The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF :CORDS, Julq 24.

Their Lordship met shortly after Five
DIRECT LONDON AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the promoters of competing railways to the Direct London
and Portsmouth line, and praying to be heard by counsel be-
fore the Select Committee as a competing line against the
Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Bill. The Noble
Duke moved that the petition be referred to the Select Com-
mittee on the Bill, which was agreed to after a short discussion.
DUBLIN AND GALWAY RAILWAY.—REPORT OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

- --- -
Lord BATHURST said he had been directed, as the Chair-
man of the Committee appointed to inquire into the charges
brought against the Dublin and Galway Railway Company, to
call the attention of the House to their report. The Committee
had met and considered the petitions which had been refergd
to them, had heard counsel, had examined witnesses in
support of the allegations in the said petitions, and had
arrived at the opinion, that most systematic frauds had been
used for the purpose of obtaining the necessary number
of signatures to the subscription contract. No pro-
per attention had been wild to the letters of al-
lotment. Names had been inserted without the consent of
the parties, and letters had been sent to country postmasters,
with a request that they iniffht be returned to London through
the Post-office. It also appeare4 that. 2504 were to be(p).,a,iid.t.o,
a person on his not bringing certain charges "'clin" the Corn'
pang, and 500/. more on the Bill passing the Standing '"
Committee, The subscription coatra4 did not alma go

three fourths of the estimates. The result of these de-
liberations had induced the Committee to express entire
concurrence in the report of the Committee, and that the
reduction in the amount of deposits last session, by the
House of Cc,e,mons, had given a facility to frauds like those
mentioned in their report. Under all these circumstances,
they had come to the decision not to inquire further into the
Bill without further directions from the House.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH said the report was a peculiar
one, and he thought it better to give a notice respecting it.
He should therefore move to-morrow that the Bill be no
further proceeded with.
PRIVILEGE.

Lord BROUGHAM said he bad now to state, that having
brought forward a statement with regard to the privileges
of the House, that he had seen a statement giving
an explanation with respect to the report of the newspaper in
question, and that their Lordships ought not now to call the
reporter before the House, or proceed against the editor of
that newspaper. The Noble Earl opposite would forgive him
if he said that he never intimated that he wished to do so.
They had had too much experience on matters of that sort, and
he thought it better to leave him (Lord Brougham) as the ag-
grieved party to proceed at law by means of a criminal
information, if he wished to adopt that coarse. No doubt he
could prosecute ; it was no excuse whatever that the matter
occurred in the House of Commons, but he had to state that it
appeared the statement was made and was published in another
newspaper, against which he might proceed, if he pro-
ceeded at all—namely, the Morning Chronicle, as it
had published the same speech in the same words. He
therefore should have proceeded against both, or against
neither. But he had seen a statement in both of these papers
purporting to be this—that the same individual Member of the
other House who was represented to have made this un-
just speech, which no person would pretend to ex-
tenuate—that some person was made to say in the
same paper, that what he was represented to have said was
under an entire misapprehension of the facts—that he was not
present in the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, as,
not being a member, he could not be, and that he had been
misled by the information which he had received.—( Hear. )
The same individual had stated that the evidence to which he
had referred, had no reference to the evidence of Mr. Parkes,
but to some other person, which showed that the in-
formation this individual received was entirely incorrect,
for there was no other evidence which was not taken down an d
reported to their Lordships, but that of Mr. Parkes. Now,
the same individual was stated to have said, and,
he believed, correctly, that he was exceedingly
sorry that his language had given pain to any persons, but the
only pain it had given him was being induced to speak upon
and to bring the matter before their Lordships. Well, but he
regretted it, and that being the case he (Lord Brougham) was
sure he was anticipating the decision of their Lordships
when he suggested that they should not proceed further with
the matter.—(Hear, hear). It would then still be open for
him to prosecute the publishers of the libel, because it was no
protection forcthem even if the language had been spoken
in Parliament. He could not conceive that the House of Com-
mons, holding the doctrine of privilege so high, could have allowed
this speech to have passed unnoticed had they heard it, but he
was still more surprised at the statement that the House had al-
lowed hours to pass away after reading what appeared in the
newspapers, before anything was said about it. He could not
for his I;fe believe for one moment that the statement
made in the newspapers had the least foundation in
truth, namely, that nobody got up'to complain of what had
been printed as having been spoken in their presence—that
nobody got up to complain of the grossest libel that was ever
published having been spoken in the House of Commons till
late in the day, when the party who uttered it voluntarily got
up to explain it away. The House ought to have at once, and
he believed they did, on their first meeting, take the matter
into their serious consideration, and he could not conceive it
possible that they could have acted in the way represented by
the newspapers. One of the papers had to-day ventured to
publish another libel upon him. The Morning Chronicle was
pleased to say this morning that he had rendered a great
service to the public in throwing out the Dublin and
Galway Bill, which he was supposed to have done,
but had acted unfairly in prejudicing the Bill be.
fore acting upon the Committee. Now, there never was
any thing more gross, nor more slanderous than this, and
he said it was a most flagrant breach of privilege. He would
not, however, appeal against it, but leave it in their Lordships'
hands. How could he prejudge the Bill when he was not a
Member of the Committee, nor had he ever had any thing to do
with the Bill, further than inquiring into certain allegationsi
against the promoters; nor, in fact, bad it been yet thrown out—
for it had not been reported on to that effect by the Committee.
He hoped, before he concluded, he might be allowed to say one
word upon the subject of Members of Parliament holding
shares in a railway company, and being allowed to vote for its
Bill. In 1837, he induced their Lordships to adopt a most
salutary standing order—namely, that no Peer should have
anything to do with a Railway Committee who had any con-
nexion whatever with the railway in question ; and he trusted
the same rule was carried out in the other House of Parliament.
The Earl of WICKLOW remarked that on the former even-
ing he suggested that it would be necessary to take steps to
call the publisher and reporter of the libel to their Lordships'
bar, but a Noble Duke opposed it, on the ground that those
individuals would have to answer questions which might cri-
minate themselves. Now that was the last object he had in
view. His object was to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of
changing the subject from one of privilege to one of a cri-
minal character.—The matter then dropped.
RUNCORN AND PRESTON BROOK RAILWAY.
Lord CA MOYS brought up the report of the Select Com-
mittee on this Bill, who had found that the preamble was not
proved.
Lord MONTEAGLE would suggest to the House that some
steps should be taken on the subject of swearing witnesses
before railway Committees, instead of the present absurd mode
of swearing witnesses after their testimony was given.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that some measure was
in contemplation on the subject.
Lord CAMPBELL said the Commons ought to swear
witnesses before their own Committees. Witnesses had there
pledged themselves to facts which even under the sanction of
an oath they would be most jealous to revoke.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord BROUGHAM moved a resolution that an address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously
pleased to give directions that the New Houses of Parliament
might be ready by the beginning of next session.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE opposed the motion. It was quite
clear that though a temporary accommodation might be ob-
tained, the inconvenience of being surrounded by workmen
and disturbed by noise would more than counterbalance any
advantages which the accommodation might afford.
Lord CAMPBELL should support the motion of his Noble
Friend. The finishing of the Houses of Parliament would be
postponed to the Greek Kalends.
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged that their Lordships
would recollect that this was the House of Lords and also the
Chamber of Parliament. There must be a communication
between the two Houses, and also care must be taken that no

inconvenience would arise to her Majesty when coming to
open and prorogue Parliament.
Lord CAMPBELL explained. He did not mean that her
Majesty should be inconvenienced in the slightest degree.
Lord SUDELY could not concur in the propriety of the
address. It would materially interfere with the future ar-
rangements of the New Houses.
The Earl of WICKLOW would give his vote for the ad-
dress of his Noble Friend. If they did not do so, they would
be in that House for the next five years. He hoped his Noble
Friend would persevere in it. . . _

Lord BROUGHAM saw nothing whatever in the objec-
tions which were raised against his motion. A great de'sl had
been said in reference to the inconvenience which the Law
Lords would sustain by the noise of the masons who would be
at work outside, but they were quite willing to un-
dergo the risk of that noise ; for he was quite
sure that the noise made inside would drown all
other clamour.—( A laugh.) If any inconvenience would arise
to her Majesty in the opening of Parliament (which God for-
bid), he was quite sure that she would graciously consent to
open Parliament by commission for one year. There was,
however, a most serious question for the House to consider, and
unless they adopted the motion it would not be easy to say,
after the delay that had occurred, when they would get into
the new Houses of Parliament.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion, and
declared that the non-contents had it.
Lord BROUGHAM—The non-contents have it?
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared--
Contents.
Non-contents

Majority against the motion
PAUPER LUNATICS BILL

-24

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of this
Bill. He said, although the Bill had emanated from Lord
Ashley, it had been brought in under the auspices of the Go-
vernment, and must be considered as a Government Bill.
Throughout England there was insufficient accommodation for
lunatics, and many of the asylums were crowded to excess.
In a civilised country like this, they ought to remove at least
some of the evils arising from lunatics. That was the object
of the present Bill. Sixty out of every hundred of theselunatics
could be cured, provided their maladies were attended to

- .
in time. The others were those who were considered to be in•
curable. He would move the second reading of the Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND objected to tli'is Bill, because,
if they passed it in its present shape, they would pass a bad
measure, but if they sent it to a Select Committee they would
pass a better Bill. He had a great suspicion of any Bill that
came before them on the ground of humanity. He should
like to have the Poor-law Commissioners brought to the bar of
the House, to tell them if they had lunatics in their work-
houses. They had no right to have lunatics in their work-
hawses. If a lunatic wished he could leave the house at three
hours' notice. It was ridiculous to have them admitted into
workhouses, when it was impossible that they could be cured
there. This Bill would increase the county-rate to a great
extent. He objected to it also for the manner in which the
rate was to be levied. The owners of land and not the occu-
piers should be taxed. He begged that his Noble Friend would
reconsider before determining that he would not send the Bill
to a Select Committee. It would be very much amended in a
very few hours by a Select Committee up stairs. This Bill
passed through the House of Commons, where there were many
gentlemen who were considered to represent the agricultural
interest ; but if an election took place to-morrow, he did not
think that they would be called upon to resume their duties.
He would move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he would suggest
that it was not convenient that this Bill should be proceeded
any further with, as far as the second reading was concerned. He
understood that a clause had passed through the House of Com-
mons by mistake, which it was necessary to expunge. They
should then proceed with it as a new Bill, and read it a first
time.
A message from the House of Commons was brought up,
stating that an amendment was made on the Pauper Lanatics
Bill, at present before their Lordships, which amendment was
not made on the engrossment of the Bill, and requesting that
this amendment should be inserted in the Bill, and that the 85th
clause should be expunged from the printed Bill, as it did not
form part of the Bill when it left the Commons.
Lord CAMPBELL did not understand the nature of the
amendments, nor did he exactly understand the present posi-
tion of the Bill in consequence of that message.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that their course was
very clear. All they had to do was to send their messenger
with the Bill to the House of Commons, and say that their
Lordships would expunge the clause as requested.
Lord COTTEN HAM thought the most regular way would
be to send the Bill back to the Lower House as it was, and let
the alterations and amendments be made there.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not eoncur with the
Noble Lord who had just sat down. In 1836, Mr. Wilkes brought
a message from the Commons, requesting that a certain provi-
sion should be expunged from the. Marriage Bill for England,
which had been agreed to on the third reading in the Common;.
The way in which that message was dealt with was this :—All
the proceedings which were already had on the Bill in their
Lordships' House were vacated. The provision was expunged.
The Bill as amended was then read a first time, and ordered
to be printed. Now, the present Bill was in a state precisely
analogous, and he conceived that, with such a precedent, their
course was very clear.
The Earl of DEVON said it was perfectly true that, in the
case of the Marriage Act, such a course as had been stated by
the Noble Lord had been pursued, but it was a course not Alp-
ported by precedent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was done quite
in accordance with precedent, for Lord Melbourne, under whose
guidance the Bill was, had alluded to two precedents where a
similar course had heen adopted, and those were cases in which
the massages were brought up by Mr. Wilberforce and Sir
(-40)11(11p, JO*
•
- awn

After a few words from Lords CorrexHam and Lord CAMP-
BELL,

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the proceedings
on the Bill up to the present stage be vacated ; that the
amendments be made, and the clause expunged, as requested ;
and that the Bill, so amended, be brought in, read a first time,
and ordt•eed to be printed.—Agreed to.
The Duke a RICHMOND then gave notice that he would
move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
existing laws and regulations on the subject.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he would take the second read-
ing of the Bill to-morrow ; and if the Noble Lord persisted in
his motion, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
A desultory conversation then ensued, after which
The Duke of RICHMOND withdrew his motion, and the
subject dropped.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
Lord STANLEY moved the second reading of the Com-
mons Enclosure Bill, and explained its provisions in detail.
He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Bill, and not
allow a subject of such importance to be delayed for another
sesekm.

Lord FITZ HARDINGE agreed in the general principles of
the Bill, but objected to the 151st clause, and was of opinion
that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to un-
derAo the requisite alterations.
Lord STANLEY replied that the 153 d clause removed
what appeared to be objectionable in the 151st. He hoped the
Noble Lord would allow the Bill to proceed, as any suggestion
he had to make could be considered when the Bill went into
Committee.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday next.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON this Bil
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Mon
day next.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed
WASTE LANDS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA).
The report on this Bill was brought up, and it was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.