The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

, HOUSE OF LORDS, s.'arch ,
411 'Olin CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Nil' ool!ack
Y after Five o'clock.
L SCHOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND.
klat'eds CAMPBELL presented a petition from the school-
hnsse,r. °f Scotland, praying for the provision of dwelling-
ott 4
rti
i"LN YON asked why
L cnoolmasters?
CAMPIiF.L L said that in every petition which had
tetis4,l:!ented to the House this provision had been expressly
u• The schoolmaster at present hail what was eaPed
nld ,t;,end,” which consisted only of two small rooms. He
Iter".'" the Noble Lord th,t these respectable individuals
deri„,cie,!riplished in every branch of learning, and that if he had
tie,-til` ;Ns education from one of them, he would have found
ss le " skill in communicating it would have rendered hint
tsi2L't°,rai plished as he now was ; and he thought the Noble Lord
4ra ,ye spared his jeers.
h ON protested that he only asked a question, and
preys rio. the slightest disositicn in the world to ex-
the,ol7:6lneast disrespect for the body of individuals from whom
emanated.
nit it; SEES OF ST. ASAPII AND BANGOR.
l'etipijal'i
of these
of HEREFORD presented a petition against
these sees,
„lAri K,„,COLLEGE OF MAYNO Oai TH.
bed ',AVON presented a petition against the incrsase
4sshigrerant to the College of laynooth from Newhall, in

OT A H EI T E.
;',1,1e pa:- of
MINI s,id, that understanding that his
Friend the First Lord •of the Admiralty was
4POsed, anel unable at present to attend in
set!' lie thought it would be unfair to bring forward
r,:tkiseil°,tl with reapect to Otaheite in his absence. He
b„.° bring it -forward after the holidays, but at any
d to withdraw it for the present.
Ditch
WATER FI-41 BILL (SCOTLAND).
0tti,,,,; INTO moved the second reading of this Bill. Its
aqst
'° protect the fish in fresh water rivers in Scotland
t,l ite Public, and the public in the enjoyment of the rro-
thle
,Le 5f bUCCLEUCH agreed with the general prin-
rthsed "15 but with regard to its details he was not
o"w to g' • . .
od wasi ,t,e any opn.
then read a second time.
puLtd t„ FREEME OF THE CITY.
Ct. er,'JUGH All moved for a return of the number of
t-kti -7
'live freemen of the City of London during
a5l. i'B43. enihng on the Ist of April, 1844. He
tube '''tenlinn of throAing the slightest disrespect
tt4;ilr4i, Corporation el London, of which lie was an
.rn,° emlier, by moving for this return, nor did he in-
u:l",. forward the bill which he introduced on the
qrlriitioCtting. He stated this to relieve the anxiety of the
r
P n' the head officer of which, he meant
I,ttilLrd or, hact to-day directed the City
cleat, an,eer to communicate with him on the
toee ii that communication the City Remem
letzliressed, on the part of the Corporation, much
hi! introducing the measure into Parliament. without
litil,,,',lse 'n•ulting the CorpCorprratio of the City of London.
k:ltitot";Y were reduced very low, but he thought they
14e4itteed so loss as not to be alw,-(1 to introduce a
it'uotit the previous consent of a corporation.
114? RICULT ITR AI. IMPROVEMENTS.
ltiet rine, e of RICHMOND gave notice of his intention,
t~lofto bring forward a motion to ascertain the pro-
bo7P°inting a Select Committee to inquire whether
1144ssed Proper that some legislative enactment should
Ottliled for the purpose of enabling the owners
lNettk..Property effectually to drain and otherwise improve
tirti ..4* The Noble Duke, at the same time, moved for
th
PL-th, eit number of licenses granted to tuinpike -keeper
‘4• distinguishing the names of the keepers and the

44 Ito SCOTCH BANKING.
la7teeti "SYLN gavenotice that on Tuesday next, it was
tjar°,n to ask a que-tnion of the' Noble Duke, referrring
Yet of her Alajestv's speech which stated that it was
tAtlistittlitpe present session of Parliament that some alters-
itt ja
,)e,,e,,,mtllandde.in the law relating to the present system of
le the uISAI3ILITIES OF THE JEWS.
,h,rj"ding of the order of the day for the third read-
bak'wish Dimbilities Removal Bill,
,tyte e of CAMBRIDGE rose and said—My Lords,
'ittNes i Say only a few words in expressing my cordial con-
!felin d
te this Bill. Since I have returned to this country
nan
b Y opportunities of seeing the good that is done
lqteseY the members of the Jewish persuasion, and
491tdoge mars
to placed I belong a great part of the
te„d°oe mar be to their credit. I have fie-
4,s4tilt kith one gentleman who has been High Sheriff
44:11.,4t12 also of- the city of London, anti, my
ind another gentleman, who is now High Sheriff of
tgo. uSi been High Sheriff of London four or five
t My Lords, it is only justice to that
Ilk,P4l4set° state one thing, which is a great credit to him.
4.4,) some time ago, to les summoned—to be invited-
-1.4 t4ht ti-r.,heetitig at Winc'hestcr, for providing funds to pro-
h si eXtension in that diocese. Upon that occasion,
°4 'Alos • Montefiore in the gardens, and
44°t114'°, "hands a considerable sum of money,
which (as' we understood the Illustrious Duke)
It"t't of at libertYto mention. I should also say that, in
l'oeattue world where I passed a long part of my life,
re t„ite members of the Jewish protession as distin-
NR s; their high character and charitable disposition.
'`.o far, I am equally bound to state that no one
At% allanxious for the passing of this Bill than I am
„Ns, ho,' sentiments of attachment to the Church to
Ntlipk;tigt I must say that, as long as I live, Irwin give
'll:ithoar,t. to whatever measure of toleration may be pro-
-I.o4,„;flittry to the Established
.Church.
grstia " CHANCELLOR said—Aly Lords, I am
'ts erl by the assent of his Royal Highne's to this
10 ,
4 ker,9--and I now move your Lordships that it be
third tim
' Y Iva% e.
kes,,rai then read a third time, amidst a slight, but
'T'AN,,.;flurmur of approbation.
'T
DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL.
Nittettlli:o' the day for the third reading of this Bill was
StilitnariNTEAGLE said that as this Bill would affect a
thLs fret. of disputes in Inland he thought that time
kislorded for-the reconsider'atinn of thisßill. He was
*Ale 6.,ng to elicit any opinion respecting this Bill from
it:tt ke• but he thou.sht that a reconsideration of the
blithe 6111 was neeessa'ry.
irtk.osi' of WELLINC TON said that the Noble Lord
'
•gse„ts 9 to apprehend the correct nature of the Bill.
ate vto 'it that the Bill had better be read a third time.
k essl(l bet ample time for the reconsideration of the
thttttls Lo e Bill even during the present session, and then
41 might, if he thought proper, act on the reporthill Commissioners.
little
then read a third time, and the House ad-
e isefore Six o'Clock.
1,1111,40 r,
'tt,;')l'k E OF ct).pi ,i 1 March l 4.
;ttit4thett look the Chair at Twelve o'clock, and immediately
k.llit'tle.‘,,e,liouse went into Committee on the
'4111,4,111,11.1"' CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL
5q,,444 clauses of the Bill from 94 down to 100, both
lathe tosite Severally put and agreed to without discussion.
ll' 'ttee then took up the postponed clauses of the Bill.
044,415t:4,1°n of Lord G. SOMERSET, a clause was intro-
st,taea of clause 5, which had been shuck out, giving
Nib of in;_°cotipiers of land more specific recompense for the
1,,11054ry they might have sustained by the construction
littikli;"lit„,,ks
_II. or by the loss of the land taken fur them.
of ii."'l4t) also brought up a clause in place of clause 44,
tii'ther4,-,WaY Companies to make sufficient approaches to pri-
k:ls'io,t7ads which were affected by the works of railroads.
tiltl tin,'" of the same Nonce Loan, several clauses which
ilitt-vso to in the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill
OR t'''res hdced into this 13111. The Noble Lord said that as
thought they might with safety be introduced into
"te waigeY were agreed to.:
t 4t:t•tl,s also introduced to prevent railway companies from
e sea:o impede, cross, or in any way affect any creek or
Is4tiNtn, Or to alter or amend the same, without the consent
6,51 ttail„ ,l'oliers of the Woods and Forests, or the Lords of
' Dein
ss„ • ().N. 8 previously obtained.
'tot MERSEY, in the absence of his Hon. Friend the
s',,,*tsri:..4itl,.;rie.land, begged to move the introduction of a clause
whi ,`kat no works should be constructed by railway
IS tts:tait,e" would affect the fall, or discharge, or alter the
tt es ‘..‘ani of water without the supervision and consent of
°ll,B in Ireland. The Noble Lord said that was
cistttlProvided for by the 6th Victoria, but the introduc-
tt,k e would make the obligation general in Ireland.
og the Loan then moved an amendment to the 20th clause,
1.:1) Of:, Power of a railway company to take temporary
Otki. ta
~'_and without previously paying the price of it. The
tetti.
aTt_thed to exempt from this power cultivated fields,
1161,14%,4 ,414°aohes to a mansion-house, or. any other ?ma-
t': ,r ound. As the clause originally stood, a railway
t have power to take possession of land for the pur-
Nit'lls7,3, e, extending in depth 1,000 yards from the centre
iN 4'40; Ilse Noble Lord proposed to alter the number
ktitt: j
Se,,,Hoßp moved that the number be only 100.
',,EIIsET suggested that his amendments should be
,'"en the Gallant Colonel would be at liberty to move
~,14,111,1sItsaittogether.
j.N,,‘"4)1141.1,L,°,11P was understood to agree to this suggestion.
hl"' Wet 'IS thought the powers given to engineers by
:t o. s e too great.
s'&tt i,letit'iese6t R SET said that, if the clause had been made
kreitt,2n this general Act, the companies might have
d 1 rte. Ihr Powers in a special Act than were proposed to be
kr,los 'ng e words which he proposed to introduce %ere these:
i,4141lioo! avenue, or other ornamental road, nor an approach
ttrl house.,.
, about Li
ISt. ON said the interpretation clause seemed to
I,44lt''SitiVtn the limitations the Noble Lord had alluded to.
Cty f.'1101t1) said the limitations were all in favour of
ti„rial?,, gentlemen. Now he knew of no class that ought
titthsi4e Pretected as gewlemen. In what situation did
tt..tatioace the poor man or tenant, farming a few
kt,;;Dorai..„ He Might have inroads made on his property for
lks'll,llla, PUrposes, for the making of bricks, or for every
Ilt'ti,thillstatnil"Yance. The Noble Lord said he might bring an
of e company ; but would the railroad company pay
Art pti lGnel that action, as well as the damage done to him?
41,41iJtY 'nith°rP) was not sent to that House to defend
ItttlSl,J'ars°f•l; What were called gentlemen, they could better
tli ailhight th softie of it than the poor man, and though such
Whol '4" the gentleman, they would altogether annilii.
11121,4114 iae,°l the hard-earned property of the poor man. If
51,74ik,'4 it ; and justice dealt out by a British House of Corn.
ttlole difreta' high time that another reform of it should take
Pti louse en' hien sent there. He solemnly protested against the
"qty 4'd from nothing else but a desire to protect
Itaks °le th h - th, humbler classes. The Noble Lord said he had
knew sense of the House on it, and he would do so,
SoNt:'„e shou'd fail.
ts, "that '"IISET agreed to introduce an amendment into
tltt,tY to c:'oUld limit the occupation of the land to the time
o.!t*fe„,"rtlet only that particular portion of the line.
~ the il,
words from Colonel HoLLESTON and Lord G. So-
4,
sfit 44i1e•0a41,:e as amended, was agreed to.
1.4,404 t lex EGERTON, in the absence of the Hon. Mn.rritt 't qtne Who Was engaged on an e:ection Committee, moved
t
tot sthi deposi,.° the 21st clause, which gave a railway company
Is Nose_h too hint the estimated price, to take possession of any
kilhs this
,:' oe required for slip banks or side cuttings, and
taii2l eta,,,"wer was the princ,pal object of the amendment.
thllskty c'e it was provided that disputes between landholders
to „,,,,-QMPanies should be referred to two justices of
ai
thlNleice— whether the railway absolute,y required the land
k. 4114, larids"eenience, but the justices had no power to order
'Ns, thew and materials should not be taken. The Hon.
1,10
.ore
tg -,,,vea another amendment to supply this de-
io,; Nit,
lit"Nti`oe ',SET complained of the vagueness of the lan-
-11Ah%1,7'' and en`h°ellt• It was liable to many and various con-
k Is 'ter gare large discretionary powers to the justices.
%i I h wipuld not object to the amendment then, but on
st,ikePr.
Out altogether.
tv24l:,.Xortit,"..r,s were then agreed to.
tik:szartit,,,,i,,,,.::::o;-ai....nilswoSbtaproposed a clause to enable persons in
Obtaining water power, and of carrying current:
:tisti: IA ease _ as to form the works necessary for such pur-
tt "1' dispute should arise between the railway
'to iubsit th the person desiring to obtain such water-
diseete to the Commissioner: of Public Works

in Ireland, who should have to adjudicate thereon, and authorise
the construction of such works as they deemed not likely to be in.
jurious to the railway.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that they had not the power to con-
sider this clause in Committee, and the motion was withdrawn.
The CHAITZM&N Laving lett the chair, reported float the amend-
ments had been agreed to, but it was immediately discovered that
an omission had been made with respect to the interpretation
clause.—The Bill was then recommitted, and the mistake was
rectified.

The CHAIRMAN, baring again left the chair, reported progress,
and the Bill was pas•cd through Committee. The report was or-
dered to be brought up at twelve o'clock on Monday.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.

On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET the Home went into
Committee on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, and clauses 1
and 2 were agreed to.
All the clauses up to 23 were agreed to.
Upon clause 23 hcing proposed,

_ . .
Mr. T. EGERTON said he thought that was the best opportunity
for him to propose an amendment which he had contemplated. He
proposed that the owner of land which was to be taken by the Corn.
-',any should have the option of choosing either an arbitration
or a jury. Ile could not conceive any mode fairer
than that of arbitration. In case of dispute, the
arbitration might be appointed by the Board of Trade.
To accomplish his object he should move the omission of paragraphs
23, 21, 25, and 26, and the insertion of those of which he had
given notice. What he suggested was adopted in the Scotch
Lands Consolidation Bill, and he did not see why the same prin-
ciple should not be applied in both countries_
Lord G. SO MERSET said, that if he rightly apprehended the
Honourable Member's o!•ject, it was to secure to both parties the
option, to a certain extent, say 1,0001., of settling their diffe-
rences by arbitration. To that extent he would not object to such
an arrangement, but he would not go beyond it.
Mr. G. CRAIG believed that Scotch landowners would be very
glad to have this option. It was, in fact, a necessary security to
parties whose property was taken by compulsion.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that he had no doubt but that the
sheriff weuld be able to secure the services of twenty-four indivi-
duals, who would act correctly, but he thought he ought not to be
restricted in his selection. He (Lord G. Somerset) himself had
been placed in a position in which, having a jury to
select, he had been told that he could not find twenty-four
persons within that district who lived in the county, and
he was obliged to g 3 out of the county. He had no objection to
accept the Hon. Member's amendment to the extent of 1,0001.,
but he would not go beyond tt. He thought that if the sum was
greater than that, that the company ought, as well as the land.
owner, to have the option of arbitration or decision by jury.
Mr. T EGERTON said, that according to the Noble Lord's state-
ment the company would have the advantage of the advice and
aisistance of engineers and other professional persons. Now

it was evident that the landowner was utterly unable to compete
with the company under those circumstances, and in the cases of
large towns it was well known that the landowner had no chancy
whatever. But the person he wished to protect was the small land-
owner, the man who possessed three or four acres, and he hoped that
the Noble Lord would kindly consent to his amendment.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he by no means wished to
depreciate the trial by jury, but he could by no means
put the same implicit faith in English juries that the
Honourable Member for Cheshire seemed to entertain, for he
did rot believe juries to be by any means infallible.
He knew a case near Lancaster, where a beautiful
house, with delightfully situated grounds, at the end cf
the town had been ruined beyond all power of money
to recompense, and what did the jury decide upon ? Why
they gave absolutely less for the land taken than the proprietor
had paid for it two 'years before. He (Mr. Aglionby) did
not see the necessity of employing a professional person at all, and
he thought that a plain man with a knowledge of land was
quite able to arbitrate as well as any other person.
He would engage to pick twenty-four mem out
of the county of Cumberland who would arbitrate just as
s•rtisfactorily as the best professional person in the world. He knew
of one case whore the expense of arbitration was 1,200!, and the
landowner was actually compelled to receive 600/. less than he
ought to have done for the arrangement, which was a grievous loss
to him.

Mr. Forbes, Sir Denham Norreys, and Mr. Fitzstephen French,
expressed their dissatisfaction with the clause, and hoped the amend-
ment would be adopted.

On clause 39 being put,

Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the time and place for holding the
ury being fixed by the warrant to the sheriff requiring him to
summon the jury.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.

Lord G. SOMERSET said the sheriff was bound to summon
persons who were indifferent, and in consequence railway directors
could not possibly form a jury in their own case. As to the place
ofmeeting, there must be some rower of fixing the locality. He
would add some words limiting the circuit within which the meet-
ing should be held

Mr. A GLIONBY thought the Noble Lord did not see the full
force of the objection that had been raised. The distance within
which the juries was to be summoned ought not to be limited; the
jury ought to be formed in the same manner as others were.

The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses up to 47 were passed without discussion.
On clause 48 being put,

Mr. AGLIONBY pointed out a great legal difficulty that would
arise under this clause; it was a nice legal question, depending on
the construction of Lord Denman's Act of last session, with
respect to the admissibillity of witnesses. A case had arisen in
which the evidence of a railway director was proposed to be taken
in favour of the company, and a doubt arose whether, as he was
only collectively interested as a director, lie came under the ex.
elusion clause, which referred to parties individually interested.
This was a difticult question, in which it was desirable the opinion
of a higher Court should be taken. lie wished to alter the clause
so as to allow either party to carry this question by an appeal to a
superior court, so as to set aside any error in the decision of
the sheriff

Lord G. SOMERSET said the proposition would decidedly favour
the railwly companies, and operate against the landowner; as by
the enormous expense of legal proceedings, individuals would be
frightened into taking an arbitration, instead of taking the decision
of a jury.
Mr. AGLIONBY asked what the Noble Lord meant by enor.
mous expense ? The process would be merely that of an ordinary
motion in the Court of Queen's Bench, a thing of every day prac•
tice. It was not to be supposed that the question would oe car
tied through every court up to the House of Lords for decision.
He believed the cost of such a motion was exceedingly moderate.
Lord G. SOMERSET could not say precisely what the expense
would be, but taking all the proceedings together, it would be more
than the lion. Member anticipated. He b:lieved this clause wa drawn
up in strict accordance with every railway Act, aed almost every
company's Act that had passed through that House; and he was
not prepared to alter in this general Act what Parliament had so
repeatedly sanctioned.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 49 up to 77 inclusive were then agreed to.

On clause 7S Using proposed,
Mr. AGLIONBY slid he thought it was not right that the
owner of land should be compelled in all cases to incur costs in
proving his title. A man might have a good holding title, trough
a bad selling one.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he believed the intention was, that
landowners should be fully remunerated for all expenses which they
were compelled to incur. He would make inquiry on the subject.
On clause 92 being proposed, imposing on railway companies
the obligation of taking land in certain cases,
Mr. AGLIONBY objected that the clause did not provide for
the case of a tongue of land being cut off and separated from other
land in such a manner that it could not be conveniently used by the
owner.

Lord G, SOMERSET said that, after giving the matter some
consideration, he thought it would be difficult to introduce the
proposed amendment. In the selling of the land that was taken
such a circumstance ought to be taken into account, in aggregation
of the amount. On the whole, he thought it would be be►t to
leave the matter to be considered in the arbitration; but he would
again take the subject into consideration.
Clause 92 and the remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to.
The House then adjourned till Fi•e o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BiLL.
On bringing up the report from the Select Committee on
Petitions en the petition for leave to introduce the South-
Ei.stern Railway Bill,
Mr. DODD moved that such petition be withdrawn, and
that leave be given, in conformity with the recommendation of
the Select Committee on Standing Orders, to present petitions
for the introduction of seven different Bills, with reference to
the matters comprised in such first-mentioned Bill.—Agreed to.
The Edinburgh:and Harwick Railway Bill was read a second
time.
The Dublin and I)rogheday Bill was read a first time.
BAD CROPS.—INCOME-TAX.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from the
farmers of Lincolnshire, stating that the crops of wheat and
other agricultural produce were generally deficient,
and that this, conjoined w;th the alteration in the
tariff, the admission of Canadian corn at a re 'ueed
duty ; and the increased burdens upon them by reason of the
income-tax, pres,ed too much upon the agriculturists, and they
prayed the House to adopt measures for their relief.
ARREST OF WAGES.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, signed by 4,500
dealers in Birmingham, complaining of the Bill passed last
session for the abolition of imprisonment for debt ; and they
prayed that that part of it relating to arrest of wages might be
modified, as at present they suffered great inconvenience in
consequence of the difficulty of recovering their jest debts.
BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY EXTENSIONS.
The Host. MEMBER also presented two petitions, one of them
signed by the Directors of the Birmingham and Worcester
Canal, agninst the extension of the Birmingham extension
line.

POOR-RAT FS.
Mr. MILES presented a petition from the county of Wor
cester, against the unequal burden of the Poor-rate.
FOULMIBE INCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion of Mi. ALLIX, the Foulmire Inclo3ure Bil
was raad a second time.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT. _ _

....
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition, signed by
146 of tlie Roman Catholic clergymen of the archdiocese of
Dublin, complaining if certain provisions in the Emancipation
Act ; and also against the late Charitable Bequests Act, and
praying for its total repeal, and the substitution irntead of the
Bill drawn up by the 1-lon :Wernher for Cork.
MAYNOOTII COLLEGE.

Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from the county of Cavan,
against the proposed increased grant to the Roman Catholic
College of tlaynooth.
LIGHTING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. HUM begged to give notice that he would, on Mon-
day next, call for the report of the expenses that had been in-
curred by the experiments made in lighting this House.
Captain PECHELL gave notice that he would to-mor-
row put a question, in order to ascertain the number of places
in Wales in which petty sessions were holden ; also a question
relative to the Ju-tices Clerks' fill.
Sir W. CLAY gave notice of a motion relative to Messrs.
Smith's distillery case, the nature of which we could not
understand.