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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 8.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The royal assent was Riven to-day, by Commission, to the
Sugar Excise Duties Bill—The Auction Duties Repeal Bill—
the Customs' Duties Bill—The Bastardy Bill—The Sheriffs'
( Wales) Bill—The Colonial Passengers Bill—The Companies
Clauses Consolidation (England) Bill The Companies
Clauses Consolidation ( Scotland) Bill The Lands
Clauses Conso!idation ( England) Bill The Lands
Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill—The Railway Clauses
Consolidation Bill— The Greenwich Hospital Fisher's-
lane Improvement 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—ThelKingston-
npon.Hull Docks Bill—The Birkenhead Docks Bill—London
Orphan Asylum Bill—The Amicable Insurance Companies'
Bill—The Sparrows Herne Road Bill—and the Bromyard Road
Bill.

The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wham-
cliffe, and the Duke of Buecleuch.
A message from the Commons brought up several Bills.
Several Noble Lords presented petitions from various parts
of the country against any additional grant to Alaynooth.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a large number of peti-
tions, praying their Lord:hips to take steps fur securing a better
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
day.

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 blaynooth. 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 Sy ston and Peterborough Rail-
wa .
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 housse of Mr. Sowerby, 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
public of a ra lway which would be a great benefit to them.
Lord REDESDALE said there was one remedy, and one re-
medy only, which would be 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 instances, 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 sere so much to the advantage of
the country that Parliament was bound to look at railway Bills
favourably, and the consequence had been that the railway com-
panies had become completely 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, they would prevent the completion of a
railway which would he a great public good.
Lord REDESDALE—It would only be postponing it for a
year.

Lord CAMPBELL thought there could be no difficulty
whatever in the present instance. The railway actually cut
through this gentleman's property, and in that case a jury
would give him compensation, not only for the property cut
through, but for the injury done to the remainder, and he
(Lord Campbell) knew from experience that juries ur: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 remedy.
Lord BROUGHAM thought his Noble Friend was labour-
ing under a misapprehension; the petitioner stated that the
railway raked his land—.a most expressive term, the meaning of
which was well understood by his Noble Fr:end opposite. His
Noble and Learned Friend was also mistaken if he supposed that
juries were now inclined to give proper compensation in rail-
way cases. Formerly they used to give extravagant compen-
sation, but they did not award extravagant compensation now.
He was sorry to see that the railway speculators were now
setting 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. Ile
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 possible; 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 ; these that it was proper to allow to go on could
be admitted ad eundem next 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 im-
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 for that purpose. He was glad to see the Noble Duke
in his place, as he was sure he was of the same opinion as
himself. He had no doubt if those who were in power would
put their shoulders to the wheel somethirg 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,
he thought some principle ought to be adopted in order to en-
sure the proprietors of land full compensation for the injury
arid inconvenience inflicted upon them.
The Duke of GRAFTON believed that in all compensations
in the case of railways the same principle was acted upon with
respect to the poor as the rich.
The Earl 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 against the higher then anything
that hod ever taken place. If Railway Companies chose to
speculate and gamble, he for one would do all in his power to
put an end to it.
Lord BEAUMONT complained of the Bill being hurried
through the House, and said, that according to the
principle laid down by the Noble Duke, no land
could be taken for the purposes of railways, without
due compensation ; but this was not the fact, for ac-
cording to the Railways Consolidated Clauses Bill, parties
were obliged to give up their property for railway purposes,
and take what was agreed to be given them for it, or if they
submitted 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
against them. He considered a clause ought to be introduced
into 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 parties 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, 83
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 conveniencs 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. Parliainent, he was sure,
had done its duty, and if at any time cases should arise
itta t
could not be reached by the ordinary channels, Parliament that
full power to interfere, and he bad no doubt would interfere
were good reasons shown.
Secretary for the Colonies) had not fairly
met
Lord BEAUMONT considered that the Noble
iii Lord
his statement.
He (Lord Beaumont) denied that the poor man had
the privi-
lege of petitioning againstubaL hilti,aht otubtth had equally
had equal jus-
ticehe
rich
with the rich. No qual
man could ap-
pear in defence of his petition by counsel, whereas the poor
man bad no means in his power of doing so. His petition went
et the state-
mentsto correct
just sat down. He was sur-
prisedinto that large blue bag and was no modre heard of.—( Hear.)
of UwShlobhabdeege
The Earl arl
hear it complained of, that the Government was
to .
theoNf DobAleLLHor°d
p would recolloct that he did not place the Bill on the
hurrying the Bill through with undue haste. Their Lord-
ships 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,
resd a second time, and afterwards fully debated in Com-
mittee. Noble Lords were therefore not justified in
saying that the Bill had been hurried through
the House. With respect to the right of pet it ioning, 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 not a grievance peculiar to this guys-
tiont; the same difficulty, as far as the poor man was cen-
corned, existed in courts of law, and many other places. The
machinery introduced into this Bill regarding compensa-
tion was much 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 compensation.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM disclaimed all participation in the
sentiments expressed by his Noble Friend against the Govern-
ment, but he did not think that railway Pills were ef 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 construct a road for his own immediate convenience. He
gave notice that, after the holidays, he would move for a Coin-
mittee to inquire whether the mode of dealing, between rail-
way Companies and the proprietors of land, could not be placed
upon a better footing than it was at present.
Lord BELHAVEN thought a railway Company ought to be
compelled to arrange with the landholders whop property

would be interfered with by the line before Parliament granted
them an Act to construct it.
After a few words from Lord Vzvraw and Lord BROUGHAM,
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY remarked that, as
many of the projected railways would pass over coal mines, it
might so happen that, in the course of time, they might give
way, and idlict serious injury, not only upon the owner of the
mine, but the public at large. He, therefore, wished to ask the
Noble Lord whether the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill
made any provision for the purchase, by the railway Company,
of tLe mine as well as of the surface of the earth?

Lord DALHOUSIE was understood to reply in the
affirmative.

The matter then dropped.
The Bail in Error Bill went through Committee, and the
report was ordered to be brought up after the holidays.
The Privy Council Appellate Jurisdiction Bill was read a
third time and passed, a clause being introduced to postpone its
operation to the Ist of January, 1846.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, their
Lordships then adjourned for the holidays till Friday, the
16th instant.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 8.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition praying for a modiGea-
tion of the Act of Imprisonment for Debt passed last session.
Mr. 11. BERKELEY, and other Hon. Members, presented
petitions against the grant to Maynooth.
SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented several petitions from
places in Scotland, praying for an increase of the stipends of
parochial schoolmasters in Scotland.

MAYNOOTH.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a great number of petitions
against the endowment of Maynooth College.
ENCROACHMENT UPON THE ENJOYMENTS OF
_ _