The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-02 00:00:00

T_PEIII.I

r%:~. ~ ~

r

11'0 US,L up Ai ..day 1.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. BARKLT, who was introduced by Lord Hotham and Mr.
Thomas Baring, took the oaths and his seat fur the borough of
Leominster, in the room of Mr. Greenaway.
RAILWAYS.

Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Lord Chester-
field against the Sydenham Railway.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented petitions against the Bir-
mingham and Gloucester Railway from the Berkeley Canal
Navigation Company.
Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from a Mr. Horne
against the Leeds nd Think Railway.
Mr. M. MILNES presented petitions against the London
and York Rail may.
Mr. ORDE presented a petition praying to be heard by
counsel against the West Cornwall Railway Bill
COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL, &c.
Sir G. CLERK, in the absence of Lord Granville Somerset,
moved that the amendments made by the Lords in the Com-
panies Clauses, the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill, and the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, be agreed to.
The motion was, after a question asked by Mr. Labouchere,
and the reply, both of which were inaudible, agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that the amendments
made by the House of Lords in the Companies Clauses Conso-
lidation (Scotland) Bill, the Railway Clauses Consolidation
(Scotland) Bill, and the Land Clauses Consolidation ( Scot •
land) Bill, be agreed to.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to call the attention of the
House to one of the clauses in the second of those Bills, a
clause which had been introduced covertly and surreptitiously,
and in such a manner as to preclude this House from any dis-
cussion in the matter, and when he (Mr. Labouchere) put a
question to the Noble Lord ( Granville Somerset) upon the
' subject, his answer was of a twofold character. He said, first,
that all the Scotch Members were agreed as to the propriety of
thz: clause He (Mr. Labouchere) denied this. There was,
he knew, a very great deal of difference of opinion among the
Scotch Members upon the subject. The other part of the
Noble Lord's answer was, that the clause was precisely similar
to clauses in every railway Bill that had passed that
House. He (Mr. Labouchere) asserted that this was as great
an error as the other. The turnpike-roads in Scotland were
not made in the same manner as in England. The manner in
Scotland was to borrow the money required for its construc-
tion from a bank on the security of the tolls on that road.
The proprietors on that road also gave a personal security for
the repayment of the loan, and it was natural that they should
do so, as such roads passing by or through their estates would
benefit them. The object of the clause now introduced was
to enact that, in the event of these tolls failing, the proprietors
should not be held accountable as regarded their guarantee.
The import of the clause was, that in every railway Bill, in case
the railway company and the landed propietors do not agree as
to the amount of compensation for the injury done to turnpike
tolls, the absolute decision of what the sum of money
should be shall be left to one individual, and that in-
dividual shall be the sheriff of the county. In many instances
they were landed proprietors in the counties for which they
were sheriffs, and consequently they would be biassed in their
decision. His Scotch friends, no doubt, who represented the
Lowlands thought it a hard thing that their property should be
invaded by railroads, but the Members who represented the
Highlands had quite a different way of viewing the question :
they were very much against the clause. They were by that
means giving power to the sheriffs, without the possibility of
appeal. He was sure that the House would not sanction this
clause if they had an opportunity of considering it.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman laboured under a mistake. What he ( the Lord Advocate)
meant was, that when the clause passed none of the Scotch
Members present objected to it. He had not had the
opinions of all the Scotch Members on the matter.
In most of the Scotch Railway Bills the principle of this clause
had been recognised. The clause did not mention any sum as
compensation ; the whole question was left to the sheriff. He
could scarcely conceive a better arbiter than the sheriff, as he
as a lawyer, was an independent person, and had no local in-
terest.

I%lr. FORBES said this clause had been approved of by most
of the Scotch Members.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said that the present clause was a very
important one—one of the most important t hit could be intro-
duced. He was not aware of the particular circumstances under

which it was introduced, but it was unfortunate that
a clause of such importance should be introduced without no-
tice, or without even being printed.—( Hear, hear.) A clause
of such importance should not be introduced in that way.—
( Hear.) The Lord Advocate was right in saying that in some
railway Bills this principle of compensation had been adopted
in Scotland, but not in all cases. In a great many cases, such
as the Glasgow and Kilmarnock, the Glasgo, and Ayr, and
the Glasgow and Edinburgh, that principle was not recognised.
It was decreed by this clause that in every case where any injury
was likely to arise to the turnpike-roads, that compensation
should be made to the Road Commissioners, but by the clause
which had been introduced into this Bill it appeared that when-
ever any alteration was to be made likely to involve any extraor-
dinary expenditure that the compensation was to be made
by the Railroad Company, and if any dispute were to arise, that
then the di cision should be left to the sheriff, but the clause
was so framed that there was litigation in every line of it. The
sheriff was, probably, a very honourable man, but it was too
much for a decision of this sort to be left to any
single individual, and in the case of this road to Staines these
was hardly any option left to the Cemmiasioners. And what
was to be done with this money ? It was not to be paid into
the court of that officer, but some of his most impor-
tant functions were superseded, and he was appointed
to a duty which was quite foreign to his office,
and which he could not satisfactorily perform. A
most important principle had been introdnced into the Bill,
and one, he it remembered, which Parliament now, for the
first time, recognised—that whenever toll keepers' trusts were
diminished they would have claim for compensation against the
Railway Company. He likewise complained of the manner in
which the clause had been introduced, although it was the most
important in the whole Bill.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE said it seemed to him that the
House was indulging in a roost irregular discussion. It was
now too late to discuss the merits of the clause which had been

sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament. With respect to the
authority vested in the sheriff, it should be recollected that that
officer had only to decide in cases of personal liability. Since
this clause was passed he had received numerous communi-
cation from Scotland expressing entire concurrence in the
clause.
Mr. LA B OUC HERE asked the Lord Advocate-to engage on
the part of the Government to introduce a short Bill either to
repeal or amend this clause. If the Lord Advocate would not
give such a promise, he (Mr. Labouehere) should feel it to be
his duty to move that the Lords' amendments be taken into
consideration.
Mr. HUME said the surreptitious manner in which this
clause had been introduced into the Bill had neither been ex-
plained by the Lord Advocate, nor by the Honourable
Member who had lately resumed his seat. If a clause
so important as to give to the sheriff of the county
the power of finding against any railway without appeal—if the
principle was found to be good for Scotland, why not extend it
to England also ?—( Hear.) But turnpike trusts were not the
only companies affected by railways. Canals were as much in-
jured as turnpikes. He submitted, therefore, that this Bill ought
to be withdrawn altogether and a new one brought in. They
could not strike out the clause, and there remained therefore
only the other course. Under these circumstances, he should
move that these amendments be taken into consideration that
day six months.--( Hear, hear. )
Lord EBRINGTON had already unsuccessfully called the
attention of the House to the hardships under which the
trustees of the turnpike roads in England were labouring ; but
ho was glad to perceive that the turnpike roads in Scotland
seemed to be better represented in her Majesty's Government
than the turnpike roads of England. He thought tha- this was
far from a creditable case on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
silent after the treatment of the English creditors and trustees
of turnpike roads. The English representatives would recol-
lect the facility with which this clause passed.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that the question for the House
to consider was, how they could have an uniform system esta-
blished throughout the whole country. Having passed
through that and the other House of Parliament Bills
for the consolidation of railways, if they introduced
a separate system with regard to the Scotch rail-
ways, lie thought the greatest possible hardship would be
felt by those who had turnpike-roads in England. If this
Bill passed he hoped that her Majesty's Government
would extend it to England. --( Hear, hear.) On the
other hand, he should feel himself called upon to support the
amendment of the Hon. Gentleman opposite. He maintained
that an uniform system ought to be extended equally to all
parts of the country, unless some special reason was shown to
the contrary.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND made some observations in opposi-
tion to the amendment, but they were totally inaudible in the
Lord HOWICK said the case of England and the case of
Scotland were precisely the same. The case of Scotland was
this, as he understood :—The country gentlemen of Scotland
had advanced their money on the security of the turnpike trusts.
This was the case in the county with which he was
particularly connected. The western line of road in North-
umberland was defective, and the gentlemen of the country
were extremely anxious that it should be improved. Those
conntry gentlemen did not give their guarantee for the money,
but they ol,d the same thing—they lent their ownl money
upon the security of the turnpike trusts, and the tolls to be:
levied on the improved road from Morpeth, through Wooller
into Scotland. That money so advanced remained un-
paid, and two
_railways had been projected from New-
castle to Berwick, and one or other of these would
certainly pass. In that case he doubted whether the
tolls on the improved turnpike road would even pay the expense
of collection. Those gentlemen had not petitioned the House
for a clause giving them compensation, and yet if they
travelled a little way into Scotland, they would
find that compensation was to be given there to persons simi-
larly situated to themselves. He trusted this would not
be tolerated, and that this clause, which had been
smuggled into the Bill, would not be allowed to pass.
He thought that the fairer way would be, that the exemption
of mail coaches, both in England and Scotland, should be got
rid of.

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE conceived that this was an unfair
clause to be introduced, for it was well known that though
sheriffs, to whom decisions should be left, might not be
actually resident in those counties respecting which they
were to make their decisions, yet they might at the same time
possess such interest in those eonntiFs as to make them
very desirous that good communication should be made
through those counties, when on the business of adjudicating
a compensation to the road trustees they might be'
placed in the position of deciding in their own case.
He did not at the present time allude to the Sheriff
of Middlesex, but he thought that the case was such
as demanded the immediate attention of the House. The clause
had been jobbed into the Bill, and the only way was to throw
the Bill out to-night, and introduce another Bill without
the clause to-morrow. No obstruction would be offered to
the passage of the Bill through the House, and it might be
passed so speedily as to save all public inc:.nvenience.
AGLIONBY could not refrain from expressing his sur-
prise that none of her Majesty's Government had risen to ex-
press their opinions on this Bill. If it had been a private
Bill, he should not have bee.) surprised, because he knew it
was the custom for the Government to express to opinion ; but
as this was their own Bill, and the House might have received
advantage from knowing the opinions of the Government, he
t bought it was a greatomission of duty tbat none ofthetn hadirisen.
The plan proposed was, that the present Bill be laid aside and
a new Bill brought in by the Government, but to this he had
great objections. A principle had been introduced into this
Bill of a very important nature, and he could see no reason why
the same principle should nit be introduced into the English
and Se,ch railway Bills.

PRINGLE slid the Hon. Gentlemen opposite teemed
to have misunderstood the whole ease; and as for the observation
of the Hon. Gentleman. opposite (Mr. Aglionby) that this
principle ought. to be introduced into English and Irish iailway
Bills it was altogether erroneous, for the roads in Scotland
were formed on a totally different principle from what they
were in this ,:ountry or in Ireland. In Scotland the public
roads must be kept in repair out of the tolls.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that when he introduced
the clause he did nut think there was any objection to,;it, and
no perton *feted to it when it was proposed to the Com-
mittee. He did not desire that the clause should pass
without discussion —( Hear)—and as the House was of opinion
that it ought to be discussed, he would not press the clause.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought the best course he could then