The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-07 00:00:00

E SUN,' LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 7, 1852.

300,0001.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS was at a loss to know whether
they were contributing to the purchase of 70 or 140 acres.
He intended to vote against the proposition, because he
knew not what was to be done with the money. It was
exceedingly desirous that the committee should know the
purpose to which the laud would be devoted, whether it
was proposed to erect a building on it, or whether it was
proposed to use the land for nothing. (Hear, and a laugh.)
He apprehended this was only the commencement of
claims for larger sums for the erection of buildings upon
this piece of land. He would not concur in any vote
where information was not given of the appropriation of
of the money. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. YOUNG suggested that the Government should
undertake to produce the maps before the money was paid
out of the Exchequer.
Mr. GREENE thought the vote would be unanimous if
the map was before the committee.
Mr. J. LOCKE, having a strong opinion on the prin-
ciple of this vote, was induced to enter his protest against
it. He did not agree with the hon. gentleman opposite,
who had given them a very low estimate of the character
of Englishmen, nor did he attribute their great perfection
in mechanical and industrial skill to the Government schools
in other countries. He had no objection to one of the pro-
positions made in the course of the discussion, that more
space was wanted for the exhibition of some of our excel-
lent works of art ; but if it was intended to introduce a
central school in which degrees were to be established, and
from which individuals might be excluded—(hear, hear)—
such as the Polytechnic School at Parr—he felt bound to
raise his voice against such a proposition. It might be
that this was only the first vote, and that it was only in-
tended for the purchase of land, but he apprehended that
first vote meant other votes which would follow, and the
consequences of which he dreaded.
Mr. COWAN suggested that the vote should be post-
poned until the plan in its details was more completely be-
fore the committee.
Mr. HUME thought if an institution was intended
similar to the Polytechnic School in France, as the hon.
member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) seemed to apprehend,
there would be great danger in sanctioning the vote with-
out further inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Locke) made a startling as-
sertion, for which there was not the slightest foundation,
and raised an argument against the vote which the hon.
gentleman already approved of. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had heard of the hon. member's suggestion re-
specting this school for the first time ; and he could say
with the most perfect confidence, that there was not the
slightest imaginable ground for it (cheers).
The vote was then agreed to without a division.
FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
The next vote proposed was that a sum not exceeding
80,0001. should be granted for defraying the funeral ex-
penses of the Duke of Wellington.
Mr. HITME thought the house ought to have an account
rendered of the expenses of the funeral, before they pro-
ceeded-to this vote ; indeed, if reports out of doors were
true, he was not certain that they ought not to have a com-
mittee appointed to examine into many of the items of the
.expenditure.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said he could assure the honour-
able member for Montrose that immediately after the
funeral took place means were taken to collect the various
accounts, and he held in his hand an abstract of those ac-
counts so far as he had been able to obtain them. The
principal items were as follows :—Accounts in reference to
the public works, 25,000/. ; the Lord Chamberlain and
Earl-Marshal, 33,000/. ; and expenses connected with mov-
ing the troops, 8,5001. (exclusive of the cost of lodging the
troops prior to the funeral, not yet ascertained). The
whole of the accounts which had been received up to that
moment amounted to 47,000/. ; and he believed the total
expenses would not amount to 80,0001. He could assure
the house that every care should be taken to enforce the
most rigid and stern economy in the settlement of those
accounts.
Lord DUDLEY STUART said he was second to no man
in the veneration he felt for the illustrious hero whom they
had recently interred ; but he had to complain throughout
of the conduct of the Government in this business—first,
in delaying the funeral, and next, in refusing the request
made by his honourable friend the member for Montrose
before the funeral for an estimate of the expenses, and
which was not even ready now. It would have been more
constitutional to have deferred asking for the money until
the estimate was complete. He was not prepared to say
the sum was excessive—(hear, hear)—but 80,0001. did
appear a very large sum. He should be disposed to be li-
beral, so far as he was concerned, when they were voting
money on (such an occasion ; but when it was borne in
mind that the funeral of Nelson cost the country only
14,0001., he must say there was a wide difference between
that sum and the one they were now called on to vote. He
wished to know whether the expenses of foreign visitors of
distinction on the occasion of the funeral were included
in the Lord Chamberlain's account, or whether they
were intended to be provided for in the vote of 80,000/ ?
He would now advert to a circumstance connected with
the funeral which had given him personall eth
y grat
pain. Though the arrangements on the day of tho
funeral were such as to command general approbation,
and to reflect credit on all concerned, it was a deplorable
fact that a few days before several persons lost their lives
in the eagerness of the people to pay their respects towards
the remains of the departed hero at Chelsea Hospital.
(Oh, oh, from the Ministerial benches.) Was it then a
matter of surprise that ho should advert to a circumstance
which cost the lives of at least three of his fellow-creatures
on that occasion? It was only justice to say those lives
might have been preserved if greater precautions had been
taken, and better arrangements made by those who were
responsible. He did not wish to say more—(cheers from
the Ministerialists)—except to express his very great regret
that the general success of everything connected with that
solemnity was marred by that most deplorable event which
better arrangements might have prevented.
Lord J. MANNERS said, having been responsible for a
great share of the arrangements to which the noble lord
now took exception, he could assure him and the committee
that from the first momenta public funeral was determined
upon he was most anxious that an estimate should be pre-
pared ; but he found, on inquiry, that, owing to the limited
time for making the great preparations which were requi-
site, and to the novel nature of the service, it was perfectly
impossible to arrive at an estimate on which any reliance
could be placed. (Hear, hear.) So far as his part of the busi-
ness was concerned, the heads of all the expenditure had
been collected, and he believed the noble lord and the house
generally would shortly have an opportunity of testing the
expenditure which had been incurred. In the department
over which he (Lord John Manners) presided' a great
amount of time and the most assiduous labour had been
expended, not only with the view of carrying out the ar-
rangements in the most effective manner, but with the
greatest economy consistent with the importance of the oc-
casion. (Hear, hear.) He repeated he did not think it
was possible to prepare beforehand an estimate upon which
reliance could be placed.
Mr. HUME said if the house was not furnished with an
account of the actual expenses that had been incurred, he
should divide the house. (Shouts of " Oh, oh," from the
Ministerial benches.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made an
observation across the table, but it was lost in the uproar
occasioned by the hon. member for Montrose's intimation
that he would divide the committee.
Mr. S. CARTER then endeavoured to address the house,
but was received with such loud cries of " Oh, oh," that
he was unable to proceed. After the lapse of several
minutes, he moved that the chairman do report progress,
and ask leave to sit again. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. HUME said the house was acting in a most dis-
orderly way, and if the Government would .not keep their
friends in better order, it would be quite impossible to
proceed with business. (Oh, oh.) He felt bound to sup-
port the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. G. HUDSON then rose, but his remarks were
nearly drowned amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh !" and the
most discordant noises. We understood him to express
his regret at the course taken by the hon. member for Mon-
trose, and his hope that the resolution would have been
agreed to without a dissentient voice. (Oh, oh, and
laughter.)
em-
ber Mr. HUME said he had no objection to the hon. mem-
but fliasviantgreeta chequeefor
r thefor tphuehhame,oh7tourout.
umhiser:erctkneott,
conrsent to the course now Pursued' (Oh,

Mr. HUDSON—The hon. member talks about giving a
cheque. I will give a cheque for as much as he will.
(Roars of laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place. On our re-admission.
Mr. CARTER was found on his legs, but not one word
in ten reached the gallery. He complained that the sum
asked for was a great deal too much. (Oh, oh.) He was,
however, almost surprised the Government were content
with so little as 80,000/. Judging from the temper of the
house, and the manner in which the other sums had been
voted, they might have obtained twice as much. (Oh, oh.)
A good deal was formerly said about precedent ; but in-
stead of the Government confining themselves to the pre-
cedent of Nelson's funeral, they required five times as
much. (Oh, oh.) What was the use of consulting a pre-
cedent if they were to multiply it by five? (Laughter.)
Following the same course, if another public funeral should
take place, they might ask the country for 400,000. (Oh,
oh, and laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHORP had heard scarcely anything that
had fallen from the hon. member, but he understood him
to have used the word " metal." Now in some metal there
was a great deal of dross, and he thought the metal alluded
to by the hon. member would never circulate through the
United Kingdom. (Laughter.) There was not a man or
woman in the country who would not gladly give their
penny to testify their veneration for one of the greatest
men who ever lived. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was then by leave withdrawn.
Lord D. STUART wishedto know if the expenses of the
foreign officers of distinction attending the funeral were
included in the 80,0001.
Mr. HAMILTON was not aware whether any expense
had been incurred for foreign officers, but if that was the
case he believed it to be included in the vote. (Hear.)
Mr. CARTER said he also had a question to ask. (Oh,
oh.) What was the cost of the funeral car ? (Oh, oh.)
No answer was returned to the question, and the resolu-
tion was put and agreed to.
The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day having been read for the purpose of
postponing the second reading of this and the other Irish
law bills introduced by the Attorney-General for Ireland,
Mr. KEOGH wished the honourable and learned gentle-
man to give the house some opportunity of discussing these
bills, two of which were of the most objectionable nature,
during the present week. One of these bills was so
objectionable that he did not believe it would receive
the sanction of fifty members. The honourable and
learned gentleman had been negotiating a postponement,
but the Irish members were anxious to test his sincerity
and consistency in the form of his bills as soon as possible.
(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said if
the honourable and learned gentleman in reality enter-
tained any objection to these bills he should have put an
honest notice on the paper that they be read a second time
this day six months. (Hear, hear.) He understood there
would be no objection to the principle of the bills. The
fourth bill, the Landlord and Tenant Right Bill, was sub-
stantially the same as that which had been introduced for
the last three sessions. (Mr. Keogh : Certainly not.) His
intention was to have postponed the bills, inorder that they
might be considered during the recess, but he was quite
prepared to bring them on for discussion at any time.
(Hear. hear.)
Ultimately the second reading was fixed for to-day.
The West India Colonies, &c., Loans Act Amendment
Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Commons Inclosure Bill went through committee.
STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving for leave to
bring in a bill to amend the law relating to stamp duties
on newspapers, observed that the schedule in the act of
George 111. defined newspapers to be papers containing
public news, intelligences, or occurrences published within
the United Kingdom, or any remarks' or observations
thereon, or such as were published periodically, or in parts
or numbers, or at intervals, not exceeding 26 days. There
was a publication called the " Household Narrative,"
published by Bradbury and Evans, of which Mr. Dickens
was the author, and it was the opinion of the Stamp-office
that that paper, altheagh published at intervals of not less
than 26 days was liable to stamp-duty ; and accordingly
an information was filed against the publisher to recover
the penalties and duties incurred, the object being to
obtain a decision of the court as to whether the publi-
cations were liable to stamp duty or not. The case
was argued before the Court of Exchequer. Three
judges were of opinion that the publication was not liable
to stamp duty ; the fourth, Mr. Baron Parke, being of
opinion that it was. The difference of opinion between
the judges turned entirely upon the question whether the
definitions that he had read to the house were distinct and
separate definitions, or whether the third was merely a
qualification of the first. The three judges were of
opinion that the third was merely a qualification, and that
therefore no publication was a newspaper which was not
published at intervals of less than 26 days, Mr. Baron
Parke being of a different opinion. This argument took
place before the present Government came into office.
When he came into office, he found that the law officers
who preceded him were of opinion that the decision of the
Court of Exchequer was not satisfactory, and that it was
necessary to take the opinion of a higher court on the sub-
ject. He certainly quite agreed in the course adopted by
his predecessors. And whatever might have been, his
opinion, he should certainly have felt it his duty to follow
the course which they had pointed out, and therefore the
appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber was deter-
mined upon. His right honourable friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer thought, however, that it was right
to adhere to the opinion which was expressed by
the majority of the Court of Exchequer, and he was
extremely desirous, both for the sake of the public
and to prevent litigation, that a measure should
be introduced to support the opinion of the ma-
jority of the Court of Exchequer. This bill had, there-
fore, been introduced, which repealed that part of the
schedule ta which he had called nticknfien. aud galre BUCII
a definition of a newspaper as would exclude from the
operation of the stamp duties publications published at in-
tervals of not less than 26 days. He trusted that no hon.
gentleman would on this occasion enter into the discussion
of the general question of what were called the taxes on
knowledge, and that he would be allowed to introduce and
pass through all its stages as rapidly as possible a measure
which was calculated to be of so much public benefit.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that he wished first to advert to
a point of form. The learned Attorney-General said that
he was going to introduce a bill to declare what a news-
paper was in such a way as to exclude from the operation
of the present Newspaper Stamp Act certain monthly pub-
lications. He (Mr. Gibson) thought, however, that the de-
finition which the learned gentleman had given would ex-
tend
the operation of the Stamp Act to publications which
were not now liable to duty ; and if that were so, he presumed
that the house should resolve itself into a committee upon
the newspaper stamp laws before the bill was introduced.
He thought that the proposed bill would extend the opera-
tion of the Stamp Act, because, from the Attorney-General's
remarks it appeared that no papers were for the future to be
considered newspapers which were published at a longer
interval than once in 26 days, but that all papers published
at less intervals than 26 days were to be considered news-
papers. Now all papers of more than two sheets, and at a
higher price than 6d., might now be published more fre-
quently than once in 26 days, without being liable to
stamp duty. These, however, would be brought under
the operation of the Stamp Act by the new definition
given by the Attorney-General, and therefore he thought
that the introduction of the bill should be preceded by a
committee of the whole house. Great injustice had been
done to small newspaper proprietors throughout the country
whose papers had been suppressed by letters from the In-
land Revenue-office. When, however, they proceeded
against Mr. Dickens, a gentleman of great influence and
popularity, they were frightened out of their proceedings,
and brought in a bill to declare that these publications
never had been newspapers. What compensation did
they intend to offer to those persons whose papers
had been suppressed on the ground that they were
newspapers ? (Cries of " Hear, hear.") He was con-
vinced that when the new bill came to be discussed it
would appear that the new definition of a newspaper was
just as unsound as the old one ; and, if under it they prose-
cuted persons for publishing unstamped papers, they would
again be obliged to introduce a new declaratory bill. In a
future stage of the bill he should feel it his duty to point
out how completely inadequate this bill would be to define
what was a newspaper. In conclusion he begged to ask
the opinion of the Speaker upon the point of form to which
he had alluded ?
The SPEAKER said that no doubt, if the effect of the
bill was to impose an additional stamp duty, it should be
introduced by a committee of the whole house ; it was,
however, impossible for him to say whether this would be
its effect' until it was introduced, and he had an opportu-
nity of examining it.
Mr. GIBSON asked whether it would not be better for
the Attorney-General to keep himself on the safe side, and
to move the bill in a committee of the whole house ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that, in his
opinion, the bill would not bring within the definition of
newspapers publications not now liable to the stamp duties.
He would, therefore, take his chance, and introduce the
bill then.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill, which was
forthwith brought in by the Attorney-General.
RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.

-----
Mr. HENLEY then moved for a select committee to
consider the principle of amalgamation, as applied to rail-
way and canal bills about to be brought under the conside-
raton of Parliament. No doubt the house was aware
that there wore at present public notices given fora very
considerable number of railway bills, he believed for 150 or
160,amongst which were more than twenty which were called
amalgamation bills. Some of these were of so extensive
a character that the house had not hitherto had to deal with
similar questions of anything like equal importance. It
was not necessary for him to call the attention of the
house to the vast magnitude and importance of this
subject, because it would be evident to every one
who considered this matter at all, that, if these
amalgamations went on they would lay the foundation of a
state of things which at no very distant period would
force the house to consider whether the whole locomotion
of the kingdom should or should not pass, or be liable to
pass, into one and the same management. For if the
amalgamations proposed this year were allowed to be car-
ried into effect, there would beta natural tendency on the
part of the groups thus formed to coalesce again, and to go
on in this way until all the railways were united in one
concern. The first practical question to which they had
to turn their attention was, what was to become of these
bills when they were sent, in the ordinary course of pro-
ceedings in the house, before the select committees ?
He thought every one would agree with him, that it
would hardly do to let matters of such vast importance
go for discussion to any five gentlemen without some
general view having been taken beforehand, and some
general
either
or regulation having been laid down, by
which either in the shape of standing orders or other-
wise) t e attention of these several select committees
might be drawn to particular points, and they might be
desirre to express an opinion upon, or to call the
attention of the house to those particidar points as
they arose in detail. Of course, if the house agreed to
appoint such a committee as he recommended, the first
point which they would have to consider was the prelimi-
nary question whether these large amalgamations should be
sanctioned or not. Of course it would naturally occur to
honourable members what power the railways had of effect-
ing these amalgamations by arrangements concluded with-
out reference to the house, and it would bo a question for
them to consider whether such an arrangement, over which
they had no control, might not press much more severely
upon the public than if they were made wider the sanction
and upon the conditions laid down by Parliament. Sup-
pose it should be considered prudent not to negative amal-
gamations, but to place them under sound regulations, the
course of inquiry would naturally branch into three or four

distinct heads. (Hear, hear.) There would be first, the
conditions to be laid down to guard the interest of parties
who proposed to amalgamate, which were by no means of
a simple character. (Hear, hear.) It must be deter-
mined whether the parties should be obliged, before
they got their amalgamation act, to consolidate their own
laws, so that the shareholders should know what their
interests were ' • and, at all events, their rights and
interests should be defined in so clear a manner that when
the Legislature came to marry these parties together, they
should have a better chance of knowing what their inter-
ests were, and how they would be affected by amalgamation.
(Hear.) Another class of parties whose interests should be
guarded were the lessors of railways. There were rever-
sionary interests in these lessors which may or may not be
injured by amalgamation. But Parliament should take
care that their interests were properly looked after. There
was also another class of persons who perhaps might have
no locus standi before a select committee, but who might
be deeply interested in amalgamation. These were pro-
prietors of canals or lines of railway running parallel or
near the parties who proposed to' amalgamate, who might
be deeply affected by this amalgamation, and who should
not be shut out from having their interests properly secured.
They came, then, to the larger and more important question
—how the public interest was to be guarded and watched.
The first question was by what means security should be
taken that the railways should be kept open through their
entire length and breadth ; and that no portion should be
shut up, by which means the public would be deprived of
accommodation which they had previously possessed.
How far such a course as he proposed ought to be enforced
as to the gross returns on these lines, and on each parti-
cular portion of these lines, was also a question to be con-
sidered. The next point was as to fares. At present the
railways were running within the maximun tolls allowed
by law ; but he thought it quite proper that it should be
carefully looked into by this committee, what provision
should be laid down to guard the public against having
tolls unduly levied. Another point was as to the general
power of regulating
railways, and this mast also come
under the committee's consideration, who, lowever, could
not judge of it without looking closely, not only into the
powers already existing by law, but also into the way in
which they had been exercised. As regarded the desira-
bility of any Government control, there was, he thought, no
question that any such must be limited to this extent--that
you should not in any way relieve the railway bodies of the
responsibility of their acts ; that you should tot carry it to
such a point as to i run any risk of an interference which,
under any pretence whatever,- could be thought to relieve
the railway bodies of their responsibilities in carrying
on their affairs—which they did, though, generally, he
was bound to say, for the advantage ani benefit of
the public as well as for their own. Before concluding, he
would say a few words with regard to the quantity of acci-
dents which had occurred on railways, with a view to dis-
sipating the erroneous impression that accidents had very
much increased. The different railway companies were
obliged to make returns to the Board of Trade of all acci-
dents where any serious injuries occurred. " Serious in-
jury " might perhaps be an indefinite term, on the signifi-
cation of which the railway authorities and the sufferers
would in certain cases disagree • but, however this might
be, there was no reason why railway authorities should
view such injuries differently in one year and another. So
far therefore, the comparison would hold. His list com-
prised the last three years, and accidents arising from
causes out of the control of the parties injured. In 1850
there were 117 such accidents • in 1851, 122 ; and in 1852,
up to the 30th November, 104. There had then certainly
been no increase of accidents ; on the contrary; rather a di-
minution ; and at the same time the traffic had very much
increased, and especially the excursion traffic—the kind of
traffic to which many of these calamities had been attri-
buted. He begged to conclude by moving for "A select
committee to consider the principle of amalgamation as
applied to railway or railway and canal bills about to be
brought under the consideration of Parliament ;" and he
had been requested. to add, "to consider the principles
which ought to guide the house in railway legislation."
Mr. LOCKE was glad that it was not intended to dimi-
nish the responsibilities which at present attached to rail-
way bodies. If he understood the right honourable gentle-
man correctly,' the committee was to inquire into the
powers of railway companies, and also to inquire how far
the powers allowed had been fulfilled. He would put this
case :—A company came to Parliament, and asked for
powers to complete a railway ; these powers it allowed to
expire, and after the lapse of a considerable time left the
landowners and the country totally without the line they
had expected. Such companies there were in Parliament
this year, asking for other power', whilst not having exe-
cuted those already granted them. That was a case requiring
consideration. But he could instance a still stronger one. A
railway company obtained power from the house to execute
a railway of given length; after three or four years their
funds became deficient; they determined to stop all fur-
ther proceedings ; they appointed a committee ; that com-
mittee recommended them to go half way, and no further ;
the shareholders agreed. What, he asked, would be
the disposition of Parliament with reference to such a
company—a company which, having obtained powers on
the supposition that it had a right to take merely a portion
of the line ? He wanted to know whether a case of that
kind would come under the operation of the committee ?
If so, he should be satisfied ; if not, he must himself press
it upon the attention of the house.
Mr. HUDSON hoped that Parliament would not force
upon companies the execution of schemes which must in-
volve considerable loss. He trusted that the right hon.
gentleman would confine his committee to the principles
which he had already laid down. They were extensive
enough ; indeed, he thought far too extensive. Do not let
them go into the question of abandoned railways, and call
upon companies to complete worthless schemes. He was
rather surprised to find the hon. member opposite (Mr.
Locke) proposing what he did.
Mr. LAING, himself interested in railways, thanked the
right honourable gentleman for this measure, as well as for
the terms in which he had spoken of that interest. These
questions were of that importance that made it desirable
they should be investigated, and settled, as soon as pos-
sible, on some sound and intelligible footing. No persons
were more anxious than railway directors for this, and he
did hop, tirat-carvftbrb would new 1.11,7 made: by rentody
evils of railway legislation, and settle it on a sounder and
better basis for the future. In 1844 a select committee
was appointed, and, after very careful investigation, laid
down principles which he thought were never impugned.
Those principles, unfortunately, were swept away by the
torrent of speculation in 1845. And what was the conse-
quence ? The consequence was that we had now about
7,000 miles of railway, which had cost on the average
about 36,0001. sterling per mile. Look at the cost in
other countries—in France. for example--where, the price
of iron and materials being higher, you might expect
the cost of a railway to be greater even than in
England ; it was, in fact, many thousands a mile less.
He believed there was no more certain propositions than
that the cost of anything, whether railway travelling, corn,
or cotton, would in the long ran be regulated by the prime
cost of the article. If they, therefore, multiplied lines of
railway where one would suffice, they incurred so much the
more expense, and in the long run the public would have to
pay so much the more for the accommodation afforded. A
great source of the complaints now so rife amongst the
public arose from the state
into which the property of the
companies had been brought by legislation and other cir-
cumstances ; for, after so
many years increasing traffic, it
would be found, on looking at the share list, that the great
bulk of it was at a discount, or paying very inadequate
returns for the capital invested. With regard to the acci-
dents on railways, their number had been much overrated.
Looking at the number and speed of the trains, and the
number of passengers they conveyed, the wonder was,_ not
that so many, but that so few, accidents should have
taken place, and that the number should be small when
compared either with what took place under the for-
mer system of travelling or on the foreign railroads.
The true interests of the public and the companies were,
he believed, identical ; and if amalgamations were to
be carried into effect, it must not be on the ground of ad-
vantage resulting to the railway interest, but to the
public. The extravagant cost of the railways of this coun-
try sufficiently showed the vice of the system under which
they had been constructed, We had now 7,000 miles of
railway, which had cost at an average 36,000/. a mile, or
250,000,0001. in the whole ; whereas the French lines had
been constructed at an average
of 25,0001. a mile, and
We
from 15,0001. to 20,0001. for the branch lines. There was
thus a positive loss shown, as incurred by the English
companies, of 10,0001. a mile, or
70,000,000/• in the whole,
which, for all practical ro am
- doubted
might as well have been
thrown into the sea. He oubted not that if our railways
had to be made over again,
the saving of cost might
amount to fully this sum.
Mr. GLADSTONE was glad that the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed to appoint this committee. It was quite
obvious that the subject of railway amalgamation among
the great companies deserved every attention. Even if it
had not now been proposed to amalgamate those concerns,
yet the state into which railway companies without legis-
lative powers of regulation had come would by this time
have deserved the attention of Parliament, and the
amalgamation which it was now proposed to effect gave
a favourable opportunity of re-opening
the whole question.
He agreed entirely with what fell from the right hon. gen-
tleman the President of the Board of Trade, so far as it
went ; but he could not help hoping that the matter would
be carried a little further, and some solution attempted to
the great difficulties which had heretofore attended the
question of railway legislation. One great effort to solve
those difficulties had been made by the Government of Sir
R. Peel in 1844 and 1845, which failed in the face of diffi-
culties which had undoubtedly prevented its being fol-
lowed up hitherto. At the same time, he thought the ex-
perience of 7 or 8 years had produced
great regret in the
public mind that it had not been followed up. They had
seen enormous evils resulting from the incapacity—he was
sorry to use this term,
and
other subject would
he consent to use it—or the cowardice of Parliament in
dealing with the subject. Parliament had never grappled
withloss of 70,000,0001. of capital, as stated by his honourable
friend who spoke last, the execution of the works in
had been the
aless its
perfect
difficulties,style, andand tah e consequencesg
reat
increase of public dis-
satisfaction. Not only this, but railway speculation in
times of commercial prosperity assumed so extravagant and
feverish a character that all parties ran mad with it, and it
adilwvaaryitcaograeopusanies
and
became one of the great causes of commercial derangement.
(Hear, hear.) He was one of those who thought no good
of government de-
partments. The only method to
whichillg
of a community of
he looked with
results and lead to
the public.
He trusted that Government would not rest satisfied
without an endeavour to introduce not only better
hin°tPeeresatss likely
yete tYlineeldrit
wasa
b better t ebre system,effected wasby tthhee n
establishmentte rine
principles, but better regulation in the conduct of railway

business. great satisfaction what
hair fallee°nWfrANom btahaehrearreasideTthof the Board of Trade.
He wished to know what the effect of the committee
would be with regard to proceeding with the new
railway
bills ?
General ANSON felt that increased control on the part
of Government would be necessary if the amalgamation of
companies should be carried out, and was of opinion that
the public interests would thus be better cared for. , He
wished to assure the house that the company with which
he was connected would be satisfied with any dedsitni to
which Parliament cam; the system hitherto pursued being
extremely injurious to all who had invested their capital in
railways.
Mr. MANGLES hoped the right hon. gentleman would
.not stop short merely with the report of the committee,
and thus throw the whole subject over to any future com-
' mittees that might be appointed.
Mr. E. DENISON thought that most of those who had
examined the question had come to the conclusion that
competition was no security to the public as regarded rail-
way; and trusted that their legislation might be founded
on this principle.
Mr. HENLEY said it would be for the committee to de-
cide whether the new bills should be suspended or not.
With respect to its composition, he thought it should con-
sist as much as possible of gentlemen unconnected with the
railway interest, and hoped that would be the general wish
of the house.
The motion was then agreed to.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock.