debate of the previous night, as to the cha- | to the circumstances in which the Ecclesiracter of the numerous petitions which had astical Courts Bill of 1843 was introduced, been presented against the Government amended, and finally withdrawn, said, that measure. The noble Lord had said that in this Bill it was attempted to give juristhere was in fact a regular manufactory diction in spirituals to a Lay Court, which for these petitions; that they were got up it was not competent for the State to give; for the occasion; that they did not express and therefore he moved that the Bill be the spontaneous flow of the feelings of the committed that day six months. people on the subject of Maynooth, and were therefore not entitled to any value. All he could say in regard to the petitions he had presented-and he had presented no inconsiderable number-was, that the circumstances stated by the noble Lord did not apply to them. He must, at the same time, be allowed to observe that, unless they were well founded, he thought such statements, in regard to the petitions presented to their Lordships, ought not to be made, especially in regard to a subject of legislation calculated to excite the deepest and strongest feelings of the people of this

country.

Lord Stanley, after the remarks of the noble Lord, thought it right to correct a misapprehension under which the noble Lord appeared to labour, as to what he had really said on the occasion referred to. He did not attempt to detract from the value of the petitions presented against the Maynooth Bill. What he did was to divide them into classes; and he said that many of them came from those who wished to withdraw all support on the part of the State from any religion whatsoever-that there were many more which he could hardly regard as the genuine voice of the feelings of the people which they purported to express, for he knew the manner in which they had been got up-that he had himself seen many of them all couched in the same terms, and he had reason to believe that they had all come from the same place and that there were many more that had emanated from the conscientious religious feelings of the petitioners, but which proceeded from an erroneous view of the measure brought forward by the Government; and he had also added that their Lordships, in dealing with those petitions, were bound to consider the soundness of the arguments they adduced, as well as the number of the petitions themselves.

The Lord Chancellor said he had given his assent to the second reading of the measure; for it was impossible that he could disagree to the principle of a Bill, the clauses of which, so far as he saw, correspond with those of the Government Bill of 1843, and of that more limited measure which he had himself last year introduced, and which, having gone through a Select Committee, passed their Lordships' House unanimously, and was only abandoned in the House of Commons in consequence of the lateness of the Session.

Lord Brougham suggested that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

The Bishop of Exeter would assent to that with all his heart; for when once the Bill was buried in the Select Committee, it would not be disinterred until next Session.

Lord Cottenham had only interfered in the matter when he found that the Government did not themselves intend to propose any measure upon the subject during the present Session. The evil which this Bill proposed to remedy was admitted to exist by all parties; and after this Bill had been sanctioned by all the Members of the Government in that House, and had passed the second reading by the unanimous vote of their Lordships, it ought not now to be stopped in its course. The evil was admitted-ought he to be prevented from applying a remedy?

The Bishop of Exeter, upon the understanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, withdrew his Amendment.

Lord Brougham explained, that he had not suggested a Select Committee for the sake of delaying, but because he thought it would expedite the Bill.

Lord Abinger objected to the Bill. The Ecclesiastical Courts had subsisted for 700 years, and he thought the abolition of those ancient jurisdictions was uncalled for. He should support the Amendment for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

The Bishop of Salisbury said, he was never more surprised than when he read in the country a statement in the newspapers that this Bill had been read a second time

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.] Lord Cottenham moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. The Bishop of Exeter, after adverting without any opposition on the part of Her

and an expense which the House, by adopting some efficient measure, had the means of preventing. With regard to the expenses of some of these railways, he had heard that a learned counsel in one of the Committees-that Committee in which the London and York Railway line was investigated had stated that the daily expenditure with regard to this one Bill was 3,000l. He really thought it was the duty of the Legislature, considering the enormous expense entailed by unnecessary delay, to see that no delay and no ex. pense should be imposed on parties which might be avoided. The question then was, what was the best course to be taken. The Session had arrived at such a period that, with respect to some of the more important railway lines, it was quite impossible they could pass into law this Session.

RAILWAY BILLS.] Mr. Labouchere | thus a mass of 140 projects, including the rose, in pursuance of the notice he had more important and difficult of the Railway given on the subject, of the best course to Bills, in the Committee Rooms on the 5th be pursued by Government in relation to of June, and likely still to continue there. the amount of railway business before He would further remind the House, that the Legislature. He sincerely regretted besides the difficulty of disposing of this that the task had been left to him; for he mass of Railway Bills, and the inconstill retained the opinion he had expressed venience and expense which resulted to a few evenings ago, that it would be far parties connected with them, the necessity better if the question were left in the of referring the recommendations of the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers. Hav- Board of Trade to a Committee existed, ing, however, thought it to be his duty to and that this afforded an additional reason call the attention of the right hon. Gen- why the Legislature should attempt sometleman the Vice President of the Board thing towards remedying the present state of Trade to the subject, and having urged of things. The reasons he had urged formed on his notice the propriety of considering a strong case why Parliament should take the state of Railway Bills, and of bringing care that parties promoting railway proin some measure on the subject, and hav-jects should not be subjected to a delay ing received an answer from that right hon. Gentleman, that it would be advis able to postpone the subject for a month or six weeks, and that until that period had elapsed, Government would not be prepared to recommend any course on the subject, he had determined to press the question on the consideration of the House. He entertained a strong opinion that the House would not be doing its duty if it did not, without further delay, adopt some measure in reference to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman's argument that delay would be of advantage, in his opinion would be found to operate in a contrary direction; for he believed that a great deal of unnecessary delay and expense now entailed on Railway Bills before that House could only be put an end to by some immediate measure. Having, since the time he had last addressed the House on the subject, held communication with some hon. Members, and with Gentlemen interested in railway matters, he had fully ascertained it was the prevalent opinion that the measures he recommended some days ago would, if they became law, have a salutary effect in checking that delay now which Railway Bills encountered. The state of the railway business before the Legislature was so notorious, and so well known to the majority of the Members of that House, that it was hardly necessary for him to call the attention of hon. Members to the fact. Out of 243 Railway Bills introduced this Session, there were 140 now in Committee still undisposed of. This number of 140 was ranged in twenty-four groups, so that only 103 Bills had hitherto been disposed of in Committee, and reported upon; leaving

Even if the Bills passed through Committee, it was impossible they could reach the other branch of the Legislature in time to pass into laws. It was notorious that parties opposed some Bills, and were carrying on their opposition for the purposes of delay, thinking it would entail on the promoters of the rival projects the necessity of commencing afresh next Session, and perhaps of defeating their hopes. He held it to be the duty of the House to interfere under such circumstances. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unfair than that those parties who had struggled through Committee, and had got a favourable verdict, and whose Bills were only prevented from being carried from the impossibility of getting them passed through the House of Lords, should be thrown back, and should be compelled to go through all their work over again

the House. He repeated, he regretted Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit to take the step he had taken themselves; but if they had changed the opinion they had expressed the other evening, he should with pleasure give up the management of the question into their hands. He begged to move

66

'That, inasmuch as, from the unusual num

ber of Railway Bills which have been introduced into this House during the present Session of Parliament, and also from the delay which has been occasioned in the consideration of them, in consequence of the reference of the Reports of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade to the Committees on these Bills, it may be impossible for many of them which shall have been reported to this House

to be passed into laws during the present Session, this House will adopt such measure in the next Session as may appear best calculated to prevent the parties promoting such Bills from being subjected to any unnecessary expense or delay.

consider in what manner it may be expedient "That a Select Committee be appointed to to carry this Resolution into effect."

Sir G. Clerk said, that when the subject of railway legislation was brought before the House some days ago, he had replied to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in answer to his inquiry, whether he was prepared to propose anything relative to the matter to the House, that the Govern

next Session. There was a degree of injustice in this course which he was satisfied the House would never agree to. He now came to the question of delay. He thought the most efficient mode of preventing unnecessary delay would be to tell all parties that if their Bills passed through Committee, and were reported upon, though there might not be time this Seseion to pass them through the House of Lords, yet that in the next Session they should be placed in the same situation as they were left at the end of the Session. Looking back to precedents, he found that the House on more than one occasion had recommended this course in the case of Railway Bills. The circumstances under which the House took this step were dif ferent to the circumstances which existed now. The course was, on a former occasion, recommended by an unexpected dis solution of Parliament. The House had then been led to the consideration of what was best to be done with the Railway Bills, and they recommended what he hoped to see adopted now, that the Bills should be put substantially in the same place, and go on from the point at which they arrived the previous Session. The case now was, however, so far different, that they foresaw what was going to happen; and it was therefore but fair that notice should be given to all parties of the course which Government intended to pursue.ment had certainly turned its attention It was from entertaining these sentiments that he would venture to submit the Resolution which he had placed on the Paper. The first part of the Resolution referred to Bills already reported to the House, and which had already gone through the ordeal of the Committee. When these Bills were read a second time, they had no claim to any favour in the following Session. What he proposed to do was, to give them a claim to favour. They had struggled through the Com-lution of the right hon. Gentleman, that mittee, they had gone to a great expense, they were thereby called upon to adopt a and had been at much trouble to prove course for which no precedent whatever their case; and in his opinion they existed. Instead, therefore, of pledging ought to have some amount of favour the House to any Resolution such as that shown to them. If the terms of his Re- proposed, he should, looking at the exsolution were not large enough, he was treme difficulty which such a course would quite willing to enlarge them. With re-involve hereafter, infinitely prefer the gard to the remedy, he thought the best course would be to follow up the analogy of the cases in 1830 and 1842, though he admitted there was some difficulty in the question. With these views he had framed the Resolution he was about to submit to VOL. LXXXI. {Series} Third

to the question, on account of the en. ormous mass of railway legislation, but that he was not then prepared to call upon the House to come to any specific Resolution respecting that branch of private business; and he still thought that there existed very strong objections to any Resolution pledging the House to adopt any particular line of conduct in regard to Railway Bills. The House must consider with respect to the Reso

whole subject to be referred to an investigation before a Select Committee of the House, by whom the progress actually made in the different Railway Bills, and the position in which they stood, should be examined and reported upon with

F

a

with. It would, in his opinion, be highly imprudent to create such a precedent as that which would be established by the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he should move as an Amendment that which he had just read.

view to the recommendation and adoption | progress during the next Session, and of measures which might appear prudent also specify which of the Standing Orders and desirable. He wished the Committee of the House it might be safe to dispense to be adopted with a view to far wider results than were contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, which only referred to those Bills which had been investigated and reported upon by the Committees; whereas, it might very easily happen, that Bills had not yet come under the notice of Committees which were far more likely to obtain the sanction of Parliament, and yet which would remain so long on the list as to give the Committee no opportunity to report upon their merits. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought it would be far better, without pledging the House to any particular course, that he should move as an Amendment on the words read from the Chair the following Resolution:

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state and progress of the several Railway Bills now before Parliament, and to consider and report their opinion as to what measures should be adopted by the House, in order to facilitate their re-introduc

tion, and to prevent expense and delay in the progress through Parliament, in the next Session, of such Railway Bills as it may be found impossible to pass into laws from want of time for their proper investigation during the present Session."

He anticipated no difficulty in appointing such a Committee immediately, and he thought that when it came to inquire into the subject there would be found a vast variety of cases, differing from each other, and obliging them to lay down new rules and to suggest special regulations, in order to meet those cases. One of the results would probably be to prevent those from being under the necessity of proving their case again who should once have proved it. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman merely embraced one particular class of Bills, those, namely, which had been reported to the House; and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it were not preferable to refer all the Railway Bills actually in existence to a Committee constituted similarly to that which had formed the rules by which railway projects had been classified and placed under their present regulations. He thought that such a Committee might, by the exertion of due diligence, select and report such cases as merited the indulgence of the House in regard to their

Viscount Howick could not think that the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would meet the object which it was desired to effect. If the Resolution of his right hon. Friend near him was too narrow in its terms, there would be no difficulty in enlarging it. His right hon. Friend had stated truly that it was desirable to give the parties promoting Railway Bills some guarantee on the part of the House, that those Bills which had received the sanction of the Committees, and had been reported to the House, should come forward again next Session without any fresh expense and without any loss of time; for, if the contending parties were made aware of the fact that the lateness of the period at which Railway Bills were reported to the House would be no bar to their being placed in the same position in the next Session in which they were when the House was prorogued, that would have the effect of stopping at once that vexatious opposition which was at present raised in the hope of defeating those projects, by delaying the reports on them. But the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet gave no such pledge to the parties, and consequently it did not answer the object which it was desirable to effect. If the right hon. Baronet were to withdraw his Amendment as far as the first Resolution was concerned, and suffer that to pass, the right hon. Baronet's Amendment might be appended to his right hon. Friend's second Resolution with excellent effect. He understood the right hon. Baronet to state that he did not object to the first Resolution; and therefore there was no difficulty in adopting the course he suggested.

Lord G. Somerset said, that the noble Lord had assumed as a recognised fact, that the opponents alone of the different Railway Bills were the causes of the delay in their progress before the Committees. Such was not the case. He had observed frequent instances in which the mass of superabundant evidence brought forward by the agents for the Bills had caused the