1303 Great Western Railway {LORDS} (Dublin to Galway) Bill. 1304 should be empowered to take evidence, to examine witnesses, and to decide upon the legality of the quarter sessions' decisions in cases of disputed settlement, due regard being had to the justice of each case, and technical points being overruled and set aside. He did not propose to alter in any degree the present Law of Settlement, or to make any change in the mode of proving the settlement; all he sought to effect was, to put a stop to the present system of allowing technical objections, instead of the real merits of each case, to govern the decision of the Judge to whom the appeal against the decision at quarter sessions was referred; and, having thus explained the objects which he had in view, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to orders for removal of the poor to their places of settlement, and the trial of appeals against such orders. Sir J. Graham was sure that the House and the country would be greatly indebted to his hon. and learned Friend, who was a gentleman of great experience and legal knowledge, for devoting his time and abilities to a matter of such great importance, not only to the poor, who suffered extremely from removal, but also to the country generally, to whom these removals caused great expense. He should readily give his most anxious attention to the measure. The fact that it had emanated from his learned Friend, was a proof that it would embrace a great practical knowledge of the subject, and that it would conduce to an early and satisfactory arrangement of the question. The Law of Settlement as it at present stood was, he thought, most injurious and unsatisfactory; but he knew that the greatest possible difference of opinion existed as to the means which should be adopted for amending it. He himself could not, of course, propose any amendment which in his conscience and judgment he did not think would be effective. In his opinion, parochial settlements, small township and parish settlements, were the very root of the evil; at the same time, he knew that many persons believed, on the contrary, that it would be nothing less than sacrilege to interfere with those small settlements. However, he should be most happy to attend to the measure now introduced, which was mited to the subject of removal, though, in his opinion-and he thought it would be found so at last-the Law of Settlement was so intimately blended with the law of removal, that they could not come to a satisfactory arrangement of the one without including the other. He could not at present state what measure he might consider it his duty next Session to adopt; but, in the mean time, he certainly promised his hon. and learned Friend, that the measure before them should receive his careful perusal and best attention Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed. House adjourned shortly after nine o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, August 1, 1845. MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-2. Removal of Paupers; 3a and passed:-Bills of Exchange; Lunatic Asylums Reported.-Dublin Pipe Water; Eastern Counties Railway 3 and passed :-Darby Court (Westminster). GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DUBLIN To GALWAY) BILL.] The Earl of Besborough presented the Report of the Select Committee appointed to examine the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the petitions of James Pym (presented to the House on the 7th and 8th of July), and to report what steps (if any) it might be necessary to take in the case of John Stinton, reported to have been guilty of perjury. The Report stated that the Committee had met and considered the subject, and the result they had arrived at was, that, although it was manifest to the Committee that John Stinton had wilfully contradicted himself, and been guilty of equivocation in his evidence given before the Select Committee on the petitions of Mr. Pym, respecting the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill, stil, they were, on the whole, of opinion that it was not expedient to direct a prosecution against the said John Stinton, by means of an indictment. The Duke of Wellington asked whether the Committee recommended the adoption of any other course? Lord Campbell observed that the Committee was unanimous in the adoption of the Report. It should be recollected that, although it was not deemed expedient to direct a prosecution for perjury to be instituted, still the House might, if it thought proper, punish this person, by fine and imprisonment, for misconduct in equivocating in the evidence he gave before a Select Committee of this House. The Report was then laid on the Table. INCORPORATION OF COMPANIES BILLS.] On the Motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, the following Standing Order was adopted : "That when in any Bill to be hereafter in troduced into this House for the Purpose of establishing a Company for carrying on any Work or Undertaking, the Name of any Person or Persons shall be introduced as Manager, Director, Proprietor, or otherwise concerned in carrying such Bill into effect, Proof shall be required before the Standing Order Committee (when the Bill shall be referred to that Committee, or before the Committee on the Bill in any other case) that the said Person or Persons have subscribed their Names to the Petition for the said Bill, or to a printed Copy of the said Bill as brought up or introduced into the House." BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.] On the Motion of the Earl of Dalhousie, Bill read 3a. Lord Monteagle expressed his opinion that the Bill ought to be made permanent. He referred to the evidence which had been given before their Lordships' Committee on the Usury Laws, in order to show, from the evidence given by merchants and traders, by solicitors and professional men, and by persons connected with the Court of Bankruptcy, that the opinion of all these parties, after eleven years' experience of the usury laws, was favourable to a relaxation of those laws, on the ground that they were found to press very heavily upon the poorer class of traders. In passing the Annuities Acts, they had already relaxed the usury laws; and the State also always took care that they should not be applicable to itself in time of war, though they were maintained against private individuals endeavouring to borrow money. If there were any one fact connected with the subject proved more clearly than another, it was that these laws pressed most injuriously on the poorer classes. It could not possibly be supposed that the country had not made up its mind on this matter before the present time. There was, in fact, no difference of opinion upon it among the best informed persons, and he could not, therefore, see why the Bill should not be continued for more than five years. He would, under these circumstances, beg to move that the words "to be continued until the 1st of January, 1851," be expunged from the recitement, for the purpose of inserting the words, "that the said recited Act shall be made perpetual." The Earl of Dalhousie said, he would for the present avoid entering on any general discussion of the question. Although a partial suspension of the usury laws was certainly recommended in the Report to which the noble Lord had alluded; still he did not think their Lordships were in a position now to take so great a step as to vote for the entire repeal of those laws. He thought such a change ought not to be made without the most thorough and searching investigation, both before that and the other House of Parliament, and he felt obliged, therefore, to vote against the Motion of the noble Lord. But though the Bill was to extend for only five years, there could be no reason for supposing that the state of the usury laws might not be modified to any extent within that period, if the wisdom of Parliament should think fit to take any step on the subject pending the operation of this law. If his noble Friend, or any other noble Lord, should think fit to move for an investigation into the state of the usury laws, no opposition would certainly be offered by the Government. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. The Marquess of Lansdowne said, that having been the Member of their Lordships' House who had the honour of presiding over the Committee appointed to investigate the subject of the usury laws, he had felt it to be his duty, when the Report had been presented, to move that those laws be relaxed; and he now thought that the period had arrived when suspending laws ought to be got rid of alto check for a short time, until they could institute farther inquiry on the subject. The Earl of Wicklow said, he agreed fully with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) in principle, and he would vote with him if the proposition of his noble Friend near him (Lord Wharncliffe) were that the suspension was to extend for five years and then to cease; but as the Bill would clearly lead to further inquiry, he thought they ought to allow it to pass. The Duke of Wellington said, he thought the period of five years ought to be adopted, in order to prevent the inconvenience which might result from fixing on a short period. Of course care should be taken to bring the subject under consideration within a given time, so as to have the matter prepared for some final decision upon it. House divided on Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:-Contents 37; Non-Contents 9: Majority 28. Bill passed. COMMONS' ENCLOSURE BILL.] Lord Stanley, in moving that the Report on the Commons' Enclosure Bill be received, said, that the Amendments which he proposed to introduce into this Bill, all originated from the discussion that had taken place upon the Bill in Committee. The most material alteration which he had to propose, was to take away the discretionary power vested in the Commissioners under the 17th Clause. The other Amendments were the proviso with regard to equalizing assessments, and the insertion of a proviso prohibiting the erection of any building to be used for the purpose of a dwellinghouse in any of these field-gardens. was proposed to have a limitation with respect to buildings for holding or feeding cattle. It gether. On the occasion to which he alluded he was told-"Let us see the effect of this relaxation; the proposition is something new, and we have a right to know the working of it. If we find that there is nothing wrong in this measure that you propose, we shall be prepared to vote with you for doing away with those laws altogether." They had now abundant experience of the evil of those laws, and of the positive good which a repeal of them would produce; and, under these circumstances, reiterating the opinion which he had formerly expressed, and which he now saw entertained by others, he entirely concurred in the Motion of his noble Friend. The Earl of Ellenborough said, that having been also a Member of the Committee alluded to, he felt bound to express his concurrence in the opinion that the suspension of the usury laws would prove very salutary in time of peace; but they had never yet been subjected to the trial of a period of war. If his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) had substituted the words "1846" or " 1847," for "1851," he would have voted with him, as he could not conceive any grounds whatever for fixing the period of suspension of these laws at five years. It should be borne in mind by all who were in the habit of dealing in money, that it was impossible to allow individuals to compete with the Government in time of war, or otherwise the public debt would increase to such an amount in a few years as to endanger the safety of the Consti tution. Lord Monteagle said, the noble Earl had misunderstood his meaning. He did not think that in order to guard against inconveniences to the State, they should place a bar in the way of individuals borrowing money. It was clear that if they waited for years before legislating on the subject, they could not expect to add to the weight of evidence which was already before Parliament respecting it. But whatever variety of opinion might exist on the matter, it was clear that a continuance of the law for five years was the most indefensible of all. He should therefore feel obliged to press his Motion to a division. Lord Wharncliffe said, he did not feel himself at present prepared to make this Bill perpetual. He thought that the wiser course to adopt would be to suspend the Report received. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] BILLS Public.-9. Exchequer Bills 3 and passed :-Slave Trade (Brazil); Naval Medical Private.-2 Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate. quess of Donegall's Estate; Winchester College Estate; ready nearly two-thirds of the line con Marsh's (or Coxhead's) Estate; Bowes's Estate; Duke of PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hutt, from Proprietors structed, he hoped that the House would see the propriety of recommitting this of Land and others interested in the Prosperity of New Bill. They were at first admitted to form South Wales, for a General Assembly there.-By Mr. C. a competing line even by the Committee, for in the first instance, when the counsel for the Hertford and Biggleswade, and on a subsequent day Mr. Austin, for the Eastern Counties Company, made an ap LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.] Vis-plication stating that he should satisfy count Courtenay moved the consideration of the Report of the Committee on the London and York Railway. the Committee that they were a distinct and competing party, and that, if excluded, they should be debarred from Mr. Ward rose, pursuant to notice, to examination of witnesses pro formá, the move, that the Bill be recommitted. It Committee decided that the Eastern Comwas with great pain that he ventured to pany's scheme should be admitted into trouble the House upon the present occa- Court, and its counsel be entitled to all sion to reconsider the decision that had the privileges of examining witnesses. been come to with respect to the present [Mr. Darby: Does that extend to the measure. It was hardly possible at any general principle of competing lines?] The time to induce the House to reconsider a hon. Member for Sussex asked him if that decision of any kind, and that difficulty extended to the general principle of comwas greatly increased in dealing with the peting lines? Why, that hon. Member himdecision of a Committee that had sat for self said, that they might be considered no less than seventy-three days; under so, but said that in their examinations such circumstances nothing would have they must be sure to confine themselves induced him to appeal to the House, ex- to what had been alluded to in the first cept a conviction that he had one of the examination. The Committee having strongest causes that was ever brought thus decided, the Companies he reprebefore the House. If the Committee had sented expected that they should be conhad time to hear all the parties concerned, sidered competing lines in the fullest nothing would have induced him to have extent, and when, before the decision had brought forward the subject. He admit- been given on the preamble, the counsel ted that the Committee had been most applied to the Committee that they might persevering in its labours, but it had done be allowed to blend the main evidence of great injustice to several parties, and had the competing lines as against the Loncome to most improper decisions, without don and York line, with the object of savhearing facts; and adjudicated upon the ing the time of the Committee, the request. rights of parties, without hearing the par- was complied with. This Resolution was ties themselves. The Report itself bore dated the 7th of June, but he found that it evident marks of the pressure which the was not acted upon throughout; and he Committee felt, to get through the task begged to call the noble Lord's attention imposed upon it at the present period of to this fact, that that proposition and the the Session. He appeared there to ar-Resolution were materially altered in the gue the claims of the York and North Report. [Lord Courtenay: What date Midland, the Midland Counties, and the do you say?] The 7th of June. AppliEastern Counties Lines, which had been cation was afterwards made to the Condecided without those parties having been mittee to ascertain what course they would heard. He was told that it was a diffi- wish to have pursued with regard to the cult matter to dispute with a great trunk rebutting evidence. He found, on exline, such as the London and York; but amining the Reports, that the Committee the other lines had a right to consider ordered that landholders and the other op. themselves a great trunk line, and they ponents should be heard after; and he had so considered themselves. They ex- held in his hand a Resolution which was pected to be allowed to show the Com- not to be found in this Report. The mittee that they could effect a commu- Resolution passed by the Committee was nication with York, at a saving of a mil-such as might have been acted on by all lion and a half. If they could show this, parties; but the next was of a very modiand they could prove that they had al-fied character. On applying to the short hand writer for a copy of it, he found that, tached the greatest importance to the terthe Resolution stated, that the landlords 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 stated, 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 themselves. Now, the first intimation 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 competing lines objected, on the ground that they had not been heard. This objection was overruled by the Committee on the 14th of July. Now this decision they complained of, because they had never been heard. There were great advantages in the line from London to Biggleswade 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 preamble of the London and York line was proved, in order to shut out all evidence from the other parties. Such was not the case 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, decided on that line which they thought most conducive to the public interests. In the noble Lord's Committee, the practice was altogether different. On the 16th of July another application was made to the noble Lord by Mr. Talbot, on the part of the Eastern Counties line, to be heard; and the application was overruled by a resolution, which was distinctly opposed to that passed on the 7th of June. Evidence was again 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 rejected. They did not take one tittle of evidence on the importance of effecting a communication with the Thames at Blackwall, and yet the Committee at minus of the London and York line. When |