The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 22.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
shortly after Five o'clock.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented petitions
from different parts of Kent against the grant to the College of
Alaynooth.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER also presented similar pe•
titions from Dovrnshire and other places.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented similar petitions.:
RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the third reading of this

Lqd BROUGHAM had so often addressed their
Lordships on the subject of railway legislation that
he did not think it necessary fcr him, on the
present occasion, to trouble their Lordships at any great
length. The mischief of the course they were now
pursuing was threefold. The first was the very great
and almost unavoidable haste with which several of
the railway measures must be carried through the
various branches of the Legislature, inasmuch as it was physi-
cally impossible for those branches of the Legislature to be-
stow proper attention either on the principle or the details
of each measure while there were 240 railway Bills in
the same session before Parliament. He thought that ap-
plied, to a certain extent, to the two Bills which were
now before the House for third reading, and he thought it
might be judicious of the Government to select a number of
principles, as they had done in those Bills. At the same
time, it was his opinion that nothing could be worse contrived
than the Railway Board. He did not say that his
Noble Friend (Lord Dalhousie) was not well qualified to pre-
side over it, or t hat his Noble Friend had not sedulously devoted
himself to the discharge of his new duties. But then the ordi-
nary business of the Board of Trade was quite heavy enough
without this addition. And as it was admitted by all
astronomers that there were not more than 24 hours
in the day, if he consumed every day in the year
1845, it was physically impossible that the additional business
could be done. Therefore, they admitted that they only heard
one part of each case, and on the information thus obtained
the House of Commons, which heard both sides, was
to be governed. That was not the blind leading the blind, but
the blind leading the seeing—( A laugh)—the blind Railway
Board leading the seeing House of Commons. But it was said
that the decisions of the Railway Beard did not decide the ease.
But the fact was indisputable that if they decided against a
scheme, it was one hundred to one but that scheme was re-
jected ; if they decided in favour of a scheme, it was
one hundred to one but that it was adopted. He
was almost ignorant of the practices of that depart-
ment, but this was what an uninitiated understanding
would conclude from the fasts as they appeared.
Property was very much implicated in this. Here were
great shareholders vesting 10,000/. in a railway concern,
And another class, who did not vest more than 10,000 pence,
who had also an interest. These were the speculators.
And this Railway Board was of great importance
in determining the value of immense property, for a report in
favour of the railway would raise the value ten per cent.,
and a report against would tumble it down 10 per cent.
They heard only one party which was in favour of the railway,
and never heard the adverse side. Now, suppose that he had
a great interest in the South-Western Railway, and that he
had almost evidence sufficient to destroy all chance of a report
in favour of the South-Eastern Railway, he would not be
allowed to urge one objection, and the only person heard was
the railway projecters of the South-Eastern Railway. Then
down would tumble his stock in the other railway ; whereas,
if he had been allowed to be heard, his adversary would in all
probability be defeated, and his railway would have been post-
poned. He believed that this was not without precedent, and
a precedent of very great importance, for it came not only
rom a person of consideration, but from a person of experience,
and one of very high rank. Indeed it had royal authority, for
the individual was no less a person than King James I. King
James one day went into a court of law, and took the seat of
the Chief Justice, and after hearing the argument on one side
of the subject, he professed that he was quite ready to give his
judgment; but it was delicately hinted to him that his decision
might be dispensed with, and that it was not customary to
give an opinion without hearing both sides. He, however,
professed that it was vet y easy to decide upon hearing one side,
either for or against, but that hearing both sides so overloaded
the subject with difficulty, that it was next to impossible to
co.ne to any decision at all ; and this was just the way in
which the Railway Board acted. They heard the evidence on
one side, in order that they might decide ; and they failed to
take evidence, because they sat for the purpose of assisting the
Howse of Commons in their decisions. They gave their opi-
nion for the benefit of both Houses when they had not suffi-
cient data for forming an opinion at all. There was something
also in the way in which those cases were decided. There was
something in the majority of the Board, because if the majority
of these five gentlemen was only as three to two, the probabi-
lity was that the minority was right, and the majority was
wrong; and he should be inclined no more to put faith in the
infallibility of these gentlemen than he did in that of a certain
foreign bishop. He spoke with all deference in the presence of
his Noble Friend (Lord Beaumont); but he could not altoge-
ther give entire faith to everthing which he heard, and he re-
collected instances, and one might occur in that House
that night, in which the majority was as three to two, and yet
the majority were proved to be wrong, for after the matter had
been maturely considered, the majority came over to the opinion
of the minority. In that House they often found that the
majority was in the wrong. The three and the two in the
Board of Trade might decide on any given case. It was
quite clear that it was material to know whether the majority
were right or wrong. Suppose the Board should be two and
two, which happened in the case of thelSouth•Eastern Railway.
The Board were two and two, and the casting vote of that
ideal individual, the Chairman, turned the balance. In point
of voting that was decisive, but in point of authority it was
no authority at all, either way. It was a rule of the Board
that every man, whether he agreed or disagreed with the,
report, signed the report. Now that was not fair. It was
not fair to the subject of the report, because it tended to make
it appear that the party defeated had been defeated by the
unanimous voice of the Committee. It was not fair to the
Houses of Parliament, which the authority of this Board was
intended to aid, because it tended to show them what was
contrary to the fact, namely, that all the five members of
the Board were unanimously agreed upon recommending a
certain course ; but it was said that this was the common
course of proceeding in the other departments. Could there
be any similarity in the proceedings of the Board of Trade and
every other department of the Government ? From the one
an idea was given, while from the other an opinion was put
forth. Therefore it was that he held the constitution of this
Board to be eminently little calculated to attain the objects for
which it had been constituted. Having stated thus much, he
abstained from merely invidious remarks. But there was one
reason which had great weight in his mind, arising
from the secresy of this tribunal—one consequence of
that had been that it had given rise to speculation
and gambling, and if not actual jobbing, at least to great sus-
picion of it. They would never be able to eradicate this from
men's minds as long as that tribunal was a secret one. If it
were an open one, no man could entrap his neighbour by false
stories of what he had picked up as to the probable resolutions
of the Board. No one could overreach his friend in the pur-
chase or sale of railway shares. He was aware that there was
one argument which might be adduced in favour of the Board,
namely, the tendency of open courts to delay the business be-
fore them, but that advantage was greatly overborne by the
disadvantage he had referred to. He diJ not deny to the Board
the merit of industry. He had nothing to say against the mem-
bers composing that Board, but he did object to the construc-
tion of the Board itself. The infallibility of the Board
of Trade wo3ld on this occasion be greatly doubted,
because in the case of many Bills which the Board had reported
favourably on it would be found that Parliament would reject
them, and those which they had rejected would, he was persuaded,
be adopted by the House. Thus, instead of assisting the labours
of the House, the Board would be only found an obstruction
with respect to another matter—namely, that the evils of this
railway system would be to a certain degree attempted to he
removed by the IBM before the House, and that the frenzy
of speculation which had arisen in this country would be re-
pressed and kept within limits. He could not help thinking
hat the disposition of Parliament was to encourage speculation
and spread speculation. The Bill was pregnant with some good
consequences, but he complained of it as giving too much
facility to this sort of legislation, driving it on with railway,
speed, a sort of wholesale species of Act of Parliament manu-
facture; one statute had contained no less than 150
provisions, and another, the Land Clauses Act, about
as many more. They were methodizing, systematizing
and seducing to a code the principles which were to govern all
railway Acts (unless some peculiar exceptions), giving the same
powers and facilities to all—promoters and objectors—the same
systematic methodical plan, taking away the right to private
property ; facilitating, expediting, quickening in the same sys-
tematic mode, and by a sort of corpus juris, subverting and
confounding all the rights of private property. Why should
such a systematic, methodical mode be adopted for the purpose
of facilitating the passing of railway Acts? What was the con-
clusion to be drawn from this? Why it would seem that rail-
way speculation was the very breath of the community ; that
they were essential to the welfare of the kingdom ; and that
Parliament wished by every means in its power to promote
the passing of railway Bills, and to encourage all sorts of
gambling and railway speculation's. If twenty. or even thirty
railway Acts were only passed in a single session, it would not
be umnar7 to tom rucb, a code. Could gob; after baying