The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-05 00:00:00

AL -PAR,LIAMENT!

IMPERI

HOUSE OF COMMONS—{YESTERDAY.)
- RAILWAY LEGLSLATION.
On the motion that the Speaker leave thechair
•
Mr. EVELYN DENISON said he did not object to the
principle of the bill, but complained that the .legislation
with respect to railways had been contradictory and highly
injurious to that interest. The questions of amalgams.
tion,Tunnieg clauses, gauges, and many other important '
matters, he observed, require immediate settlement. The
corapanies•had come before the committee with the greatest
candour and fairness, and although Government had taken
a certain degree of control over the companies, it had not
given them in.retarn any improved legislation.,
Mr. HUME complained that the present bill saerifioed
the interest of private individuals, to large public bodies.
He desired that an authorised body-L-the Board of Trade,
fdr• instances—amenable to the house. and • the ' country,
should have complete power over the operatious of railways.
Mr. F. EGERTON preferred the original to the amended •
bill, inasmuch as by the forther the Board of Trade could
act upon the complaints of the public, but by the latter
only 'upon those of the law courts or the railway companies
themselves. He announced his intention of moving at
amendment to rectify this and other defects in the measure
as it stood at present.
Mr. MANGLES, after an elaborate review of the policy
hitherto deliberately pursued by. the house in legislating
for• railways, trusted that the companies would not be
handed over to the tender mercies of the Board of Trade,
bat that their reasonable representation would be listened
to. He maintained that the public had no reason to com-
plain of the principle of iompetition originally laid down,
_from which they had derived great benefits: On the con•
trary, the legislature alone, andnot the railway companies,
was responsible for the waste and expenditure incurred
under the operation of that principle.
'Me. WILKINSON. considered the bill could not fail to -
promote the interests a the public as Wellas those of the
railway companies.' • -
Mr. HENLEY ' denounced the bill as a pitfall for, the
public—full of general phrases, all very, well in them-
selves, but of no practical good to the country.
After a few words from Mr. E. SCIILLY, -
Mr. JAMES M`GREGOR said the hon. member for
Lambeth had stated that railway proprietors in England
had received less protection for their property than in any
railway action
providing
other country in Europe. The hon. member might have
gone farther,
; iearther, and said that. railway proprietors in England
hadn suffered grievous-lows-a that it was a most depressed
and in hie judgment, that' depression was caused
by the
tahaaotfwPharenlievamerenft In
alwr4y 1844 an
a n acltOwpeasrpaacealeitd.
dividend,
the Government should have power to purchase
it. That gave the impression that railways were safe in-
A'e
sanctionedeaansmede 'lts.could by yni:t The
principle of competition followed, also
be
appreciated
ird
bdythe
thoseru iwnhtnhaknt tehwa twhliandt
was going on. The estimates made for the construction of
railways were often insufficient, so that lines which were
estimated to cost li millions were frequently found to cost
from three to four millions sterling ; and besides that there
was a constant outlay of capital icing on, all for. the public
advantage. The railway interest, therefore. appeared be-
fore the house in forma pauperis, and the question ought
to be, what could be done to remedy their present dis-
tress? But his right hon. friend proposed to legislate
elements
Im
for the' railway interest as .if it
itwedried,ogrnee,cot
an-toi
nwfhooolem,poinssitetiadon
aandwonf difficulty.tainingas The right hon. gentle-
man took away from them the advantages of competition,
and he gave them nothing in return. Hachought the ex-
penditure of 300 millions sterling in g public under-
takings, which had contributed the utmost possible benefit
to the public interest, ought not to remain in its present
state of perilous uncertainty. The value of railway pro-
perty
at present depended upon accident, for if money
should fall to 2 or .3 per cent. the railway property of the
country would in all, probability be doubled, and the exist-
ing interests would be ruined. Last year the committee
which sat upon this question had recommended working
arrangements between the different companies, which he
had no doubt would have led to amalgamation, and by •
giving railways one united interest would have paved the
way for this legislation on general principles. That system
was adopted in the former hill, but it did not 'appear in
the present. He
.hoped, however, the right honourable
gentleman would give his attention to the devisingof some
plan for putting. an 'end to the conflicts that were now
going on, for till •that was done' this bill would be a one•
eidedmeasure, doing everything for thepublic, but nothing
for the railway interest.
Mr. BENTINCK asked the right honourable gentleman
whether the present bill was to-be all the legislation for the
Present year,.or whether he meant to bring in a measure to
prevent accidents in railtvay traffic.
Mr. CARDWELL said such a bill would be introduced
almost immediately.
Mr.- ATHERTON was of opinion that the bill violated
no constitutional principle and wrought no injury to pro-
perty, while it conferred great benefits upon the public.
His objections to the former measure were obviated by
transferring to the' judges the- powers which .it proposed
to entrust to the Board of Trade.
Mr. WHITESIDE thought that the proposals of the
Board of Trade entitled them to the gratitude of the
house. In fact, he (lid not see how the judges were to pro-
ceed ;, and as the bill had been praised for giving cheap and
flummery remedies, he was induced to ask what those re-
medies might be.
Mi. CARDWELL said after the debate they had just
heard, they. would all -adinit that whoever attempted to
settle the claims of the public against the railway com-
panies, and at the same time to respect the just interests of
those who had invested a large capital in works of great
public utility, and who were certainly deriving no great
amount of remuneration—whoever attempted to do that,
after the complicated and not very consistent legislation of
the last 20 years, would undertake a very difficult task. ' The
question Was, had the fovernment addressed themselves to
the undertaking with an. anxious desire to resolve the diffi-
eulty ; and in reply he would appeal to the report and evidence
which were laid upon the table last year. The hon. mem
ber for Melton (Mr. E. Denison) was surprised that some
matters had not found their place in the present bill. His
'(Mr. Caudwell's) answer was that the present billonly pro-
posed to deal with a part of the case. Others parts of it
had already been dealt with by standing orders and by
changes in their mode of proceeding in that house. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) complained that he did
not deal with einalgamation. He had been willing to under-
take the labour arid respqnsibility of dealing with that sub-
ject, and clauses were put in the bill as it originally stood
for the purpose. But it was found 'that the object could
not be accomplished by statute. Suppose they had settled
by statute the terms upon which amalgamations should be
made in future, the very first private bill which dissented
from it would repeal the act, and leave things as they were
Still, the question bad been dealt with by resolution
namely, by the resolution in which they had fully disposed
of the question as far as it was possible for a general com-
mittee upon general evidence to dispose of it. Then, again,
it was said that the bill did not touch running powers.
The reason why he did not meddle with that subject, too,
aas becausr the first private bill that varied those powers
would repeal any statute they might pass on the subject.
But they had by resolution endeavoured to express the de-
termination of the house ; and further than that they
could not go. Then it was said that he had provided no
improved legislation for the future. His belief, however,
was that the intercommunication of the members
and especially of the chairmen of railway, committees;
would have the effect of greatly improving their legislation.
and of preserving that unity and consistency which could
not be maintained, sp long as the legislation was committed'
to single committees, having no communication with each -
Other. (Hear,• hear), These were the recommendations
which the Government had made upon these subjects. He
did not mean to claim any particular amount of ingenuity,
or any other virtue— He would only say that they had
endeavoured to deal with the matter according to the best
of their ability ; and he would only state his opinion that
it was impossible to embody in a statute the subjects which
the hon. gentleman was sepprised not to find in theme bill.
He (Mr. Cardwell) had met with the same encouragent
which he believed had been dealt out to all his predecessors
—that was to say, objections to his plan-had come from
all quarters of the heavens, and the most opposite effects
had been attributed to his proposed legislation. Some hon.
gentlemen said that it was a bill entirely for the public ;
and some, that it was a bill wholly for the companies.
Perhaps the shortest answer would be to state what the
bill really was. The first clause in its
enfiwmitthionresopfectthten two things. First, it included, in language w
present stialitcehdhide
dbueltiienvsendf trao i
lbwe
Ilya ecaoetnapna dn i
eascctuoratthee,
paubldi
services performed upon their own ties. Mr Henley had
" rendered it •
a nullity. The.
complained that the frequent qualification of the clause
by the word "reasonable
reason why that word was so often repeated was this. The
object of that portion of the bill was to apply the old law
relating to common carriers upon the common roads to the
altered state of things upon—railways ; and the word
" ressono,ble" was the legal definition of these duties.
..(Hear, hear.) The second part of the clause not merely
placed a statutory obligation upon the-several companies to
adjust their traffic with a due regard to the convenience of
the public upon their separate railways ; but it also im-
posed upon them an obligation in making their regulations
reciprocally and mutually to consult one another, in order
that persons might pass from one line to another with the
utmost possible facility. (Cheers.) Then came the ques-
tion, what ought to be the nature of the tribunal to
enforce these 'obligations?. • There were two distinct
opinions upon. this isoiet. , There were some high authori-
ties who thought that the matter ought to be referred to a
responsible body of the executive government, which should
operate as a kind of board of control, ,and which should
regulate these matters on behalf of the companies. On.the
other hand there were others. who thought that as mOor
questions of finance would arise it world •be unconstitu•
tional to hand: over matters of 'private capital to the add.
trary determination of a government department. (Hear.
hear.). They might say that this was an objection that
ought not to prevail, but at all . events it was
One that ought to be duly weighed and considered. That
was Weighed and considered by, the committee of last
year,
,as .a short extract from their report would show.
They said--••." The control that is to be applied, when actu-
ally applied, must be arbitrary in its nature, and tree from
all teohni.,l fetters ; and since the exercise of it will,al-
ways affect the pecuniary interests of the company, your
committee feel that its exercise must be carefully guarded.
i . s . • . The constitution of the executive govern-
-1 ment is unfavourable to the determination of such ques-
tions; and your committee recommend that the fact of
wrong having been done by the company should filet be
substantiated before a public tribunal, and that the aid_ of
the executive department should be afforded to that tri-
bunal in 'forming its decisions." In the bill as origirliT
proposed, and as it now stood there was no attenaßetot,
4 h the. lan-
there was a proposal in exact conformity in
counter to this recommendation of the coreritt but
guage of that recommendation„—that w
anies should
il enactment, it bad been declared that the comp
it had.
afford facilities, and when by legal investigation then
'boon established that they had failed to do so, the eats-
hen, by statutory,
On behalf of the eat
bunal in determining the matter. .
te
cithobljteche;t
cutive government should afford it assistancae toththgre tri-
aathise°nßoaanaloof eTrriladhaea
railway companies, Ala Beckett
.hiin
at
rw.riettadiaffeescst thaecor-oeapterpaubllgi utreuy:ehatridedeattxPtienseteregvti°l,wei
Covertnnent inearrying in o e g
-which it had in view -of securing all reasonable facilities
and interc,oramiinication ;e but they preferred that the all.
plication should be a very ummary one to a court of law,
which should have full power to refer it to any compe-
tent person ; and promised that they would assist in after&
lag the most stringent remedies to enforce the right on the
part of the public. He should have acted most unreason•
ably had he not considered the full effect of such a pro.
postO. _ He did so, and came to the conchasion that the
public object in view would be as-effectually attained by
the bill in the mode in which they were willing to accept
it as in-any other form of language. Reference had been
made to voluntary arbitration. So far as that was con-
cerned, no enactment was required, beconte it carried with
it-lie-power; • ale )3oard- of.. Trade was in.tha dailyl44t
-ligtit 01 9.o4lWilag 4tea tb,e raj= comsaiell ncb ent,