Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page


Imperial parliament.I


Imperial parliament. HOUSE OF LORDS.-THUMDAY. .J^rw.Stanley1™°.vcd lJie nomination of 21 peers as a select •honui bTnlm,i° (Crel.od) Compaiulioo Bill K LoDd«"Je")'. M.rqnis of CUuricarde, XSS""1 E*" *« ""J*™* Lord Brougham and the Earl of Wicklow said it was not competent (or Noble Lords to decline. ™l»« K\r- °J uUCan een#urcd the composition of tbe Com- mUm>' "d °° >>» !.<•»«» ? ~KEN PMNS to render the Committee MaroufJ1 oflr,pa?,a!i ha<1 includ«d the names of the Marqim of f^odonderry and the Marquis of Clanricarde account'of'their stako declJ*red ho«ility to tbe bill, because on lie ^M h^ i ,V « !i the,country was desirable the pub- crS Of the 21 pi1" k' under8one a thorough scruuny. ut tbe 11 Peer* be had proposed, eieht onlv were thilennine haJTT^ 10 '.he cUu,es of tL bi Lord P^tm^her di^usrn the Committee was appointed. Landlord an byTC4l»f n1toisgzx Ms"ived oa •divi,ion ,,r HOUSE Of CO^IONS.—TH OKSOAY. AoendmenM to tb* Somerset, and Wey- mouth Railway Bill were agreed to. y In reply to a question from Lord J. Russell, •P1 *f!d.he sl»w,M •We to tell taail be fb,e t0 do respecting the Medical BiU, Solicitor-General moved, in accordance with the re- ilto T majority of the Committee appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the case Howard v.Gossett. that a writ of error be brought before all the judges on the judgment pronounced in the Court of Queen's Bene!" After an amendment, which was moved by Mr. Hume and negatived on a division, a long debate that lasted the whole night ensued. The Speakers were Mr. Roebuck Sir R InS, J,r-SfrS"Dt Murphy, Mr. B. Escotf, Lord Mahon,Mr. wfnn' For the Solicitor-Generar. motion 82 I Against it 43 Majority for bringing the writ of etror.. —34 I FRIDAY. lOOT" WALES RAILWAY AMD THE RIVER SEVERN. Captain Berkeley said that he had given notice of his inten- tion to bring before the house the hardship and injustice of the S,r;?hirnwrSH0i.ia, y ,che,ae1? proposing to cross or interfere tHl» if aa^ tTml°l Aa sef tnd creek». over which the Board of Admiralty had control, appearing before com- mittees of that house with private bills, without having first obtained the written sanction of that board in accordance with the provisions of the act 8 Victoria, c. 20. He had given that notice in conseq-ience of wbat bad taken place with respect to the South Wales Railway. He thought some remedy was required, because if the decision of the Admiralty had been made known at an earlier stage great expense would have been 7 saved to the parties, and a great deal of trouble to the com- mittee. He begged to move tb*t the question be referred to the select committee on standing orders, Mr. Hume thought the subject was one of very great im- pbrtanft, particularly to those through whose property any railroad was intended to be carried. What his hon. and gal- lant friend wished was, that whenever the Board of Admiralty decided against a railroad passing over a navigable river or creek the parties whose interests were concerned should not be compelled to attend to their interests before a committee. In this particular case it was proposed to carry a tunnel under the Severn. From the inquiry which was going on as to the •I,li?rtVifment lidV harbours, rivers, &c., it appeared that it had been suggested that the Severn should be deepened 15 feet at the very spot where it was proposed to make the tunnel. Unless, therefore, the tunnel was constructed fifty feet below the level it would be a bar to the proposed improvement of the ,H.e 'bought some means ought to be adopted to have the decision of the Admiralty made knoWn to that house. After a few words from Sir G. Grey, Mr. Firzroy said that the Admiralty had objected to the rail- way being carried across the Severn, because it would inter- fere with the navigation. The proposed tunnel would require to be constructed at a depth which would alter the level of the sections of the original plans; and the committee on the standing orders, and not the Admiralty, were the parties with whom the matter rested. After a few words from Mr. H. Berkeley, Mr. Pitzroy said that the Admiralty had never consented to permit a bridge to be built over the Severn. When the par- ties proposed to go under the river. Ii« «i<i «1?:—. >— ;¡Ott. -W arourtcn thsojtt c.. pwip^iiioa of the hon. and gal- lant member for Gloucester an extremely reasonable one. He also thought, whenever the Admiralty decided against any railway crossing a tidal river, that their reasons for so deci- ding should be reported to the house. Sir G. Clerk said that the Admiralty had not only the power to refuse its consent to any railway crossing a tidal river, but they had also the power of interfering and putting a stop to the progress of any such railway if the consent of the Ad- miralty had not been obtained. He thought no parties pos- sessed of common sense would ever think of proceeding with their scheme in such cases without having first obtained the sanction of the Board of Admiralty. a, Captain Berkeley said he would withdraw his present mo- tion, and would give notice of another of a more general nature on the same subject for Monday next. Motion accordingly withdrawn.

[No title]






[No title]