due compensation ; but this was not the fart, for ac-
cording to the nailAa)s Cotru,liflated Clauses Bill. parties
were obli,cd to give up their property for railway purposes,
and take what was agreed to be given them for it, or if they
submit,cd to arbitration or a jury, they had to pay half the ex-
penses of the proceedings. if they did not pay this, and if
the property taken did not meet the expenses, in the event of
such adjudication, they were liable to have a distress issued out
agairst them. He considered a clams, ought to be introduced
:lit° the Bill founded on a more just principle to meet cases of
this kind. _ _ .

Lord STANLEY thought the Noble Lord who had just sat
down laboured under a misunderstanding respecting the
provisions of the Bill to which he had referred. What re-,
lated to compensation in that Bill was what was introduced
into every railway Bill that passed through Parliament. • If
any case of hardship respecting particular individuals existed,
such par ties were in no worse a position, as far as this Bill was
concerned, than they were before, and he was sure that in
any case not sufficiently met by the provisions of that Bill,
Parliament at any time, on good reason being shown, would
interfere and protect them if it were necessary, even to the
throwing out of the railway Bill complained of. It bad been
said, that Government had hurried through the Bill. So far
from this being the case, it had undergone the most rigid
examination in the other House. It underwent many night's
discussion in that House, and all its provisions were most
carefully criticised: It was difficult to lay down any general
principle upon which compensation should be awarded. The
difficulty was not so much with regard to land, as
with reference to other kinds of property the
interference with the comforts of individuals, and questions of
nuisance. All that could be done in such cases was to assign
to each party, be he rich or poor, a just and equitable tribunal
to assess damages. It was impossible to lay down any general
principle that could meet complaints of nuisance or matters in
which individual comfort and convenient' were involved. It
was provided in the Bill that parties whose claims were sub-
jected to the adjudication of a jury, if they got greater damages
than they originally claimed,the railway company was bound
to pay all expenses. But if the jury gave a less sum than that
previously claimed, however exorbitant that sum might have
been, he had still only to pay his own expenses, the company
being necessitated to pay all theirs. Parliament, he was sure,
had done its duty, and if at any time cases should arise that
could not be reached by the ordinary channels, Parliament had
full power to interfere, and he had no doubt would interfere
were good reasons shown.
Lord BEAUMONT considered that the Noble Lord (the

Secretary for the Colonies) had not fairly met his statement.
He (Lord Beaumont) denied that the poor man had equal jus-
tic3 ttith the rich. No doubt that both had equally the privi-
lege of petitioning against a gill, but the rich man could ap-
pear in defence of his petition by counsel, whereas the poor
man had no means in his power of doing so. His petition went
inter that large blue bag and was no more heard of.—( Hear. )
The Earl of DALHOUSIE begged to correct the state-
ments of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. He was sur-
prised to hear it complained of, that the Government was
hurr)ing the Bill through with undue haste. Their Lord-
ships would recolloct that he did not place the Bill on the
journals of the House till a week after it was introduced, when
a day was fixed for its second reading. On the evening fixed
upon for the second reading, the greater portion of the House
went to dinner before the debate came on. It was, however,
read a second time, and afterwards fully debated in Com-
mittee. Noble Lords were therefore not justified in
saving that the Bill had been hurried through
the House. With respect to the right of petitioning, the rich
and poor were on an equal footing. It was true that the rich
man could appear by counsel, which the poor had not the means
of doing, but this was rot a grievance peculiar to this ques-
tier* the tame difficulty, as far as the poor man was con-
cerned, existed in courts of law, and many other places. The
machiro introduced Into this Bill regarding compensa-
tion was couch improved, and afforded the poor man, as far as
the circumstances of the case would admit, equal access to
justice with the rich man, and equal opportunity of command-
ing full compen.ation.
Earl Frrz WILLIAM disclaimed all participation in the
sentiments expressed by his Noble Friend against the Govern-
ment, but he did nut think that railway Bills were of a
satisfactory character. A railway company, in his opinion,
ought to be placed, so far as taking land was concerned, in
precisely the same position as a private gentleman who wished
to construe t a road for his own immediate convenience. He
gave notice. that, after the holidays, he would move for a Com-
rimitee to inquire whether the mode of dealing, between rail-
way Companies and the proprietors of land, could not be placed
upon a better tooting than it was at present.
Lord BELHAVEN thought a railway Company ought to be
compelled to arrange with the landholders whose, property