The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-01 00:00:00

communication in Kent, and that the Government ought
to have negotiated with that company, and not with the
landowner= of the district, I cannot help observing that
the South-Eastern Company has, on every occasion, eluded
its obligations in that r -spent. The Duke of Wellington
took up the subject very warmly in 1811. He said the
immense importance, in a national point of view, of the
establishment of a continuous railway communication
between the metropolis an t the dockyards and arsenals
on the Thames and at Chatham, could not be ques-
tioned, and he proposed that the scheme of the
South-Eastern Company, which was then before Par-
liament, should be referred to the railway commis-
sioners. Well, the commissioners made their report,
and the Duke of Wellington was himself going down
to the House of Lords to move the insertion of a clause
compelling the South-Eastern Company to complete the
railway communication in Kent, so as to secure the na-
tional objects which he had in view, when he discovered
that the hone member for Sandwich and his friend, taking
advantage of Lord Brougham's 'resolutions, passed in the
preceding session, had suspended the bill till the following
year. It was understood at that time that the bill was to
be taken up at the same stage in the House of Lords in the
session of 1848 ; but the hon. gentleman, from day to
this has never re-introduced the measure. Under those cir-
cumstances the East Kent Company's bill was passed in
1853. That company has experienced great difficulties in
the carrying out of its proje s t,and it now comes to Parlia-
ment to ask for the releas a o ithe money deposited in the
Court of Chancery, in order to enable it to complete the
construction of the bridge over the Medway at Rochester,
which it was compelled to make within a certain time.
The bill for that purpose was taken before the standing
orders committee. It passed that committee. It was then
referred to a select committee of this house, and that com-
mittee has reported as follows :—" That the committee,
having allowed a relaxation of the 136th Standing Order,
and permitted the money impounded under it to be applied
to the construction of a bridge over the Medway and the
approaches thereto, think it right to inform the house that
they have been led to that decision by the conviction of the
paramount necessity, in a national point of view, of conti-
nuous railway communication between the metropel:e,
Deptford, and Woolwich and the dockyards and arsenals
at Chatham—an opinion in which the committee are satis-
fied the Government entirely coincide. This continuous
communication, it appeared to the committee, could only
be obtained by the immediate completion of the bridge
and its approaches, anti they have taken care to restrict
the application of the deposit released by the bill to that
specific purpose, the national importance of which in their
opinion would alone justify them in sanctioning any
departure from a standing order so well calculated to
protect sound and necessary railway schemes, and to dis-
courage reckless and unnecessary railway speculation. That
in the opinion of the committee, the -completion of the
railway through its entire length will not be endangered
by the release of the deposit." Now, if the hon. gentle-
man had merely the public interest at heart he should, on
the select committee snaking their report on the 11th inst.,
have' come forward and moved that the evidence be
printed; but on the 16th the bill as amended by the com-
mittee, was considered in this house, without any opposi-
tion whatever. Now, however, the hon. gentleman who
at first intended merely to move, as appears from the
votes that the evidence taken before the select committee
should be printed, comes forward with an altered motion,
to the effect that the third reading of the bill should be
postponed till the 4th of June, which is, in fact, till after
Whitsuntide. It is important that the house should'
know that there is another bill coming . before the
standing orders committee this day for an extension from
Canterbury to Dovee' and I have no doubt that the hon.
gentleman thinks, if he can get the East Kent bill post-
poned till after Whitsuntide, it will be of some use to him
in raising a further opposition to the Canterbury and Dover
bill, which, I may add, has the vigorous support of all the
Government departments—of the Ordnance and Admiralty
—and of those who have the greatest interest in the esta-
blishment of a direct railway communication with Dover.
I hope that the house, for the public reasons I have stated,
will reject the motion of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. H. AD AIR—As chairman of the select committee to
whom the East Kent Bill was referred, I must trouble the
house with a few observations. I think the motion of the
hon. member for Sandwich is a very judicious andprudent
one, because the house, before passing the bill, should have
an opportunity of seeing the printed evidence. I am of that
opinion, because the question now raised is every important
one, and it is a question, moreover, which I think the
house alone is able to decide. This is the first application
that kas been made to suspend this poition of the standing
orders of this house. The whole object of the bill is to
release a sum of money which the House of Commons has
judged it desirable should be held impounded to enforce
the completion of a certain railway, the plans of which
have been deposited in Parliament. Now, I think that id
a question of such importance that the house ought to be
called upon to express an opinion as to the circumstances
under which such a deviation from the usual practice of
the house should be allowed. The reason alleged to the
committee why the bill should pass was that the East Kent
line was of national importance, and one in which the
Government had a great interest,. Why, it seems to me
that this is an argument which many of the railway com-
panies may urge almost with the same effect as the East
Kent Company. But I wish to call the attention of the
house to another point. The object of the 136th standing
order, if I understand it rightly, is to ensure to the public
the completion of certain lines of railway. I have no
doubt that the Government are very anxious that the
bridge over the Medway at Rochester should .be con-
structed. I have not the slightest doubt that they wish
their dockyards and arsenals to be brought into immediate
communication with the metropolis; but still it was not
shown to my satisfaction in the committee that the pro-
moters of this bill were unable to complete the bridge at
Rochester without the assistance of the Government. -They
have raised only an insignificant portion of the capital
which they are authorised to raise under the provisions of
the act of 1853 ; they have laid out little or no money
upon the construction of the bridge at 'Rochester ; and I
think it is for us to consider whether, under the circum-
stances, we should agree to the proposed deviation from
the usual practice of this house, amounting, in fact, to the
abrogation of a standinc, order„which heretofore has been
found to work beneficially, and which I am quite sure has,
at all events, prevented the passing of many crude and ill-
devised schemes of railway extension. I think, moreover,
that the parties should not be called upon to pay for the print-
ing of the evidence, but that the expense should be borne by
Parliament, and that the house should at once deal with the
question, and for the guidance of its select committees,
should lay down under what circumstance, if any, the
136th standing order should be dispensed with. I have
thought it sight to make these few observations, as many
members of the house are not quite aware of the actual
facts of the case. I shall most undoubtedly support the
proposition of the hon. member for Sandwich, with the
view of bringing distinctly before the house the question
of whether the 136th standing order shall be made practi-
cally-operative, or whether, under any circumstances, even
when a scheme may be called by its promoters of great
national interest, any deviation is to be. allowed.
Mr. DEEDES.—As a member of the standing orders
committee I think, after what has been said by the
chairman of the select committee, I may be allowed to
state that this question of the infraction of a standing
order was brought under our notice; that we went
fully into all the circumstances connected with the case;
that there was a great deal of. discussion • and that we
thought, under the peculiar circumstances of case, that
we should recommend the house to dispense with the
standing order. In consequence of that recommendation on
the part of the standing orders committee, the house agreed
to dispense with the 136th standing order in this instance.
Now I admit that the question of interfering-with a stand-
ing order of this house ought always to be approached with
considerable caution ; but, scoirg that the present case has
been considered in all its bearings by the standing orders
committee, and that that committee have come to decision
upon it, I think the house ought not to interfere at this
late stage of the bill. If the hon. member for Sandwich
had brought forward his motion upon the report of the
committe, then it would have been right and proper for
the house to entertain it ; but the question has already
been decided, and therefore I hope the house will reject the
proposition of the hon. gentleman. Nor can . I agree with
the hon. member in regard to the consideration which, he
says, ought to be shown to the Snuth-Eastern Company.
I have no hostility to that company, but I think they are
hound to show that they are not to blame for the delay
which has taken place iu the fulfilment of the pledges they
have given with regard to railway accommodation.
Mr. ADAIR—I rise merely for the purpose of disclaiming
the slightest intention of treating the standing orders com-
mittee with any disrepect. What I meant to say was this,
that the question is one of such impedance that the house
itself should deal with it, and so relieve the standing orders
committee from a responsibility which they ought not to
be called upon to incur.
Mr. Rica—l am anxious to make a few remarks on the
subject before the house. It has been said that the hon.
member for San iwich ought to have brought forward'his
motion on an earlier day. Now, it must -be recollected
that the report of the,select committee was not circulated
until after the house had considered the bill and ordered
it to be read a third time; and I presume it would hardly
have been competent to move that the evidence be printed
before the report itself. Therefore, that objeseition
to the ground, I think the house will always listen: with
great deference to any opinion expressed by the chairman'
of a committee, who has had full opportunity of hearing
the whole case. Well, the chairman of the committee en
the East Kent bill has described the evidence which was laid
before that committee, and has told you that a new rule
is to be adopted in this case. lam sorry the right hon.
gentleman the member for. Oxford is not in his place, for if
he were here he would tell you.that the object of the stand-
ing order which it is now prcposed to repeal was to secure
that those who brought forward railway schemes had the
requisite means for carrying out their projects, and that
that object has been attained up to the present moment.
Now, however, certain parties come forward and ask Par-
liament to abrogate that rule, and to establish what I may
venture to call a very bad and dangerous precedent. Why
are the promoters of the bill so anxious that the evidence
taken before tie select committee should not be printed ?
That evidence will show whether their railway scheme is
one to which the pr3visions of the standing order ought
or ought not to apply ; and I really do not see,
if their project be a good one, why they should object to
the motion of the hon. member for Sandwich. If they
had exerted themselves to carry out the objects -of the act
of 1853—if they had exercised all due diligence to fulfil
their covenants—then, I think, they would have been en-
titled to ask the house to consider whether or not it should
relax the standing order with the view of enabling them to
execute their engagements;
but it is notorious that they
have not complied with the conditions of their act, and I
think it would not be fair or just to extend an unusual in-
dulgence to a company placed in such circumstances. We
havelecently dealt .a very different measure of justice to
another company. What are the covenants of the East
Kent Company? They undertook to complete certain
arches over the river Medway by the. 4th of August, 1854,
and to complete certain abutments of the bridge by the
4th of January, :1855.. I am now speaking on the 22d of
May, 1855. The work that was to be finished on the 4th
of August, 1854, under the penalty-of paying 10/. a day to.
the Admiralty is not yet completed; while the work
that was to be finished on the 4th of January, Mit
under a similar penalty, has not been commenced.
Here, then, are two covenants plainly disregarded. But
the engineer of the railway, intim delis connected with the
engineer of the Admiralty, supported by Government in-
fluence, obtains- a relaxation of the penalties, by what
means this house has yet to learn. Well, has any effort
been made by the company to fulfil its covenants ? Far
from it. The company got its bill in 1853. A call was
made in September of the sameyear. That call was not very
cordially responded to, and legal proceedings were obliged
to be taken. The works, or at least a portion of them, were
to be comp eted. in 1854, and yet during the whole of that
year—from the month of September, 1853, till the month
of Januaiy, 1855—not one single call was made by the
company, nor wris there the least effort to fulfil the cove-
nants which had been entered into with the Govern-
ment. Is that a state of things in which any com-
pany should should be allowed to come before this house
and ask to haver a standing order relaxed, which is
specially meant to enforce the fulfilment of contracts?