COLONEL FRENCH said, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman COLONEL WILSON PATTEN was of appeared to him to render it desirable that opinion that if the offences against which the Bill should not pass into law this it was meant to provide were not of comSession. For any accommodation given mon occurrence, it was better that the risk by the railway companies to the public of their being committed should be allowed they largely consulted their own interests. to continue than that it should be sought By this Bill, however, if a person picked to prevent them in the manner proposed. the pocket of another of an excursion ticket, The case of theatres, which had been adthe original holder, who was entirely inno-verted to by the noble Lord the Member cent, would be liable to pnishment. This for Tiverton, he did not think at all anawas certainly not consulting the interest of the public. He thought the Bill ought not be allowed to go a step further.

der its operation, as it at present stood, anybody might seize on his neighbour, even at his own dinner table, on the charge of having committed a fraud.

ALDERMAN SALOMONS said, he thought it was the duty of the House to protect railway companies from being defrauded. At the same time a Bill of this kind ought not to be forced through the House in such haste. The Bill was so closely worded that even in the interest of the companies themselves the noble Lord would do well not to persevere with it. In his opinion some means should be provided for dealing with cases summarily, so that persons should not be locked up all night.

that he might afterwards move that the Bill should be recommitted to the same Committee that had already reported on it. His reason for adopting this course was, that the House had made an order that the petitioners against the Bill should be heard; but he had since presented a petition from the same opponents complaining that they had not been heard; and whether they were to be heard or not was the question. This Bill, which originated in their Lordships' House, was for regulating the watermen and lightermen on the river Thames. There was an ancient Company of Watermen and Lightermen which had enjoyed certain privileges under successive Acts of Parliament from the time of Henry VIII. down to the reign of the Queen. It was sought by this Bill to deprive this ancient Company of its privileges, and these parties were the petitioners against the Bill, and whom the House had ordered should be heard. The Committee sat on the 29th of last month, when the case of the petitioners was opened, and evidence was tendered on their behalf. On the fol

LORD LOVAINE said, the reason why the Bill had been introduced was on account of the frequent occurrence of the frauds it was intended to check, and he could not help remarking that a person accused of this offence would be in a similar position to any other person who was accused of an offence; it would be open to him to prove his innocence before a magistrate. As, however, it was certainly understood that no measures would be proceeded with ex-lowing day the Chairman announced that, cept such as were of a pressing character, he thought it was inexpedient for him, under the circumstances, to proceed any further with this Bill. He would therefore consent to the right hon. Gentleman leaving the chair.

MR. AYRTON withdrew his Amend

ment.

House resumed. [No Report.]

House adjourned at a quarter
before Six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, April 12, 1859. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Local Government Supplemental; Pauper Maintenance Act Continuance; Confirmation and Probate Act (1858) Amendment; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Annuities, &c. Act Continuance. 2 Superannuation; Public Offices Extension; Combination of Workmen; Indemnity; Nottingham Charities; St. James' Baldersby Marriages Validity; Municipal Elections.

THAMES WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN

BILL.

RECOMMITTAL..

Order of the Day read.

LORD CAMPBELL moved that the Standing Orders be suspended in order

having read the Reports from the Board of Admiralty and other public departments, they thought the promoters had made out so strong a prima facie case for the Bill that the Committee had come to the determination not to proceed with the evidence in support of the Bill, but to enter upon the case of the opponents. That course was accordingly adopted, and on the 4th of this month the opponents gave evidence against the Bill; but afterwards, on the 11th of April, though there remained several witnesses to examine, and without hearing counsel, the Committee cleared the room, and afterwards announced that they had come to the conclusion that the preamble of the Bill had been proved. This appeared to be a very unusual and unfair course to pursue. The Waterman's Company was a very ancient one, and consisted of 6,000 members, and they were at least entitled to be fully heard before the Committee. There could be no disparagement to the Committee in saying that they had decided under mistake, and that the matter should be referred back to the same Committee for reconsideration.

Moved That the Standing Order (No. 179, sec. 5) be dispensed with on the Bill.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE said, that in the absence of the noble Chairman he would endeavour to state to their Lordships the

case.

LORD TEYNHAM vindicated the deci- . sion at which the Select Committee had arrived. The impression upon the minds of the Committee was that the counsel for the opponents gave up his cause and that he did not ask to be heard, and, therefore, of course was not refused. After the withdrawal of the learned counsel the Committee paid every attention to the case of the opponents and inserted clauses for their protection.

LORD KINNAIRD said, he would not go into the merits of the case; but he would ask whether it was regular to refuse to hear the counsel for the opponents? He thought it was most irregular. The noble Lord said that the proceedings of the opponents were irregular because they called their witnesses first, and then proposed that counsel should address them. There was nothing irregular in that; but if there was it was the duty of the Chairman to have called attention to the fact.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE: He did call attention to it.

LORD KINNAIRD said, however that might be there was nothing irregular in the course pursued by the opponents.

grounds upon which the Committee had Trade; and he hoped that it would be 1 arrived at their conclusion. In the first allowed to proceed. place he must be allowed to state that the opponents of this Bill came forward to defend a monopoly, and that therefore the onus of proof lay with them. The objections which had been urged against the decision of the Committee were twofirst that counsel had not been heard; secondly, that witnesses in opposition had not been called. With regard to the first objection he could only say that if the public knew how little weight counsels' speeches had with a Committee, he was quite sure that neither the opponents nor the promoters of a Bill would incur the expense or the delay of employing counsel. When it was complained that counsel had not been heard, it became the duty of those who complained to show that the conduct of counsel themselves had been quite regular. But the fact was not so. When the Committee had heard the evidence in favour of the Bill, they called on the counsel of the petitioners to state his This he declined to do, stating that he should prefer to produce his evidence in the first instance. Some fourteen or fifteen witnesses were then produced to show that the navigation of the river Thames required peculiar skill. The Committee asked for evidence on some new points. Three other witnesses were produced; but their evidence went merely to the same point, that the navigation required skilled labour. If the Committee had declined hearing further evidence, it was with a view to save unnecessary expense; and as it was, he feared the Bill would hardly pass before the prorogation. The allegation in the petition respecting the security THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, of life and property, he was prepared to the department with which he was conmeet with a direct negative; for all the nected had had the matter under its conregulations hitherto enforced by the water-sideration, and was of opinion that it was men's Company would now be enforced by entirely one of evidence and ought to be the Board of Conservancy of the Thames. decided by a tribunal in the nature of a The fact that a man was a freeman of the Select Committee, and not by a department Waterman's Company was no proof that of the Government. On the whole he was he could manage a lighter or wherry; for inclined to think that the Committee had many obtained their freedom without hav- erred in not giving a hearing to the counsel ing been once on board a lighter or wherry. for the opponents of the Bill. Whenever The object of the Bill was to destroy the he was on a Committee, and if it happened monopoly of this Company. It was said that he had made up his mind before the the Company was a nursery for the navy; conclusion of the case, he felt it his duty but this was not the case; and as the to listen all the more patiently to all that Company did not fulfil the conditions on could be said on the other side-though he which its privileges had been granted, must own that he seldom heard anything those privileges ought to be withdrawn. to alter or modify his first opinions. It The Bill had been strongly recommended was perhaps true that the opponents of both by the Admiralty and the Board of the Bill had endeavoured unduly to pro

EARL DUCIE said, after all he had heard on the subject he was not satisfied that the Committee had erred in the matter, and he would now ask their Lordships whether it would be wise to put the promoters to the expense and inconvenience of another hearing. But if it were thought that there should be a rehearing of the case he for one would be very willing to sit on the Committee again.

tract their case; but still he thought they had cause to complain, and it would therefore be better to send the Bill back again to the Committee, who might reconsider it and make a report before the prorogation.

LORD VIVIAN said, the Committee had given the Bill their fullest consideration and were guided in the conclusion to which they had come partly by the report from the Board of Trade, but much more by the evidence laid before them. When they called upon the opponents of the Bill to open their case, their leading counsel, Mr. Hope Scott, was not present, being engaged, he supposed, in some other Committee, and Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, who he supposed had not got his talk up, declined to go on as his substitute. The Committee then listened to no fewer than fourteen witnesses, including the master, the warden, and other officers of the Company, who all produced one and the same story, going over the same matters again and again usque ad nauseam. The Committee repeatedly called, through their chairman, for some fresh light upon the matter; none whatever was afforded them. The question then came to this-would they recommit the Bill to afford Mr. Hope Scott the opportunity of addressing them, as he happened to be elsewhere when it was the proper time for him to do so? If the House thought the Committee had erred in judgment, and that the Bill should be recommitted, then he must ask their Lordships to relieve him from serving on the Committee. It would be a great hardship on the promoters to recommit the Bill at all, but it would be a still greater hardship to the Committee to send them to rehear the case with the slur on their character that they had got tired of the case and would not hear all sides.

that the Bill be recommitted, and that another Committee be appointed.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, their Lordships had hitherto placed implicit confidence in their Committees, and had never, except under very grave and peculiar circumstances, interfered with any decision they had come to. It was obvious that great discretion must be given to those to whom their Lordships delegated its private legislation, as to the amount of evidence they might think fit to listen to on any particular point. In the present case it would undoubtedly have been better if the Committee had heard Mr. Hope Scott; and it would perhaps be prudent to refer the Bill back to them, in order that they might hear counsel on behalf of the opponents of the Bill.

LORD REDESDALE begged to disclaim any intention of throwing a slur upon the Committee, but undoubtedly he thought that to send the matter back to the same Committee would be only to ensure a confirmation of the decision already arrived at, and he did not consider it would be a slight or slur on the Committee to refer it to another one. It was in fact nothing more than like a motion for a new trial.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE observed that the whole difficulty had arisen from the conduct of the counsel; and if the Bill were recommitted, it ought surely to be accompanied by a strong expression of their Lordships' opinion as to the extent to which Committees were to be subjected to the caprice of counsel.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, the question with which their Lordships had to deal was one of considerable difficulty. On the one hand they would be most anxious to uphold the character of their Committees; but, on the other hand, they LORD REDESDALE said, that a chief would be no less anxious that the decisions consideration in this matter was the effect of those Committees should enjoy the conit would produce on the public at large as fidence of the public. He had himself had to the character of their Lordships' pro- a very large experience on Committees of ceedings. It was impossible, after what the other House, and it had always been they had heard from the members of the his practice to listen with the utmost Committee, to doubt that the Committee patience to all that could be said by that had decided without hearing the counsel party of whose case he had begun to form for the opponents, and he did not wonder an unfavourable opinion. At the same time therefore that they should have complained. it occasionally happened that the opposing At the same time he thought the noble party would try to defeat a Bill by delay; Lord who had just sat down was quite right and a rule had been laid down by the Comin declining to serve again on the Commons' Committee not to allow the same mittee, and he thought after what had passed in the Committee it would be a mockery to send the Bill back again to that Committee at all. He would suggest VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES].

point to be proved by more than two or at most three witnesses. In the present case the Committee had been placed under a great disadvantage by not hearing an +3 F 6

ricarde.) [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Cleveland, D.
Marlborough, D.
Norfolk, D.

Sundridge, L. (D. Ar

gyll.) Wodehouse, L. Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.
Exeter, M.
Carnarvon, E.
Graham, E. (D. Mont-
rose.)
Ilarrington, E.

opening speech from counsel, to direct their | Somerhill, L. (M. Clan-
attention to the salient points of the evi-
dence. He therefore thought that the Bill
should be recommitted; and without the
least reflection on the Committee which had
already sat and whose decision would very
likely turn out to be right, he did not think
it would be satisfactory, after what had pass-
ed to refer it back to the same Committee.
EARL GREY thought that as the Com-
mittee had fallen into the perhaps very
natural error of not hearing counsel, the
Bill ought to be recommitted. At the same
time he could not agree that the noble
Lords who had formed the old Committee
were likely to be so prejudiced that it was
at all necessary to send the case before a
new one. To appoint a new Committee
would moreover be most unjust to the
promoters of the Bill, because their case
would have to be begun again de novo,
and they would thus practically be mulcted.
in a heavy sum for an error of which the
Committee, and not they, had been guilty.

LORD CAMPBELL said, he regarded this Motion as very similar to what was well known in the courts of law, namelysending back an award to be reconsidered by the arbitrator. That was his original Motion. But when he heard one member of the Committee say that the onus was entirely on the petitioners--an old established Company, with all the Acts of Parliament for their title-and another that his mind was made up, and a third that he had conclusively made up his mind, he (Lord Campbell) was disposed to change

his Motion and move for a new Committee.

Motion agreed to. Said Standing Order, sec. 5, dispensed with accordingly.

Moved, That the Bill be re-committed; agreed to.

Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to the "same" Committee which reported on the Bill on the 11th instant..

LORD REDESDALE said, that after what had fallen from the noble Lords who formed the Committee it would be useless again to refer the Bill back to them, and he therefore should support the appoint

ment of a new Committec.

On Question Their Lordships divided: -Contents 13; Not-Contents 28: Majority 15.

Granville, E.
Grey, E.
Sydney, V.

Belper, L.

CONTENTS.

Chesham, L.
De Ros, L.
Overstone, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-
borough.)

Leven and Melville, E.
Lonsdale, E.
Rosslyn, E.

Saint Germans, E.
Stanhope, E.
Dungannon, V.

Gough, V.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Strathallan, V.

Campbell, L. [Teller.]
Churchill, L.

Colchester, L.

Colville of Culross, L.
De Tabley, L.
Downes, L.
Kingsdown, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]
Rossie, L. (L. Kin-
naird.)
Wensleydale, L.
Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative. The Com. mittee to be named by the Committee of Selection.

MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

COMMONS' REASONS CONSIDERED. Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).

LORD WENSLEYDALE moved that their Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment, of which the Commons disagreed.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, he was quite prepared to accede to the Motion, though he did not think the whole of the objections stated by the Commons were very conclusive. Delay in the passing of this Bill would, he understood, be very prejudicial. If cases of hardship were proved there was no reason why they should not be dealt with by another measure introduced in a subsequent Session. The measure of last year provided for the registration of medical practitioners, and the original object of this amended Bill was to change the period of such regis tration. Since it was first brought in, however, one or two other Amendments have been engrafted upon the Bill, which it would perhaps have been better to omit.

On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the negative; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
SECOND READING.

Order for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving the