The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 28.
Their Lordships met soon after Five o'clock.
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.
Lord PORTMAN brought up the report of the Select
Committee on this railway Bill, which was ordered to
be received.

DUBLIN AND GALWAY RAILWAY.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH postponed the further
consideration of the report on the Dublin and Galway
Railway Bill till to-morrow.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE remarked that he
had glanced over the printed evidence on the subject,
and he certainly could find nothing in it to support thw
allegation of the petitioners against the line.
PORTSMOUTH (ATMOSPHERIC) DIRECT
RAILWAY.

The Earl of HARDWICKE brought up the report of
the Select Committee on this Bill, and moved that it be
received.

The Duke of RICHMOND resisted the motion, On
the ground that the Committee had refused to hear the
South-Western Company, who had purchased a line to
Guildford, which was looked upon in the light
of a competing line to the Portsmouth Direct.
As a general principle, he admitted that it was
unwise to recommit Bills, except under special circum-
stances, but the case of the South Western Company
was an exception to the rule. The Committee had re-
fused to hear them, although they were entitled to ap-
pear before the Committee ; and he should therefore
recommend the recommittal of the Bill.
_ _

Lord REDESDALE thought it better that no further
discussion should take place on this question at present,
but, under all the cireumstaßces. it would be better for
their Lordships to order the report and the evidence to be
printed, and direct that the further consideration of the
report be postponed till Monday.
The Duke of RICHMOND did not care one Thrilling
for the evidence because it would not give the informi-
tion he r( qtired. He was the rather inclined to object
to the printing of the report and the evidence, because he
contended that the Committee had refused to take
some very important and material evidence which had
been offered to them.—(llear, hear.) It was upott
the main principle, that all parties ought to be heard
before any of their Committees could come to a deci-
sion, that he called upon their Lordships to re-con:unit
the Bill.

The Earl of HARDIVICKE said, before entering upon
the reasons which had induced the Committee not to hear
the South Western Company, he might state the Com-
mittee had agreed to all the three Bills referred
to them, and they considered that the line to
Portsmouth was of great national importance,
and the best that could possibly be procured:
They did not consider that the Guildford line had ary
locus standi whatever, and therefore they refused to al.
low the parties to be heard in opposition to tha
direct Portsmouth. The Committee were de-
sirous to give all the advantage.: of railway
communication at the cheapest possible rate, and thwy
selected what they considered the best line for this
porp.,se.
The Duke of RICHMOND did not wish the Noble
Lord to go into the general merits of the line, but he
did not understand how they could know which was the
best line, unless they examined all the lines that were
projected.

- Lord REDESDALE said that if the House were not
satistied that sufficient care was taken in coming to a
decision, the Bill could be referred back again to the
same Committee, or to a new Committee, to report on the
other line.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, as the Com-
mittee had refused to receive certain evidence, the print-
ing of it would leave them in exactly the same position
as before.

Lord CAMPBELL said the practice in the Courts
was to receive evidence, which they had at first refused,
by direction of the Court above. If the Committee hart
omitted material evidence, the better course would be
for them to re-assemble and consider it.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY considered that the
Committee ought to have heard the parties.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he would withdraw
his motion if the sense of the House was against it.
The Duke of GRAFTON defended the Committee,
and held that they had performed the duty assigned to
them in a proper manner. If they had acted other-
wise they would have done injustice. The partie&
whom they refused to hear had no right to be heard in
the world.

The Earl of WICKLOW said the observations of the
Noble Duke strengthened his opinion, that the Bill
ought to be recommitted.

The Duke of RICHMOND then withdrew his mo-
tion, and moved that the report and evidence be
printed, and that the subject he furthcr considered on
Friday next.
The Earl of HARDIVICKE had no objection to do
anything that the House thought fit. The Committee
had no sort of interest in the undertaking, nothing to
iellucnce them in the performance of their duties, ex-
cept a desire to serve the public.—(Loud cheers.)
The Duke of RICHMOND made no such charge
against the Committee. He simply thought that they
had acted erroneously.
The motion, as amended, was then carried.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
A messenger from the House of Commons hmught up
several Bills.

PUBLISHING THE LIVES OF PEERS—RE-
PEAL OF STANDING ORP-ER.
Lord CAMPBELL rose to move the motion of which
he had given notice. It was that the standing order
with respect to the publishing of the lives of
Peers, w ithout the consent of their relatives,
heirs, And executors, be repealed. The Noble
Lord said he would briefly go into the origin
of this standing order. It took its origin in 1720,
when Mr. Edward Curll gave notice of his in-
tention of publishing the life of the Duke of Buck-
ingham. The notice appeared as an advertise-
ment in a London newspaper, when the family
of the Noble Duke just deceasedeinterfered, and they ap-
plied to their Lordships' House to interfere to stop the
publication, on the ground of its being a libel. The appli-
cation was made on the 22d of January, 1722, se-
cording to the new style. It was complained of the
work announced that it would contain particulars of the
public and private life of his Grace, with a copy of his
last will and testament. The House ordered that Ed-
ward Curll do attend the House on to-morrow. On
the following day Edward Curll attended at the bar, and,
after an examination, he was ordered to withdraw. On
his withdrawal, a resolution was put and agreed to, ren-
dering it a breach of privilege to publish the life of any
Peer without the consent of their relatives ; that resolu-
tion was entered on the rolls of the House. Edward
Curl' was then called in and reprimanded by the Lord
Chancellor. The matter did not terminate here. A
Committee was appointed, and the subject being
duly investigated by them, on their report being
presented, a standing order, embodying the prin-
ciple of the previous resolution, was duly passed.
No attempt was made to enforce this standing
order till 1735, when Edward Curll again
ex-
cited the alarm of the House. An intimation ap-
peared on the 12th of May, 1735, in the Daily Post Boy,
announcing " Mr. Pope's Literary Correspondence for
thirty years, being a collection of letters written to him
by the Earl of Halifax, Lord Ferrers, and others.; pub-
lished by Edward Curl], and sold by all booksellers."
Instructions were given to the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod forthwith to seize all copies of the advertised
work, and that Edward Curll the publisher of the book,
and J. Wilford the printer of the newspaper, be summoned
to the Lar of the House. These parties attended and
were examined and severally reprimanded for vehat they
had done. After they retired, the Gentleman Usher of
the Black Rod informed the Ilouse that he bad seized
500 of the book in question at the house of Mr. Curti.
No attempt had for many years been made to enforce
the standing order, and as it had not only fallen into
disrepute, but was entirely unnecessary, and contrary to
the spirit of the times, he should move that it be repealed.
The motion was agreed to without a division.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition
from the gentry, and clergy, and inhabitants of Ayles-
bury, praying their Lordships to take into consideration
the law relating to the punishment of death, with a view
to its abolition.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition for
the better observance of the Sabbath.
SYRIA.

Lord ABERDEEN took the opportunity of laying on
the table the papers moved for by the Noble Duke. op-
posite (Beaumont) relating to Syria.
The Duke of BEAUMONT said that he would fat
a question to the Noble Earl on Thursday next, relating
to the recent events in Syria.
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.
The House resolved itself into Committee on thin
Bill.

On the Ist clause being proposed,
Lord I'ORTMAN objected to the clause. He consi-
dered it would have the effect of throwing all the waste
lands into the hands of the Government%

Lord STANLEY thought the Noble Lord did not
understand fully the nature of the clause. The Commis-
sioners could take no steps unless two-thirds of the par-
ties interested in the inelosure were assenting parties.
It was necessary that one of the Commissioners should
be a responsible Minister of the Crown, and therefore
the Government had named the Chief Commissioner of
the Woods and Forests as one of them. The other
Commissioner would have duties assigned him indepen-
dent of that office. Local valuers would be appointkd
by the Commissioners to estimate the value of the lands
required.
The clause, with some amendments, was then a gre,d

to.
Clauses up to 11 were agreed to without opposiliou.
Clause 12 being proposed,
Lord STANLEY moved the omission of Clie words,
the forests belonging to the Crown," and, the sub-
stitution of " the New Forest" and the " Fore g of Dean,'
which was agreed to.

Clause 13—was agreed to ; and on clause 1,4 being pro-
posed,
The Earl of FITZHARDINGE inquired how the Go-
vernment defined village greens, and Low they would be
influenced by the Bill.
Lord STANLEY said power was given to the Com-
missioners to take any existing town 'greens in lieu of
other land still appropriated to tha recreation of the
people. They would, however, be devoted to the same
purposes as now. They would be eyplied to no other.
Clauses up to 19 were agreed to.
In answer to a question from Lord PORTMAN,
The LORD CHANCELLOR 'said that in reference
to the appointment of reviewers or guardians over land
in a parish to be inclosed, the owner of which might he
an infant, the Commissioners woul d appoint such guar-
dian, but they would have no interest in doing so.
Lord STANLEY said the only objet 01 the clause
was to take care there was no intemst unrerreseutd.
Clauses 19 and 20 wore then •Egre:•d to.

Lord PORTMAN proposed some verbal amendments
in clause 21.

Lord STANLEY objected to one of them as having a
prejudicial effect in a political point of view.
The other amendments were agreed to, and the clause
was passed.
Clause 22, after a few words from Lord REDES-
DALE, was agreed to.
Clauses 23, 24, and 25 were next read and agreed to,
Clause 26 was also agreed to.
Lord PORTMAN proposed a verbal amendment in
clause 27, which was also agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 were also agreed to.
Clause 30 was agreed to.
Clause 31, after some diseussion, was agreed to, as
were also clauses 32 and 33.

Clauses up to 106 were also agreed to.
On lause 107 being proposed,
:LonitREDESDALE asked whether there was any
objection tb leaving it in the option of the wardens
to let out the comnion lands or other lands ?

Lord STANLEY thought that, if there were a slight
inconvenience, it had better be borne than interfere with
the.znachinery of the Bill.
After a few words from Lord PORTMAN and ano-
ther Peer,
:Lord REDESDALE said he was clearly of opinion
that the land .should not be let for more than one year in
aky parish, and he thought there ought to be some
restriction on the permanency in the regulations. Were
AN. regulations permanent or not ?
:The LORD CHANCELLOR said according to the
clauso the regulations were clearly permanent.
Lord STANLEY proposed a restriction of five years
or less, subject to the regulation of the Commissioners.
This might be dose, as the wardens were to be deemed,
for all purposes of taxation and rating, the occupiers of
the allotments.

The clause was then agreed to.
On the proposition of the 108th clause, a conversation
ensued as to the mode in which the growing crops were
to be adjudicated, but the clause was agreed to, as were
also clauses 109 and 110. The 111th clause was struck out.
On the 112th clause being proposed,
Lord PORTMAN asked where was the use of giving
a man compensation for that which he already possessed.
Lord STANLEY said that the object of the clause
was to make compensation for those small claims which
were in fact almost intangible.
Lord PORTMAN could not see the reason of that.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the object was
to provide for small holdings. Where the common
right was sufficiently stocked by cattle, the cotter enjoy-
ing the right could send in no more cattle, and conse-
quently there was no room for the owner of the stint ;
and under this Bill therefore he was to be paid in money.
If there was more than one stint, and not sufficient for
two, the owner was to have one stint in the inclosure,
and receive money as a compensation for the surplus.
Clauses 113 to 122 were then passed.

On the proposition of the 123 d clause,
Lord PORTMAN objected that the expense of tLe
inclosure was to be borne by the individuals from whom
the right was taken away.
Lord STANLEY said that the expenses were to be
borne by those who were to have the benefit, and the
Commissioners were to be paid out of the portion of
Crown land appropriated for that purpose.
Lord PORTMAN objected to the form of notice which
was directed to be put upon the church door.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was some-
times difficult to find the person on whom the notice
ought to be served, and that, therefore, it was better to
adopt the usual course, which was to stick the notice on
the church door. The Noble Duke the other night had
said, that one of his tenants went every Sunday fourteen
miles to church and fourteen wiles back again, He sup-
posed that they were as good in Cumberland as they
were in Scotland, though he doubted it. At any rate,
the notice was sufficient.

The cause was then agreed to, as were also clauses
124 to 146.

Clauses from 147 down to 162 were also agreed to,
after short discussions of an unimportant character.
:lames 163, 164, and 165, were next agreed to with-
out opposition.

Lora PORTMAN apologised to the House for having
occispied so much time as he had in the observations he
had deemed it necessary to make, but he could assure
the House he did so from a sense of duty ,alone, as lie
lorl not an iuch of property that would be affected by the
Bill.

SCOTCH POOR-LAW.

The Duke of BUCCLEU moved that the House
go into Committee on the Scotch Poor• law Bill. In
he.begg,ed to say that the great cause of dis-
cor*e7! .;cotland On this subject had been owing to
-Ley of the relief aff rded by law hitherto ex-
also i.f that which was the result of private
'The Nobie Duke th,n took a review of the
Lets in force for the .maintenance of the pot,r
^e;:,!itn:l, since the time of William and Nlary, and
coutra.:• :1 their provi4,ns with tho-e of the measure
now to be adopted. Ile then proceeded to state the sub-
stance of the different clauses of the Bill, and the ob,-
jectS they had in view. He regretted having detained
their Lordships so long. He had gone through the
clauses rather hurriedly ; but he had omitted any
point, he would be glad.to be reminded of it by any
i\rob!e Lord.

Lord rAmrBELt, though willing to admit that the
present Bill was in many respects satisfactory, yet,
looking at the advanced period of the session, he
hoped the Government would postpone it till next year.
The Bill contained some clauses which if not expunged
or greatly modified would be a curse to Scotland. Any
roan, for instance, who went to reside in Scotland for a
temporary purpose, if he only took a moor there for
sporting for a few weeks, would be liable to be rated
not only for his property in Scotland, but for all his
property in England, in the East and West Indies, or in
America, and for all his stock in trade, and this, in his
opinion, was neither fair nor liberal, and he trusted her
Majesty's Government would take some course to re-
move the objections in C,,narnittee. He appea!ed to the
good sense of the Noble Duke opposite (Rtrieleuch),
and he.trusted he would see the necessity of postpone-
ment.

The Howe then went into Committee on the Bill,
when a desultory conversation took place between Lord
CAMPBELL and the Earl of HADDINOTON, the first of
whom contending that the Bill did not sufficiently de-
fine the meaning of the terms "means" and " sub-
Mance," upon which persons resident in Scotland were
to be rated to the poor, while the latter contended that
it did.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked that their
Lordships were wasting time in discussing the point.
The Bill introduced no new principle, and it would be
now as hitherto open to the courts of law to define, when
occasion should arise, what was the meaning of the
terms " means" and " substance." The Noble and
Learned Lord was a distinguished lawyer, and well able
to define the meaning of the term. Instead, therefore,
of calling upon the Noble Duke (Buccleuch) to give
the required definition of the terms, he ought to enlighten
the House himself upon the matter.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
The Earl of DALHOUSIE declared that the meaning
of the terms were well understood in Scotland, and the
principles which had regulated the courts of law in de-
ciding upon these questions had been in force for the
three hundred years. He thought, therefore, the
NoL'le and Learned Lord had raised an unnecessary
discussion.

After a word or two from the Duke of BUCCLEUCU
and Lord CAMPBELL, the Bill went through Committee,
and their Lordships having resumed, the Chairman
reported progress, and the Bill was ordered to be read
a third time. to-morrow.