The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Aug. 1.
Their Lordships assembled at the usual hour.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills.
THE DUBLIN AND GALWAY RAILWAY.
The Earl of BESBOttOUGH brought up the report of the
Committee appointed to inquire whether it was expedient to
prosecute the witness Stinton for perjury, which was to the
following effect :—That the Committee had met and considered
the subject referred to them, and that they were of opinion that,
although it was manifest that Stinton had wilfully contra-
dicted himself in the evidence given by him before the
Select Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations
against the Dublin and Galway Railway, contained in the pe-
tition of John Pimm, presented on the 7th of July, it was not
expedient to direct that he be prosecuted.
Lord CAMPBELL entirely agreed with the report, and
had no doubt that the dignity of the House and
of justice would not be compromised by the course recom-
mended. He was anxious it should be understood that pro-
ceedings against this person would have been taken if the House
had thought him guilty ; that persons would be fined or impri-
soned if guilty of equivocation or misconduct whilst giving evi-
dence before that House. If the same thing should occur again
it was clearly in the power of the House to punish the
parties, and they would surely be punished.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was also in favour of the report.
The report was then laid on the table.
GRAND JUNCTI')N RAILWAY.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE presented a petition against the
amalgamation of the Grand Junction, Leigh, and other lines.
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.
The Earl of FITZHARDINGE presented a petition from
a Mr. Griffiths against this Bill.
CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The following Bills passed through Committee :—Customs
Laws Repeal Bill, Customs Management Bill, Customs Regu-
lation Bill, Smuggling Prevention Bill, British Vessels
Bill, Customs Duties Bill, Warehousing of Goods Bill, Cus-
toms' Bounties and Allowances Bill, Trade of British Posses-
sions Abroad Bill, Isle of Man Trade Bill.
'I he Coal Trade Port of London Bill passed through Com-
mittee, and was reported.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
On the motion that this 1111 be read a third time,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that it was not creditable to the
Government if they did not make the Bill permanent. The
Noble Lord then went into a minute statement of the changes
which the usury laws had undergone, and read extracts from
the evidence of Lovett, Gurney, and others. on the subject.
The evidence of the latter, continued the Noble Lord, was very
strong. He stated that before the relaxation took place in
those laws the failures were greater than they had been since,
and he had no doubt that they would have been greater still, if
those laws had not been relaxed. The Noble Lord then read
the evidence of two legal gentlemen, Mr. Maynard and ano-
ther, on the same subject, and proceeded to ask if, after the
evidence of those intelligent commercial gentlemen—after the
evidence of those legal gentlemen, who were conversant with
the subject in all its bearings—after the experience of 12 long
years that the relaxation had been attended with the best
effects, their Lordships would not at once resolve to make the
Bill permanent ? If the State had been subject to the usury
laws during the war the Government could not have obtained
any one loan. It was said that the usury laws were meant for
the protection of the poor. But in point of fact the usury laws
prevented the poor from borrowing money at all. He prayed
their Lordships to make the Bill a permanent enactment, and
be would therelore move that the words "the Ist of Jan. 1851,"
be expunged.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE thought that it would not be
expedient to make the bill permanent without very stringent
inquiry, and he would oppose the motion.
The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE having been twice Chair-
man of Committees in their Lordships' House on this subject, said
he could not allow the discussion to pass over without offering his
corroboration to the statements and opinions of his Noble
Friend. He should conclude by stating that he should support
the proposition of his Noble Friend.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUG H said that the law ought to be
renewed from year to year and not for five years, the principle
of which he did not understand.
After a few words from Lord Wharocliffe, the Earl of Wick-
low, and the Duke of Wellington, their Lordships divided, when
there aßpeared
For the amendment 9

Against it . .

Majority for the 8i11......--- 2B
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
The Joint Stock Companies (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
STOCK-IN-TRADE BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lerd WHARNCLIFFE the Removal o
Paupers Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.

The Borough and Watch Rates Bill was read a second time
and ordered to be committed on Monday.
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.

Lord STANLEY moved the bringing up of the report on
the Commons Inclosure Bill. He said the Bill contained one
or two unimportant amendments, such as a proviso in respect
to the mode of assessment, and another, preventing parties
from building houses in any of the allotments of the field
gardens.
The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
TAXING MASTERS COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
The House went into Committee pro forma on this Bill, and
it was orderedto be reported on Monday.
LAND REVENUE AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
BOROUGH AND COUNTY RATES BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that this Bill do go through
Committee, which was agreed to, and the House then ad-
journed.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Aug. 1.
The SPEAKER. took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
The reports on the following Bills were brought up :—Fol-
lett's Estate Bill, the Birmingham Blue Coat School Estate
Bill, Sir Robert Keith Dick's Estate Bill, the ➢larquis of
Donegal's Estate Biil, Sampson's Estate Bill, Winchester Col-
lege Estate Bill, Bowes' Estate Bill, and the Duke of Bridge-
water's Estate Bill.
GLASGOW, BARRHEAD, AND NEILSTON
RAILWAY.
- - -

The Lords' amendments to the Glasgow, Barrhead, and
l~eilston (Direct) Railway Bill were agreed to.
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

The Lords' amendments to the South Wales Railway B
were agreed to.
:MONMOUTH AND HEREFORD RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to the Monmouth and Hereford
Railway Bill were agreed to.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
Viscount COURTENAY moved the consideration of the re-
port of the Committee on the Landon and York Railway Bill.
Mr. WARD then rose, pursuant to notice, to move that
the Bill be recommitted. It was with great pain that he
ventured to trouble the House upon the present occasion to
reconsider the decision that had been come to with re pect
to the present measure. It was hardly possible at
any time to induce the House to reconsider a de-
cision of any kind, and that difficulty was greatly increased in
dealing with the decision of a Committee that had sat
for no less than seventy-three days; under such circum•
stances nothing woild have induced him to appeal to the
House except a conviction that he had one of the strongest
causes that was ever brought before the House. If the Com-
mittee had had time to hear all the parties concerned,
siothing would have induced him to have brought
forward the subject. He admitted that the Committee had
Leen most persevering in their labours, but they had done
great injustice to several parties, and had come to most im-
proper decisions, because those :decisions had been come
to without hearing facts; and the rights of parties
had been adjudicated upon without hearing either the facts or
the parties themselves ; added to this, the report itself bore
evident marks of the pressure which the Committee felt itself
to he under in consequence of the difficulty of getting through
the task imposed upon them at the present period of the session.
Ile appeared there to argue the claims of the York and North
Midland, the Midland Counties. and the Eastern Counties
lines, whose cases had been decided upon without being heard.
He was told that it was a difficult matter to dispute with a
great trunk line, such as the London and York, but they had
a right to consider themselves a great trunk line, and
they had so considered themselves. They expected to
be allowed to show the Committee that they could
have effected a communication with York with a saving of a
loillion and a half. If they could show this, and if they could
prove that they had already nearly two-thirds of the line con-
struct.el, he hoped that the House would see the
propriety of re-committing this Bill. They were
at first admitted to be a competing line even by
the Committee, for in the first instance, when the
counsel for the Hertford and Bigglesvrade, and on a subsequent
day Mr. Austin, for the Eastern Counties Company, made an
application stating that he should satisfy the Committee that
they were a distinct and competing party, and that, if ex-
cluded, they would be debarred from the examination of witnesses
pro forma, the Committee decided that the Eastern Company's
scheme should be admitted into Court, and its counsel be
entitled to all the privileges of examining witnesses.
Mr. DARBY—Does that extend to the general principle of
competing lines?
Mr. WARD—The Honourable Member for Sussex asked
him if that extended to the general principle of com-
peting lines, why that Honourable Member himself
said that they might be considered so, but said that
in their examinatious they must be sure to confine them-
selves to what had been alluded to in the first examination.
The Committee having thus decided, they expected that they
should be considered competing lines in the fullest extent, and
when, before the decision had been given on the preamble,
counsel applied to the Committee that they might be allowed to
blend the main evidencee of the competing tines as against the
London and York line, with the object of saving the time of
the Committee, the request was complied with. This resolu-
tion was dated the ith June, but he found that it was not
acted upon throughout; and he begged to call the Noble Lord's
attention to this fact, that that proposition and the resolution
were materially altered in the report.
Lord COURTENAY—What date do you call that ?
Mr. WARD—The 7th of June. Application was afterwards
made to the Committee to ascertain what course they would
wish to have pursued with regard to the rebutting evidence.
Be found, on examining the reports, that the Committee
ordered that landholders and the other opponents should
be heard after, and he held in his hand
a resolution which was not to be found in this report. The
resolution passed by the Committee was such as might have
been acted on by all parties, but the next was of a very modi-
twi character. On applying to the short-hand writer for a copy
of it he found that the re-olution stated that the land-
lords were to be heard next in order, but that the
Committee would offer no objection to the course of blending
the evidence against the London and York, and Mr. Hildyard
Mated that he had arranged his case so as to class the rebutting
evidence together, and the other competing lines had agreed to
that course. This case was decidedly agreed to by the Committee
thernselve3. Now the first iLtiniation they had of an intention
to decide upon, the preamble was on the 12th of July, and
then the counsel and the parties in support of the three corn-
rating lines objected, on the ground that they had not been
heard. This objection was overruled by the Committee.
OA the 14th of July. Now this decision they com-
plained of, because they had never been heard. There,
were great advantages in the line from London to Big-
gieswade for bringing the manufactures of the north to the river
terminus, which would be constructed in the course of the next
three months. It was thought that all the parties concerned
were judicially entitled to be heard—instead of that, however,
a hearing was refused, and the Committee voted that the pre-
amble of the London and York line was proved in order to shut
out all evidence from the other parties. Such was not the
casa with the Committee, of which the Hon. Gentleman
opposite was the chairman. Before that Committee
there were three lines submitted between Portsmouth and
London. Evidence on all of them was heard, and at last the
Committee, after having maturely considered all of them, de-
cided on that line which they thought moat conducive to the
pnblie interests. In the Noble Lord's Committee the practice
was altogether different. On the 16th of July another appli-
cation was made to the Noble Lord by Mr. Talbot, on the part
of the Eastern Counties line, to be heard, and the application
was over-ruled by a resolution, which was distinctly opposed
to that which was passed on the 7th of June. Evidence was
win tendered on the 9th of July to the Committee, by Mr.
Wells, on behalf of the Eastern Counties line, with respect to
the river terminus, and again this application was decided against.