The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-25 00:00:00

Railroads were to pass.—(hear, hear, and laughter. )
Fortunately for the Company, a part of the line by which
they were to cut off an angle was to go through the important
towns of Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Coventry; part
of the line consisted in a continuation from their terminus at
Tamworth ; and if they were compelled to stop at Tamworth,
and the other Company should not succeed in going farther,
the saving a distance of nine miles would he reduced to the
satin;; of only one. It was for the saving of one mile
therefore, if the line from Tamworth to Rugely did not
take place, that an expenditure of eight million pounds
hart already been sanctioned, and they were now called upon
to sanction the expenditure of 1,200,001)1. mare. The matter
had already been before the Standing Orders rommittcc, and
he had been told there were forty-five objections taken in point
of form to the Standing Orders. The Tamworth and hugely
Bill was out of Parliament, and therefore must be treated as a
Bill not in existence. By allowing the present measure to pass,
the I louse would be sanctioning the committal of an outrage to the
great prejudice of parties who had not received a farthing., and
would force them to incur the obligation of expending a Liege sum
more unnecessarily, as he contended, and prejudicial to the
interests of those who had been parties to the undertaking.
What did he ask ? Did he ask the House to pronounce that at
no time should a line be sanctioned between Stone and Rudely,
which should make a shorter line than the present? Ho did
no such thing; on the contrary, what he said was that if it
should hereafter be proved the profit on the original great
undertaking had been such as to warrant the intro-
duction of another line,—( Hear, hear,)—that other line
ought to be made, and no opposition on his part should
be given to its being made. But what he objected
to was, that before a single farthing of profit had been
repaid—before the original grand undertaking had been
completed—before the parties could see whether it had
been profitable or not, that another Company should be
. permitted to step in and to take that course which in all
human probability would ruin the one line and the other.
Under these circumstances, the Bill being divided into two
Parte, he did not think he asked too much that the parties
should not during the present year go further than Stone, and
that they should be called upon to postpone the consideration
of the remainder. Upon the part of the two great Companies
which he had mentioned, hip would be ready to withdraw all
opposition to the present Bill, provided a pledge was given
that they should not attempt to extend their line during the
present session farther than Stone. He did not think it fair
towards those who had, on the faith of that House, laid out a
large capital, that they would not have time to finish their line
and see if it would pay them for the sums expended on the un-
dertaking. He would be ready, as regarded the two compet-
ing companies, to go into the Committee, in order to ascer-
tain the relative merits of each, and which would be attended
with more advantage to the public. It so happened that the
only Railway in which be was personally interested was that
which went through Macclesfield, and that was the one he now
opposed. He had no objection that a line should run between
Stafford and Stone, but he wished the House to do justice to
'its own principles, and to the parties who had, relying on
the faith of the report to the House, laid out a very large
capital ; and to him it appeared but fair that time should be
allowed to ascertain if the undertaking was a profitable specu-
lation. All he wished the House to do was to separate the two
questions. If there was any other course of proceeding by
which he could attain his object, he could assure Hon. Gen-
tlemen he would be very unwilling to take the sense of the
House on the second reading, and he should be unwillingly,
obliged to conclude by proposing that the Bill be read a se-
cond time that day six months.
Sir R. PEEL was very sorry that he was under the neces-
sity of offering a competing line of argument to the line of his
Noble Friend—( A Laugh)—but if he did not succeed in show-
ing that the plans and surveys of his Noble Friend's line were
inadequate, he should never attempt to compete with him
again. He would show the House that the termini of the line
his Noble Friend had taken, were the prevention of inquiry,
and the protection of monopoly.—( Hear, and laughter.) He
(Sir R. Peel) had no more to do with the suggestion of the
line of railway to Tamworth, than any gentleman that heard
him ; and his interest in the promotion of the line was con-
fined to the presentation of a petition in its favour. But as to
taking any part in the selection of that line to Tamworth,
he had never, directly or indirectly, any connexion with it.
( Hear.) Let Hon. Members look to the map—let them go
into Committee, and if they thought the line taken through
Tamworth was eligible, merely because it might command a
certain influence, let them reject it altogether. Nothing
would be more unfair than to select any town in the hope that
any particular interest might be favourable, or any particular
support conceded. All he hoped for was, that the Committee
would be granted, and the allegations on both sides submitted
to the test of investigation. He did not appeal to gentlemen
connected with the Birmingham and Derby, the Tamworth,
or any other competing line; but he appealed to that part of
the House which had no interest in the matter ; and if, after a
severe scrutiny and inquiry, he did not convince them that the
line which he advocated was the best, let them reject it alto-
gether; but he was satisfied that his case was so strong that
no ingenuity, not even the talent of his Noble. Friend, could
fur an instant stand up against it. The House had ap-
pointed a Committee last year, for the purpose of laying
down certain rules to which parties seeking Railways should
adhere. It was required that certain notices should be
giver, ; and the regulassions were altogether exceedingly strict.
That Committee had considered whether Government should
not interfere in these undertakings, and employ engineers to
survey those lines which might be selected as , the best ; and
they had laid down in their report this principle—the only prin-
ciple upon which that country could ever speculate in matters of
public improvement—and they had observed that upon the whole
it appeared best to leave railways in Great Britain like all other
railways, to be decided upon by the judgment and interest of
those willing to embark their capital in them, subject
to the scrutiny and control of Parliament, and they had also
proposed that the time taken by these Railway Bills in passing
through the House should be prolonged. The South Union
Railway Company had gone to an immense expense,
and had complied with all those regulations ; and the
Noble Lord now asked the House, in consequence of the
expense that another Company had been put to, to prevent
inquiry, and put an extinguisher upon them, and if so, the
Manchester Company would be reimbursed for their expendi-
ture. The Noble Lord further stated that they bad done all
that upon the faith of Parliament; but it was no such thing.
Parliament had merely said that if they made surveys and
submitted their plan to it, they would investigate and
scrutinize it—and if it seemed likely to promote the interests
of the public and the shareholders, they would pass it.
Were these Companies so careful of the property of the
Canals when they were instituted ? No. Did they think
of the interests of the Turnpike Trusts? No ; Those that em-
barked capital in such undertakings did it at a risk,
and by that risk they must abide. Now, what were the facts?
Why, his friend said " have pity on the whole line of Companies
between London and Liverpool." Why, on the Manchester and
Liverpool Railway alone there had been a profit of no less
than 1241. on every share, the original price being 100/., and
the present 224/. per share. Was a man who had gained
1241. by every share in a speculation into which he had
entered, and who by that speculation had destroyed the
capital and the interests of road contractors, stage coach
proprietors and stage coachmen—was he to ask for protection
from competition ?—(Hear and cheers.) He would take the
London and Birmingham Company, and the direct line,
and ho would state this, that some time after the Act
was passed for the formation of that Company, its shares
were sold at no less a premium than 701. or 801. ; so that, not-
withstanding all the expenses that had been incurred, those
gentlemen who had paid down 51. for every 100.. share
were enabled to receive 851. by putting them up to
sale in the market.--( Hear, hear.) He ( Sir R. Peel)
had a friend who had no less than 1,100 shares in the Bir-
mingham Company, and if he had only selected the proper
time for their sale, he might have realised no less a sum than
70,0001.—(Cheers.) At the present time shares were at a
great premium, he believed as much as 401. or 50/.
but at all events some short time since, tho premium was as
high as 701. Was it fair then, he would ask, that a Company
which had been selling their shares at such enormous pre-
miums, should have a right to ask the House for protection
from fair competition ?—( Hear, hear.) The question was, was
this Manchester and 'Tamworth Railway a bone fide Company,
and if it was not, he should say discountenance it at once. He
believed that it required the greatest caution in the formation
of schemes that partook at all of the character of speculation. If
this was a speculation let it be discountenanced. But what
were the facts with respect to it? There were 20,090 shares
in the Company, and what was required as evidence of its
being a bona fide one? Why, first of all, that persons of pro-
perty should hold its shares ; and next, that the consent of the
landholders should be obtained. The price of the shares was 1001.,
and out of the 20,000 no less than 14,500 shares had been sub-
scribed for by persons of the greatest respectability in Manchester.
Twenty -four thousand shares had been asked for, and they had
kept in reserve a cert tin number of shares. Three fourths of the
landholders on the line had consented. There were 72 miles
of railroad, and for 55 miles of that line the assent of the pro-
prietors of the land had been given. Was it possible, then,
for the House of Commons, without hearing one word of the
evidence in detail by which the Bill would be supported—was
it possible he would ask to reject the Bill? (An Hon. Mem-
ber here reminded the Right Hon. Baronet of the Grand
Junction Railway Bill.) With respect to the Grand Junction
Railway Bill he knew a gentleman who had 100 shares,
and who gold them, realizing a profit of eel. upon every share;
and yet this gentleman and others realizing Such a profit had
the modesty to'come and ask the House to protect them from
all competition.—( Cheers.) The House might depend upon
it that fair competition was the best by which such
things as these were to be determined.—(Hear, hear.)
A scrutiny before a Committee of the House of Commons,
and fair competition, was the only way to arrive at a beneficial
result. His Noble Friend said that the measure should
be postponed for another year, He (Sir Robert Peel)
said, decide it, one way or other, at the present moment.
If it was_right that the railway should beis
strongmad ground ine, make it at
once ; if it should be rejected, reject it at once ; but let not
the landowner be kept in suspense. His
favour of the Bill was this, that the Manchester Company
had adhered to the resolutions prescribed, and that the faith
of Parliament had not been given to one line in particular, but
had left it open to fair competition, He trusted gentlemen of
Scotland and Ireland would permit fair competition, He
trusted that they would permit the people of England to make
what railways they pleased at their owe expence. If the
House precluded inquiry, in his opinion they would be
establishing a precedent which would be attended by
the worst results, as it would prevent parties from having that
full and fair examination which they were entitled to. He
trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be
read a second time.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that in the few observa-
tions he felt bound to make, if he mentioned any personal
interests, the speeches they had just heard would afford a
high authority. The truth, however, was that be had no per.