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

IMPERIA

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 furth, r
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 t surport the
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 ail the circumstances, 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 farthing
for the evidence because it would not give the informa-
tion he required. 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.—(Hear, bear.) It was upon
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-commit
the Bill.
The Earl of HARDWICKE said, b. fore 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 Guild(ord line had any
locus standi whatever, and therefore they refused to al-
low the parties to be heard in opposition to the
direct Portsmouth. The Committee were de-

sirous to. give all the advantages of railway
communication at the cheapest possible rate, and they
selected what they considered the best line for this
purpose.
The Duke of RICHMOND did not wish the Nob'•e
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
satisfied 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 had
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 RICH. 'iIOND 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 parties
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 be further considered on
Friday next.
The Earl of HARDWICXE had no objection to do
anything that the House thought fit. The Committee
had no sort of interest in the undertaking, nothing to
influence 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 simQly thought that they
had acted erroneously.
The motion, as amended, was then carried.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

A messenger from the House of Commons brought up
several Bills.
PUBLISHING THE LIVES OF PEERS—RE-
PEAL OF STANDING ORDER.

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, without 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 deceased interfered, 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, ac-
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

Curll was then called in and reprimanded by the Lord
Chancellor. The matter did nut 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 Curli 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. Pepe's Literary Correspondence for
thirty years, being a collection of letters written to hint
by the Earl of Halifax, Lord Ferrers, and others ; pub-
lished by Edward Curil, 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 Curl! the publisher of the book,
and J. Wilford the printer of the ;le Nspaper, be summoned
to the bar of the House. These parties attended and
were examined and severally reprimanded for what they
had done. After they retired, •the Gentleman Usher of
the Black Rod tt.formed the House that he had seized
500 of the book in question at the house of Mr. Curl!.
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 :hould 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 put
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 this
Bill.

On the Ist clause being proposed,
Lord PORTMAN 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 inclosure 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 appointed
by the Commissioners to estimate the value of the lands

required.
The clause, with some amendments, was then agreed
4.-

Clauses up to 11 were agreed to without opposition.
Clause 12 being proposed,
Lord STANLEY moved the omission of the words,
"all the forests belonging to the Crown," and the sub-
stitution of " the New Forest" and the " Forest of Dean,"
which was agreed to.
Clause 13 was agreed to ; and on clause 14 being pro-
posed,
The Earl of FITZ HARDINGE 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 tiny existing town greens in lieu of
other land still appropriated to the recreation of the
people. They would, however, be devoted to the same
purposes as now. They would be applied 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 be
an infant, the Commissioners would appoint such guar-
dian, but they would have no interest in doing so.
Lord STANLEY said the only object of the clause
was to take care there was no interest unrepresented.
Clauses 19 and 20 were then agreed to.