The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-18 00:00:00

amended report of the Railway Clauses Conesidation Bill
was brought up.
On the motion being put for its being received,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said, that he
wished to attach a clause to this Bill, which he
thought was necessary in order to render the Bill available,
for all parts of the United Kingdom. The object of the clause
was to oblige all Railway Companies in Ireland to make a
deposit of 6d. in the pound, on the estimated cost, with the
Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery in Ireland.
He wished to extend the provision of the 2d Victoria, which
provided for the expenses of the suits in Chancery to Ireland.
The report was then brought up, and the clause was read
a first time. On its being put a second time,
Mr. lIAWES wished to inquire whether any regulation
specifically similar to this had been introduced into the
English railway Acts ?
Lord G. SOMERSET replied that there had not been any
such clause, and that this was entirely new.
Mr. HAWES asked why, if these provisions were necessary,
they were not applied to English Acts ?
Mr. T. B. SMITH said that the object of this clause was,
not to place Irish railways in any worse position than similar
projects in England, but to rectify a mischief arising out of
the effects of the standing orders of the Court of Chancery in
Ireland. By the standing orders of that Court it was ordered
that there should be an instalment paid into the hands of the
usher of that Court, which constituted what is called the
" Suitors' Fund." Great inconvenience has been experienced
b making the usher the depositor of this money, and in
1783 an Act was passed for transferring this " Suitors'
Fund" from the hands of the usher to those of the Account-
tant-General of the Court of Chancery. reserving a fee for
the usher of the Court. He thought this was necessary, and
it would place the railway companies in Ireland in no worse
position than that of similar companies in England.
The House then went into Committee on the amended re-
port, and on the 17th clause, which gives power to the
Board of Admiralty to pull down the works of railway com-
panies which in their opinion obstructed or in any way
affected the navigation or defence of any river on the coast,
or creek, or other arm of the sea, being put,
Mr. HAWES said that he believed that the Hon. Member
for Plymouth (Mr. Gill) had had some communication with
the Hon. Gentlemen the Secretary to the Admiralty relative
to the introduction of some words, which would modify the
power of the Admiralty to affect works constructed
below high water mark. He thought the House
were not aware of the enormous power which this
clause gave to the Admiralty, or they would look
a little more carefully into it. By this clause, after a rail-
way company had gone through the Committee and the
House, by the simple word of the Admiralty Engineer the
whole of their plans might be set aside, or even destroyed, if
it should happen that they had been constructed before the
veto was uttered. Now he thought that the better plan would
be for an insertion in the standing orders to require that any
company having works to construct that would be liable to
the jurisdiction of the Lords of the Admiralty, that there
should be plans deposited with the Admiralty concurrently
with those deposited with the Committee of Standing Orders
of the House of Commons, and that if the Admiralty had
anything to object to to come and make the objection before
the Committee.
Mr. FITZROY said that, from a communication which he
had had with Mr. Sidney Herbert, he believed that the words
proposed to be introduced by the Hon. Member for Ply-
mouth did not meet with the concurrence of the Secretary
of the Admiralty, and that the plan proposed. by the Hon.
Member for Lambeth was incompatible with the usages of
the House, as it would interfere, he conceived, with the
Queen's prerogative.
Mr. HAWES objected to the unqualified powers which
the clause gave to the Board of Admiralty, and suggested
that the Board of Admiralty, when they had cause to com-
plain of railway obstructions to navigable rivers, should
go before the Parliamentary Committee of Merits,
and there contest the points with the railway com-
pany. This would give both parties an opportunity
of being heard, and remove all objection to the power at
present possessed by the Board of Admiralty. He thought
that some alteration might be made in the standing orders of
the House to meet his views. The Hon. Member moved an
amendment accordingly.
Lord MARSHAM could see no objection to the clause. He
believed the Board of Admiralty exercised the authority alike
to the interest of the railway and the convenience of the public.
He knew from personal knowledge that the Board never
withheld its sanction from railway projects which did not ab-
solutely interfere with, or obstruct the traffic, in navigable
rivers. In the late case of the Rossendale Railway, which
crossed a navigable river, the Board of Admiralty were ap-
plied to for power to form a bridge or viaduct, and the Board
seeing that the line was for the convenience of the public
at large readily granted it. He believed they acted upon the
same in .every case that came before them.
Sir W. CLAY said they had heard a good deal of mur-
muring against the authority of the Board of Trade, and he
thought the Board of Admiralty would become equally un-
popular if the dense were agreed to. The clause left these
disputed points to a partial tribunal, but the Hon.
Member for Lambeth would carry them before an impartial
Committee, where the interest of both parties would meet
with every attention.
Sir G. CLERK reminded the House that in the course
of last session of Parliament the subject of the encroach-
ments of railways on navigable rivers was brought ender
the consideration of the Government by the Hon. Member
for Montrose, who pointed out that the 46th of George HI.
duly required that notice should be given to the Secretary of
the Admiralty when embankments or quays were about to
be made in navigable rivers. The Honourable Member
thought that this was insufficient to protect the Interests of
the public, and thought that much greater powers should be
given to the Admiralty. His Right Hon. Friend the First
Lord of the Treasury, on that occasion admitted that the sub-
ject was one of great importance, and • consented to the
appointment of a commission to inquire into the subject,
and to ascertain if it was necessary that additional powers
should be given to the Admiralty. The Committee reported
that, notwithstanding the required notices, very inconvenient
encroachments and obstructions bad been made to our na-
vigable rivers, and it had therefore been thought necessary
to introduce this clause into the present measure. But he
could hardly understand how Hon. Members could object
to ita provisions, for when railway companies proposed to inter-
fere with private property, Parliament never sanctioned it
without the consent of the owner. Upon the same principle,
the House should withhold its sanction to railway obstruc-
tions on navigable rivers, until the consent of the Board
of Admiralty had been expressly and formally obained. He
therefore could not support the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Lambeth.
After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS, who supported
the clause in its original form,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it
On our return to the gallery,
Sir W. CLAY was objecting to the 17th clause, which related
to the powers of a railway company dealing with the mains
of gas or water companies. The Honourable Member
thought the clause was not sufficiently stringent, and
related one or two instances where great public
inconveniences bad arisen from the indiscriminate
powers given to railway companies. In the case of the West
London, which connected the line of the London and Bir-
mingham Company with that of the Great Western, it would
be recollected that a short time ago the western part of the
metropolis was greatly incommoded from the circumstance
of the line crossing three mains of the Kensington
gas-works and water-works. For a time Pall-mall,
Tottenham-court-road, and the principal portions of the
west-end were left totally without a supply of water, either
for domestic purposes, or cases of emergency, as fires, hc.
It was to prevent the recurrence of such an inconve-
nience that he wished to make the clause more stringent.
He was not prepared then to state the precise terms
of the amendment ; but as there were deputations who were
experienced in the matter waiting outside, he would suggest
that it should be left to them to frame an amendment, and
let the clause be postponed till the third reading.
Mr. KEMBLE and Mr. HAWES admitted the import-
ance of the suggestion, and asked the Noble Lord to give it
every consideration.
Lord G. SOMERSET certainly felt that the clause was
not sufficiently stringent to guard the rights of water and
gas-works, and he had no objection to agree to an amend-
ment which had been suggested on a former occasion by the
Hon. Member for Maidstone. This amendment would afford
ample protection to gas and water-works, he hoped it would
receive the sanction of the House.
1 'After a few words from Mr. DODD, who consented to
o stpone his amendment till the third reading of the Bill,
Lord G. SOMERSET said he should take the third read-
ing to-morrow, at twelve o'clock.
Col. SIBTHORP objected to the hour. The measure was
of great public importance, and it was necessary that the final
reading should be postponed to such an hour when it would
be likely to have a full attendance of Hon. Members. Clause
27 gave powers to railway companies that were not only
monstrous, but un-English, and lid should divide the House
upon it. He moved an amendment. in effect restricting
railway companies from going beyond 100 yards on the land
adjacent to the line that might be required i'or temporary pur-
poses. In clause 27 11x9 number of yards was restricted to 500.
He would therefore apose that the words 500 yards should
be altered to 200, but the motion fell to the ground for want
of a seconder.
On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, that clause 31, as
amended, stand part of the Bill,
Mr. HAWES said that this clause was so vague
and indefinite that he could not at all consent to its
insertion. The power given to the justices of the
peace for the adjudication of difficult points was far
too large, and he should move the omission of
the clause, or if that were objected to, as he believed that the
House of Lords had adjourned for the holidays, and the
Noble Lord' (Lord G. Somerset) was not now pressed for
time, as it would now be impossible to get the Bill into
the Upper House till after the recess, he would wish the
clause to be postponed.
Lord G. SOMERSET explained that the House of Lords
had only adjourned till to-morrow, and then it was believed
they would adjourn till after Easter, and he was desirous of
getting the Bill read a first time before the recess.
Mr. HAWES said that then he should move for the
omission of the clause.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS said that he would second
the motion, for the term property or enjoyment of property
was so vague that it was impossible for any right decision to
be come to by parties.
The SPEAKER explained that the clause might be
amended, but could not be omitted, as it formedpartoftheßilL
Lord G. SOMERSET said the amendment might be consi-
dered on the third reading, and that the Hon. Member for
Cheshire (Mr. T. Egerton) had charge of this particular
clause and he would perhaps devise some means of obviating
the objection.
Mr. T. EGERTON said that he had consulted with his
Hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby), who had
great experience in these particular matters, and he had as-
Burred him that the term " enjoyment" was a perfectly legal
term, and one well understood, and therefore not likely to
occasion any difficulty.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
The remainder of the clauses were then passed with a few
verbal amendments, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed
Id • sd a third time on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock.

. reek. a
L "
LAND CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET that the report be
brought up,
Mr. GREENE brought it up, when
Colonel SIBTHORP said that he found that all opposi-
tion to these Bills, which he considered neither more nor less
than attacks on private property, was utterly
.ineffectual ;
and he should, therefore, refrain from it in this in-
stance, but he did hope that when they went to another
place they would meet with rejection, and the country
would learn that there was some feeling for the property of
the small proprietors in Parliament.
After several verbal amendments, the Bill was ordered to
be engrossed and.printed, and read a third time en Wednes-
day next, at twelve o'clock.
LAND. CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND)
BILL.
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House
went into Committee on this Bill. The Bill went through
Committee, when the Chairman reported progress, and the
report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
Sir C. LEMON brought in the Corhivalllwa: