The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-15 00:00:00

IRISH RA I LWXYS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the
Noble Lord opposite, the President of the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade, a question of
considerable importance relating to the projected
railways in Ireland. lie wished to ask whether
the line recommended by the Board of Trade
was the best possible one which could be
marked out, or whether it was only the best of two
or three which might have been submitted to them ?
He was induced to ask that question by the terms
of a report which was laid on their Lordships' table
on the 3d of April, and which referred to the lines pro-
jected in the particular part of Ireland with which he
was connected. Without entering into a discussion
of the; merits of the two lines reported on,
he might state that neither of these two lines
was the best which could be contemplated.
In dealing with railways in Ireland, Government was
placed in a very different position than when they were
legislating upon railways in England. He thought in
Ireland Government might more directly interfere in
procuring for the public the best line which could ba
suggested, and not confine themselves to any two
or three which a number of private individuals might
mark out. He wished to ask a second question, namely,
as to how far the Board of Trade, in examining the
various schemes which came before them, inquired whether
the promoters which came before them had conformed
with the provisions of the Registration Act, so as to
enable the promoters or shareholders to call themselves
a company. The regulations of the Registration Act
were certainly very stringent, and if the Board of Trade
er Parliament agreed with him they: ought to be altered.
Until, however, those alterations were made, the provisions
of the Act ought, in his opinion, to be strictly complied
with. lie should move for a paper stating the names of all
persons who were really and truly connected with the
several schemes; and he thought that the public ought
not to be misled by the imposition of certain names on
the lists, which might give a false colour to
the concern to which they were attached. He
had lately seen the names of certain Noble
Friends of his attached to schemes with which they had
netbing to do, and he thought that this ought to be
obviated.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that before he re-
plied to the question of the Noble Lord, he would beg to
make mention of the circumstance to which the Noble
Marquis had alluded. The fact that reports of the
Board of Trade appeared in the newspapers before
they were placed on the table of their Lordships arose from
their having been placed on the table of the House of
Commons, and the consequent report of them through
the press before they were submitted to the House of
Lords. With respect to the secoi d question, whether
due deliberation had been used in carrying
their decisions, and especially with respect to
Irish railways, he would say that he was aware
that the Act of last session was very stringent, but with
regard to the compliance with the standing orders the
House of Commons were alone to judge. The business
of the Board of Trade was simply to report on the merits
of the scheme, but with respect to the registration the
Board had nothing to do.—(Hear.) He conceived
that the Board for enforcing the Registration Act
had not been negligent of their duty. They had in
several instances issued notices to all parts of the country
to warn shareholders of the risk they ran. As to the
Stock Exchange their Lordships were aware that the
proceedings of that place were kept quite secret, and
though it was notorious that many of the transactions
of that place were notoriously at variance with the
law, yet it was quite impossible to punish the
parties to those transactions.
The Marquis of CLANRICARI)E thought that the
terms of the Act were much less difficult than the Noble
Earl imagined. The Noble Marquis then read the
clause which requires a deposit upon shares before they
are transferred. He thought that the projectors
had precisely adopted the line recommended by the
Railway Commissioners, and he thought the Govern-
ment ought to be very particular in recommending lines
for the adoption of the public.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that with regard to
the clause for the registration of shares, he took leave
to say that every care had been taken, and if it had not
been taken it was no part of the duties of the Board of
Trade to interfere with such registration, and further he
thought that every care had been taken to avoid any-
thing like disregard of public interest.
GLASS DUTIES BILL—CUSTOMS EXPORT

BILL—MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, these Bills
were read a seeond time.
LAND CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved that the House
should go into Committee on the Land Clauses
Consolidation Bill, and in doing so he begged
to correct a misapprehension which had gone abroad
respecting this Bill, that it was a new measure,
when, in truth, this Bill was nothing more than the
consolidation of the scveral clauses which had
been previously passed in the several private Bills
which had obtained the sanction of their Lordships.
It was thought extremely desirable that in legislating
with railway and other Companies that they should con-
solidate in one Bill all the provisions that were appli-
cable to the whole, and having done so, it was found
advisable to proceed further, inasmuch as in some Bills
it would be necessary to introduce portions only of the
eousolidated clauses. It was, therefore, determined to
bring forward a Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, to
meet the necessities on cases of canals and gas compa-
nies, &c. In conclusion, he moved the committal of
that Bill.

Lord BEAUMONT said the Bill was of
vertance, and it Vk as the duty
11 of their Lordsh dutyßigreat public im-
ips to see that no
T
error crept into it.
on
the part
several tribunals,
and made it compulsory
Prailway company to
apply to one of these in cases where of
a tthey mght happen to
have disputes with the owners of lraeniNow, in connexion
with this part of the Bill, there was a provisions which inflicted
of related
land. to
great injustice on tl.e landholder
fost ; arising out of a dispute as to theovr a
al
value
et
ases where the sum awarded by the jury,
ma-
gistrates, amounted to less than that previouslrbi(t)ffrator, or
company, one-half of the costs fell upon the landholder,
by the
and if
the amount so avvarded was less than the costs, the
power to distrain for the balance. Now, this wacsompany had
m
unjust. Where a man borrowed money, the wholeitestly
the expense fell upon the borrower—(Hear, hek.r) of
and
was not a railway company that required land
placed
io the same position as a borrower? Well then, if that were so.
they ought to pay all the expenses. But it was difficult now
for a private individual to grapple with a railway company, for
a railway company, when they got the sanction of the Board of
Trade, treated any little landholder as they thought proper.
He should move that this Bill be referred to a Select Com-
mittee up stairs.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that it was thought ex-
tremely desirable by the House of Commons and the parties
concerned that the different clauses should be divided into
groups, and that was the reason why this Bill was di-
vided from the Companies Clauses Consolidation
Bill. With respect to the reference to the Committee up stairs,
he had to say that those Bills embodied the experience of fifteen
years ; indeed, during the whole of the period since the con-
struction of railways, and therefore he thought that that ex-
perience up stairs was quite out of the question. They had
been told that they had an arrear of business in railway Bills
which was quite unprecedented. There were now 248 Bills
before Parliament, and though this was now the middle of
April, there was not a single Committee sitting in either House
of Parliament upon them, and he trusted that no opposition
would be offered to the House going into Committee, especially
when they recollected that if the Committee did not now sit, a
great expense would be incurred by the parties concerned, and
a great impediment would be offered to the business of the
country.
The amendment of Lord Beaumont was then negatived, and
the Rouse went into Committee.

On the reading of the 23d and 24th clauses an amendment
was adopted, the object of which was to give to the proprie-
tors of land the option of referring either to arbitration or a
jury, for the value of their lands before the lands were entered
upon.
On the moving of the 26th clause, which empowered parties
to take lands for a railway,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH expressed his suspicion
of the justice of the arbitrations, and he thought that the Board
of Trade should have an ultimate power of electing the
umpires.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE thought the Board of Trade
ought not to be made parties in all these instances.
Lord BEAUMONT thought that the proposal of the Earl
of Ellenborough ought to be adopted.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that he thought the Board
of Trade ought not to interfere to appoint umpires in every
instance ; but only in those instances in which the arbitrator s
had neglected and refused to appoint umpires, and that the
clause had better stand as it was ; and he thought that it was
incumbent on the Legislature, and especially upon their Lord-
ships' House, to see fair play, and he conceived that it was but
just that the railway companies should bear the costs of the
award, if the sum awarded was more than they offered ; but if
the sum was the same, the costs should be awarded equally be-
tween the two parties.
The Earl of DEVON moved an amendment to the 64th
clause, authorising the owners of entail,cl property to ra;s9
and lay out money in the drainage and improvement of the
land they occupy, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor.
The amendment was opposed by the LORD CHANCELLOR
and the Earl of DALHOUSIE, and afterwards withdrawn.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House
resumed.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and their Lordships
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 14.
The SPEAKER tuck the Chair at Fuur o'clock.
NEW WHIT.

Mr. S. YOUNG moved for a new writ for the elec-
tion of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for
West Kent, in the room of Lord Marsharn, now Earl 4,1'
Romsey, who has been removed to the house of Peers
by the death of his father.
The Aberdeen Railway Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
The Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill, and the Yar-
mouth and Norwich Railway Bill, were also read a second
time and ordered to be committed.
Petitions were then presented against the Yarmouth
and Norwich Railway Bill.
SHEFFIELD. AND TINSLEY CANAL.
On the motion of Mr. B. DENISON, this Bill was
read a second time.
The Chelsea Improvements Bill was read a second
time.
CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY.

Mr. BERKELEY presented a petition from Thomas
Watts, surgeon, of Cheltenham, against the Cheltenham
and Great Western Railway Bill, and the petitionrr
prayed to be heard by counsel against it.—Referred to
the Committee on Standing Orders.
BOARD OF TRADE—RAILWAY DEPARTMENT
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to postpone his motion
relative to the Railway Department of the Board of
Trade until Thursday next.
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the North Union
and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway was read a
second time.

Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition againsi
the Wolverhampton Waterworks.
THE MIDLAND RAILWAYS.

Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER brought up the report
of the Committee on this Bill, declaring that the
standing orders had not been complied with, a clause
having been introduced into the Bill without
any previous notice being given to the parties interested
of its nature or import.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the report showed a
grass violation of the standing orders, but the House
would ebserve that the Committee did not
state the circumstances under which the resolution was
made. He was, therefore, strongly impressed with the
belief that some further inquiry ought to be instituted,
nit with a view of inquiring further into the
fact of the irregularity, but to ascertain the
circumstance undo- which it had been fallen into. He
had been privately informed that the agent was cogni-
sant of the introduction of this clause, and therefore the
agent had been guilty of a serious error. He moved
that the dame be referred back to the Committee, with
power to inquire and report specially to the House by
whom, and under what circumstances, the standing
orders had been violated.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said the reason why they did not
report how this clause got into the Bili, was because the
majority of the Committee thought it was only their pro•
vince to ascertain if the promoters of the Bill had complied
or notwith the standing orders. He agreed with the Noble
Lord, that the matter bad better be referred back to the
Sub-Committee, giving them leave to report specially
to the House. He thought also that, in referring
the case back to the Committee, it should be an
instruction that the evidence given erroneously by Mr.
Burke should be written out for the consideration of the
Committee. . .

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite clear a most
gross, Ilag,rant, and dangerous breach of propriety
had been committed on the part of the agent for this
case, and it was equally necessary that the circumstance
under which that breach of propriety was made ought to
be inquired into. He, therefore, thought the House
would do well to adopt the course recommended by the
Noble Lord. _ _ .

The clause was then ordered to be re-committed.
SECOND READINGS.

The Taw Vale and Dock Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

—..-........
The Forth and Clyde Navigation and Canal Junction
Bill (No. ‘2) was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

The Hungcrford and Lambeth Suspension Foot
Bridge Bill was also read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.

.--
The Southport and Euxton Junction Railway Bill
passed through the same stage.
The report upon the Forth and Clyde Navigation
Bill was fut thcr considered and received.