The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

CITY RAILWAY TRAVELLING.

(From, the Morning Advertiser.)
An opposition has somewhat unexpectedly sprung
up to the contemplated Railway Terminus in Far-
ringdon-street, and great efforts are being made by
certain parties to prevent the scheme being carried
into effect.

It will have been seen from the report which ap-
peared in the public journals of the proceedings at
the Common Council on Thursday, that a dead set
was made at the scheme by a few members of that
body. It was hoped to give the proposed improve-
ments its quietus byinducing the Common Coun-
cil to adopt the. report which the City Improve-
ments Committee made on the subject, and which
recommended the Corporation. not to sanction the
bill now before Parliament for carrying out the
railway terminus. The Council, however, were
not to be caught in the trap which the Improve-
ments Committee had prepared for them. They
very properly asked fori time to consider a docu-
ment of such vast mportance before they gave
it their approval. It was accordingly proposed
that the report should be printed, and its conside-
ration be adjourned. This, motion was carried by
a majority of 75 to 55, and the further conside-
ration of the report was accordingly deferred till
the following Thursday.
Had the Council come to a decision in favour of
the adoption of the report of the Improvements
Committee, it would not only have given the death-
blow to the railway terminus scheme, but would
have stultified the Council itself ; for the Council,
it will be remembered, did, some months age,
declare in favour of the scheme, after a long and
elaborate discussion. To have, therefore, with-
held its sanction from the bill now in Parliament,

for the purpose of enabling the projectors to carry
out their scheme, would have placed the Council
in a very awkward position in the public eye. It
would have put the impress of inconsistency on its
forehead. _ _

We have said that the consideration of the
report of the Improvements Committee was
adjourned,till Thursday. Since then, for reasons
which we cannot comprehend, a notification
has been made to the various members of
the Council, that that body will meet to-mor-
row, for the
Purpose of taking the report into
consideration. We are unwilling to contemplate
the adoption of the report as even a possible con-
tingency. As already remarked, the Council would,
by such a course, stultify itself. It would thereby
reverse its former decision. That, however, is an
occurrence which will not take place. At any rate
we will not believe it until we have seen it. The
Common Council is presumed to represent the
views and wishes of the citizens of London, just as
the House of Commons is assumed to represent the
sentiments of the Parliamentary constituencies of
the country. Now, there is not a member of the
Council who can pretend to say, that he is ignorant
of the fact, that among the citizens there is an
almost unanimous desire that Mr. Pearson's
scheme should be carried out. If, therefore, they
are the real representatives of those who sent them
thither, the members will to-morrow reject the
motion which is to be submitted to the Court for
the adoption of the Improvement Committee's
report.
It is, indeed, a remarkable, and very instructive
fact, that those members who have made themselves
most forward in seeking to defeat the railway ter-
minus scheme, are men who are returned by small,
unimportant wards, in which there are only mere
handfuls of electors, and where, in consequence,
other considerations than those of the popularity
of the candidate weigh in his election. These small
wards are to the Common Council what nomina-
tion boroughs used to be to the House of Com-
mons. The parties elected are returned by influ-
ence, not by the popular voice. We could name
one representative of a snug little pocket ward, who
for years was in the habit of showing to his con-
stitiieuts—if so they could be called—his respect
foi'iliem and his attention to his duties as a mem-
ber of the Corporation, by never attending a meet-
ing of the Common Council, except once a year, to
take his seat on his re-election.
We hear at the present time a great deal respect-
ing the desirableness of having the parliamentary
constituencies divided into electoral districts. Some
similar reform is urgently wanted in the city of
London. Before the Common Council can fairly
represent the views and wishes of the citizens, there
must be a re-division of wards—a more equal dis-
tribution of the liverymen into districts. Had this
arrangement been made before, we should not now
seo one of the greatest metropolitan improvements
of modern times—Mr. Pearson's scheme for a City
railway terminus—placed in jeopardy ; for, as we
have already observed, it will be found that the
great opponents of that scheme are persons re-
turned by nomination wards, with a mere handful
of liverymen—persons not responsible to popular
opinion. In almost every instance—perhaps we
should say in every instance—those members of the
Corporation who represent large wards, where the
popular element prevails, are the strenuous slip-
porters of the scheme.
The main ground, or, at least, one of the main
grounds of objection, which the opponents of the
scheme urge against it is, that some years ago a
somewhat similar scheme was proposed by some of
the railway companies, but afterwards abandoned.
The Improvements Committee must, indeed, be
hard driven for an argument against the scheme,
when they can resort to one so feeble as this. It
possesses no point. The scheme was not abandoned
by the railway companies referred to, because of
areo
fhy bring
ng
the reception of any new light, imaginary or real,
relative to the practicability or importance of the
project. It became with them solely and simply
a question of . ways and means. The flourishing
state of railway affairs in 1844, and the first nine
months of 1845, was succeeded by a perfect panic,
during the continuance of which, and for two or
three years afterwards, it became much more diffi-
cult to raise 50,0001. for railway purposes, than it
would have been sixteen or eighteen months previ-
ously, to raise 5,000,0001. This was the sole rea-
sonsiu thethe greatsub railwayurbsof
London, companies,
gave whoseu p ter-
minithe
idea w
their lines into the centre of the
metropolis. Nono of the companies ever had, or
now have, a single misgiving as to the practicability
of the scheme, nor of its great importance, or of its
remunerative character.
The City Improvements Committee refer, with
as much manifest self-complacency as if they had
hit on an argument which could not fail to de-
molish the scheme of Mr. Pearson, to the fact, that
the commission appointed by Government to inves-
tigate the various railway projects for establishing
railway termini within, or in the immediate vicinity
of the metropolis, concluded their labours -by re-
commending that no scheme then before Parlia-
ment, or projected, should be permitted to be
brought within certain limits—including Farring-
don-street—north of the Thames. But do the
opponents of the City Railway Terminus 'mean to
tell us that the present Parliament would hold itself
bound to adopt the recommendation of a commis-
sion appointed by Government seven years ago ?
Does not every succeeding session distinguish itself,
by not only disregarding the recommendations of
commissions, but by reversing the legislation of
former Parliaments and former sessions ? Since the
year 1846, when the recommendation in question was
given, much new light has been thrown on the en-
tire question of railways. There was then a strong
prejudice against having railway termini in the
heart of towns ; but now the great anxiety of all
our leading towns is to have the termini of rail-
ways as near the centre as possible. Look at our
own Blackwall Railway. Look at the London and
North-Western Railway, going, as it were, into the
very bosom of Birmingham, and being received by
that great and enterprising borough with open
arms. Look also at the Dublin and Drogheda
Railway running into the heart of the Irish capi-
tal. And those other large towns which have not
yet got rail ways brought into their centre, are
anxious to witness that consummation with all
practicable promptitude. Experience has taught
all populous town that nothing contributes more
to the prosperity of a place than to have commo-
dious railway termini in their very midst.
The opponents of the scheme also dwell on the as-
sumption
,that the Corporation are not furnished
with any security that the means will be forth-
coming for completing the project, even were no
obstacles interposed to its commencement. Will
these gentlemen be kind enough to inform us what
sort of security they would like to have ? They
have exactly the same security that other great
railway companies had that they would be provided
with the means of completing their undertakings—
when they embarked in them. The London and
North-Western, the Great Western, and other
companies, have required for their construction
fifteen, twenty, and even thirty times the capital
which will be required for the construction of the
City Railway Terminus, and yet they began and
completed their respective schemes without diffi-
culty. The capital necessary for carrying out Mr.
Pearson's project was subscribed by substantial
men with a rapidity which has had no pa-
rallel of late years. And should the sum specified
be found to be insufficient, there is no reason to
doubt that any additional amount that may be re-
quired, would be obtained with the same facility as
the original capital. But even were it otherwise ;
even were there grounds for doubting that the corn-,
pany would be able and willing to complete the
scheme, this is a question which comes within the
province of the. Select Committee of the House of
Commons before whom the bill.will come, and by,
whom its provisions will doubtless be narrowly
scrutinised.
The truth is, that the opponents of the scheme are