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

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

Lord J. RUSSELL said if the house had no objection
he should propose to go on with the railway bill this even-
ing, before they proceeded to consider the other orders.
After a few words from the Marquis of CHANDOS,
Mr. CARDWELL said he was perfectly willing to pass
the bill through committee pro forma now, and then to
reprint the bill.
The other orders having been postponed for the purpose,
Mr. CARDWELL moved that the Speaker do leave the
chair for koing into committee on the bid.
Mr. RICARDO moved that the debate be adjourned, as
this was an entirely new bill, and there ought to be time
for considering it.
Mr. HUDSON did not object to go into committee now.
Mr. T. DUNCONIBE had come down to the house under
the impression that they were to take the Oxford 'Univer-
sity Bill the first thing, but now it appeared this railway
bill was to be smuggled through. He was afraid the Go-
vernment had succumbed to the railway interest, and the
public interest was about to be sacrificed. The fact was
the house was packed with salaried railway chairmen and
directors, and so long as they voted upon these questions
the public would have no confidence in its legislation.
Mr. HUME also protested against taking this bill out
of its order.
Sir B. HALL complained that this bill favoured the
railway interest at the expense of the public.
Mr. CARDWELL opposed the motion for adjournment,
and remarked that the reason this order did not stand
first on the paper was because the Government had no
control over the arrangement of the orders on Thursdays.
Sir G. GREY hoped that Government would obtain
that control for the future.
Mr. BRIGHT objected to going on with the bill, as no
notice had been given that it would be brought forward
to-night.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, on the other hand, had come
down in the belief that the railway.bill would be taken
first.

After some further discussion, the house divided, when
there appeared—
For the adjournment of the debate
Against it
On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair,
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 amalgama-
tion, running clauses, gauges. and many other important
matters, -he observed, require immediate settlement. The
companies 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 return any improved legislation.
Mr. HUME complained that the present bill sacrificed
the interest of private individuals to large public bodies.
He desired that an authorised body—the Board of Trade,
for instance—amenable to the house and the country,
should have complete power over the operations of railways.
Mr. F. EGERTON preferred the original to the amended
bill, inasmuch as by the former the Board of 'Trade could
act upon the complaints of the public, but by the latter
only upon those of the.law conrts or the railway companies
themselves; He announced his intention of Moving an
amendment to rectify this and other defect's 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,
but that _their reasonable representation would he listeped.
to. Ho maintained that the public had no reason to com-
plain of the principle of competition originally laid down,
from which they hail derived great beneits. On the con-
trary, the legislature alone, and not the railway companies,
wee respoirsible for the waste and expenditure ineurred
under the operation of that principle.
Mr. WILKINSON considered the bill could not fail to
promote the interests of the public as well as those of the
railway companie.. - -
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 f!om Mr. E. SCULLY,'
Mr. JAMES M`GREGOR said the hon. member for
Lambeth had stated that railway proprietors in, England
hail received less protection for their property than in any
Other country in Europe. The hon. member might have
gone farther, find said that railway proprietors in England
had suffered grievous losses— that it was a most depressed
interest ; and in his judgment, that depression was caused
by the action of Parliament. In 1844 an act was passed
providing that whenever a railway paid a 10 per cent.
dividend, the Government should have power to purchase
it. That gave the impression that railways were safe in-
vestments. The principle of competition followed, also
sanctioned by the Legislature, and the ruin that that had
caused could only be appreciated by those who knew what
was going on. The estimates made for the construction of
railways were often insufficient, so that lines which were
estimated to cost 14 millions were frequently found to cost
from three to four millions sterling ; and besides that there
was a constant outlay of capital going on, all for the public
advantage. The railway interest, therefore, appeared be- ,
fore the house in farina pzuperis, and the question ought
to be, what could be done to remedy their present dis-
tress? But his right hon. friend proposed to legislate
for the railway interest as if it were one continuous
whole, instead of containing, as. it did, great elements
of composition and of difficulty. The right hon. gentle-
man took away from them the advantages of competition, .-
and he gave them nothing in return. He thought the ex-
penditure of 300 millions sterling in great 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
shonal 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 bill, but it did not appear in
the present. He hoped, however, the right honourable
gentleman would give his attention to the devising of some
plan for putting an end to the conflicts that were now
going on, for till that was done this bill would he a one-
sided measure, doing everything for thepublic, but nothing
for the rail aay interest.

49
261-221

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 railway 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 did not see how the judges were to pro-
ceed ; and as the bill had been praised for giving cheap and
summary remedies, he was iuduced to ask what those re-
medies might be.

Mr. CARDWELL said after the debate they had just
heard, they would all admit 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 Government addressed themselves to
the undertaking with an anxious desire to resolve the diffi-
culty; 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. Cardwell's) answer was that the present bill only 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 iu their mode of proceeding in that house. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) complained that he did
not deal with amalgamation. lie had been willing to under-
take the labour an responsibility of dealing with that sub-
ject, and clauses were put in the hill 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 iu future, the very first private bill which dissented
from it would iepeal the act, and leave things as they were.
Still, the question had 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,
was 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 pz ()set ving that unity and consistency which could
not be maintained, so 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 supprised not to find in the bill.
He (Mr. Cardwell) had met with the same encouragement
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 ;
P
and some, that it was a bill wholly for the companies.erhaps the shortest answer would be to state what the
hill really was. The first clause in its present state (lid
two things. First, it included, in language which he
believed to be clear and accurate, a definition of the
duties of railway companies to the public with respect to
services performed upon their own lines. Mr. Henley had
complained that the frequent qualification of the clause
by the word " reasonable" rendered it a nullity. The
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 eommon roads to the
altered state of things upon railways ; and the word
" reasonable " 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
%cal? roc
personsalaad might p mutuallyass
fromto coonnes ul
line
e to
one aannootthheerr,
utmost possible facility. (Cheers.) Then came the ques-
tion, what ought to bewiaithortdheer
the nature of the tribunal to
enforce these
obligations? The re were two distinct
opinions upon this point. There
authori-
ties who thought that the matter werttstoomiLhigth
responsible body of the executive geoZument, rweheicrciesdhotol tts,
operate as a kind of board of control, and whichshouldu
regulate these matters on behalf of the companies.
other hand there were others who thought.at On the
questions of finance would arise it wo -1d be uncssmiZtuuy-
tional to hand over matters of private capital to the arbi-
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
ono 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.
The; soar
I—" The control that is to be applied, when actu-
al
applied, u, ust be arbitrary in its nature, and free from
all technical flttors ; and aim) the exeroiso of it will al. •