The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1845-07-15 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY,  Mr. Barker, against whom an action was brought for evidence given before a committee of their lordships, was examined at the bar as to whether it was possible the words might have been spoken elsewhere. He distinctly affirmed that it was for the evidence given before the committee on gaming and gaming houses ; and after some discussion the plaintiff in this cause and his attorney were ordered to appear at the bar on Monday. The Earl of DALHOUSIE in placing before the house papers relative to the Hallway Department of the Board of Trade, stated the circumstances under which it had been constituted, and alluded to the report which had gone forth that out of all the recommendations made by the committee, oily one had been confirmed by the House  of Commons, and that even that one had been rejected by the House of Lords. This would certainly be curious if it were tine; but it was not true, for in point of fact, out of 247 projects, involving about 8000 miles of new railway, which had been submitted to the Board of Trade, there had been 151 favourably reported upon, of which only six had failed in the House of Commons, arising from compromises or change of circumstances, while no less then 121 had been absolutely confirmed. It had, however, been determined by the Government to discontinue the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, as a distinct branch of the board for the purpose of reporting on the merits of new railway speculations. Henceforth the Board of Trade would overlook railways with a  necessary for the convenience and security of the public, but without reporting on the merits of any particular railway itself.  Lord BROUGHAM sympathised with the feelings of the noble lord in delivering the funeral oration of the departed railway board ; but if it had been i❑ the full possession of  the house ought to be informed of the causes of its death. There was ground for suspecting murder or foul play, and Mr. Wakley ought to be called in to sit on the body  manner in which money and time were consumed in the conflicting schemes before parliament, and said that Mr. Hudson—King Hudson—was working with a twelve, counsel power before the committee on the London and s York line. The object of Mr. Hudson was delay, in or der that a report might not be made in the present session, and of course counsel would talk just as long as Mr. Hudson was disposed to spend money. He was, in fact, just as well pleased with a six or eight hours' speech from the counsel opposed to him, as with a speech of six hours from his own counsel. He hoped, however, that the committee would disappoint Mr. Hudson, by reporting during th, present session.  Lord FAVERSHAM said that Mr. Hudson, who was present, and had heard Lord Brougham's speech (cries of " order "), had authorised him to say that it was incur. rect to say that he was interfering with the committee. Lord BROUGHAM observed that the only sovereign entitled to be present at their debates was her Majesty. The railway potentate had no right to be there. The noble lord moved the consideration of one of his resolutions respecting railways, with a view to its being made a standing order; and in the course of the discussion The Earl of DEVON objected to the noble lord's repeatedly speaking upon the same motion. Lord BROUGHAM said that the noble lord had once sat as clerk at the table of the house, and was then obliged to listen to him.  The Earl of DEVON commented on the good taste evinced by the noble lord in this allusion, and then asserted that be would take care in future that be would interfere as far as possible in preventing the noble lord from violating the privileges of the house. The further consideration of the resolution was postponed, and their lordships adjourned.