The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-11 00:00:00

SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.

Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition against the tests in
the Scotch Universities.

RAILWAYS.

Tne LEA EYED LORD also gave notice that on the second read-
ing of the Brandling Junction Railway Bill he would draw atten-
tion to the important subject of railway companies purchasing
railways and canals, and thereby forming a monopoly contrary
to the intentions of the Legislature.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition relative to the
purchase of a canal by a railway company, and in doing so
must say that he heartily approved of the motion of which his
Noble and Learned Friend had given notice.
The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD! also presented a petition
from Mr. H. C. Talbot, against the Wilts and Somerset Railway.
Also a petition from John Free. M.D., who held land in the
county of Devon under Sir Stafford Northcote, against a rail
way there, which intersected his property, and cut up
his gardens and lawns. The Noble Lord re errad
to the transactions that took place between him and Sir Staf-
ford Northcote, in reference to the railway, and characterised
the conduct of Sir Stafford, or his agents, as being the most
dishonourable that ever came under his notice. The doctor
applied to Sir Stafford in reference to the injuries he would
sustain, and the only satisfaction he could get from him was that
Sir Stafford Northcote had been settled with. He had been
bought, and did not say a word against the Bill now. He slid
not care what was done with either the lawn or garden now,
because he had received a great deal of money, and,
therefore, he left his poor tenant, the doctor, in the
lurch. The doctor was not allowed to be heard, and the con-
sequence was, the Bill wag suffered to pass.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said his Noble and Learned Friend
had stated the case with perfect accuracy, as far as he himself
knew of it.

Lord CIMPBELL had never heard of such an act of op-
pression as the Railway Company proposed to commit, and the
Company that would take advantage of the poor doctor's situa
tion, and would not allow him to be heard, surely deserved no
favour at the hands of their Lordships.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS considered that the Noble
Lord (Lord Brougham) had taken a most unwarrantable
position of late with respect to subjects like the one before
their Lordships. The subject would be thoroughly considered
by the Committee on the Bill, which might be rejected on the
third reading. He hoped the House would not listen to the
proposition of the Noble Lord.

• Lord REDESDALE considered that Dr. Freer was worthy
of credit, and that there could be no doubt of the correctness
of the facts set forth in the petition. After a company had re-
fused to give a person a fair compensation, he was told he might
go to the Committee on the Bill. By doing so he might lose
more money than the property for which he claimed compensa-
ion was worth.

Lord BROUGHAM considered that the Noble Earl (Earl
of St. Germans) had not held a seat sufficiently long in that
House to entitle him to interpret the forms of the House better
than he (Lord Brougham) could. The Doctor went before
the Committee, but the landlord objected to his being heard,
so that Sir Stafford Northcote and his son stopped the mouth
of Dr. Freer, and prevented him from petitioning. They
then, after inducing him to fellow their advice, made terms be-
hind his back for the injuries the railway would cause his pro-
perty, taking advantage of his own error, and they now cane
forward and told him that it was no use for him to look for
compensation, as he had not petitioned. He (Lord Brougham)
never, in the whole course of his life, knew such a case of
practising, upon a man as this case of the Northcote family. If
this rule were established, ro matter what grievance a tenant
had to complain of, he had no remedy if the landlord alone was
to be heard.

The Earl of WICKLOW complained of the irregularity
which had lately become prevalent, of raising discussions on
the presentation of petitions, and more particularly of the
practice of his Noble and Learned Friend opposite, of making
a long speech upon every petition he happened to present. The
Noble Lord was not satisfied with stating the nature of the
petition, but he took upon himself the gratuitous task of making
attacks upon individuals, and when a friend of those indivi-
duals happened to get up to defend them, the Noble Lord be-
came exceedingly indignant. If any one was dissatisfied with a
railway company, he had nothing to do but to send a petition
to the Noble Lord. and he might be sure the Noble Lord would
make an ex parte speech on presenting it.
Lord BROUGHAM said there was never anything more
without foundation than the latter remark of the Noble Earl,
There was scarcely one out of every fifty petitions forwarded to
him that he selected for presentation.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, the matter
dropped.