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

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 stcouli 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.
Tho 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 wore running within the maximum 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 must also come
under the committee's consideration, who, however, 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 not carry it to
such a point as to 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 and 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 ast 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 powers, 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 ? Ho 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.
Ms. 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 hope that an effort would now be made to remedy the
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 ; ib 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 run 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 36,0001. 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
from 15,0001. to 20,0001. for the blanch lines. There was
thus a positive loss shown, as incurred by the English
companies, of 10,0001. a mile, or 70,000,0001. in the whole,
which, for all practical purposes, might as well have been
thrown into the sea. He doubted 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. Ono great effort to solve
those difficulties had been made by the Government of Sir
It. 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 on no other subject would
he consent to use it—or the cowardice of Parliament in
dealing with the subject. Parliament had never grappled
with its difficulties, and the consequences had been the
loss of 70,000,0001. of capital, as stated by his honourable
friend who spoke last, the execution of the works in
a less perfect style, and a great 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
became one of the great causes of commercial derangement.
(Hear, hear.) He was one of those who thought no good
was to be effected by the intermeddling of government de-
partments. The only method to which he looked with
hope, as likely to yield advantageous results and lead to
a better system, was the establishment of a community of
interests between the railway companies and the public.
He trusted that Government would not rest satisfied
without an endeavour to introduce not only better
principles, but better regulation in the conduct of railway
business.
Mr. COWAN had heard with great satisfaction what
had fallen from the President of 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 decision to
which Parliament came, 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-
ways, 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, ho 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.