The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-26 00:00:00

LivLAeuoL AND Al ANGEIESTLIt ILA 1 LIVA

We copy the following very sensible and ju-
dicious observations on this subject from the
Brad rd Courier, a provincial paper, which hat
been recently established, and which appears
to be conducted with considerable spirit and
ability
" Vise stated last week, in our answers to correspondent),
that we intended offering some observations upon the subject
of Canal; and Rail-ways in our next, and we now proceed to
redeem our pledge. It cannot be expected that we should be
able at one sitting, to discuss this question in all its bearings;
at present, we chiefly propose to ourselves, clearing the question
of prejudices, and correcting the tnis-statements which have
gone abroad with regard to the fate of Cie Manchester and
Liverpool Rail-road Bill. The history of this Bill, and the
evidence upon which it was rejected, are intimately connected
with all similar proposals, for although same of the matter in
evidence is applicable to the Manchester and Liverpool Rail.
road Bill only, such as the necessity for it and its practicability,
yet tbere are other points touched upon in the evidence, equally
applicable to all propositions for rail-roads, such as the relative
advantages of canals and rail-ways in capability, speed, ex-
pence, &c. ; the good and the evil necessarily attending each,
and the question respecting the rights of private property. All
of these points shall successively occupy our attention from time
to time; but we are desirous, before coming to there, to
silence in some measure the outcry which has been raised
by those interested in the rail-ways at the rejection of
the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad Bill in the
Parliamentary Committee. It has been industriously circu-
lated, that this result was a job. The land-owners have been
accused of interfering with the public good, in order to serve
their own private ends ; the New Tintes, and others among the
London Journals, have been diligent in assuring their readers
that this bill was cast out in the face of evidence that should
have enured its success, and misrepresentations and falsehoods
of the grossest nature have been actively circulated by persons
either ignorant of the facts, or wilfully perverting them. Among
other mis-statements, it has been repeatedly asserted, that the
bill was lost by the most scanty majority—some have called
the majority four, and others only one ; and it has been said
besides, that this majority was composed of Members who had
never attended the Committee. It is astonishing that any one
should venture to make a statement which it is in the power
of hundreds to refute ; anti yet, statements the most false will
often go long unrefuted, and do incredible mischief before their
fallity be detected. The majority which threw out the Man-
chester and Liverpool Rail-road Bill, was NINE, and it is parti-
cularly worthy of remark, that two of those who voted in this
majoray had most strenuously supported the cause of the rail-
roads throughout all the early part of the proceedings ; buts as
the case advanced, the evidence became so overwhelming on the
other side of the question, that these, their most zealous advo-
cates, could support them no longer, and actually voted for
throwing out the bill:—these were Mr. Calcraft, junior.
anti Mr. Robert Gordon. With regard to Members vot-
ing who had been absent from the Committee and not
heard the evidence,•we know indeed of one notable instance ;
the champion of justice, Hr. Joseph Home, he, who only a
night or two before, had been strenuously arguing against
Members interested in private bills voting upon them, in order
that justice might be secured, came down to this Committee,
fur the first time., upon the day of its rejection, and brought
two friends who had been equal strangers with himself, and
au. THE THREE voted in favour of the bill, without having
heard one syllable of the evidence, and without having been
present more than three minutes.

But we are anxious to do more than prove Mr. Hunie's in-
consistency ; we wish to convince the public that the Corn-
tnittee was fully warranted in throwing out the bill, from the
evidence which was laid before it ; and there is no way of doing
this unless by presenting to our readers a short analysis of the
evidence.

Had we been upon that Committee, we should have thought
it necessary to have had many things distinctly proved to us,
before giving our sanction to the measure ; we should have
wished, in the first place, to have had it proved to us, that the
existing means of conveyance were inadequate; and that no
new or improved regulation in these could make them ade-
quate. Supposing these points to be determined in favour of
the rail-way, we, should, in the second place, have required
evidence that a rail-road was practicable in the direction laid
down. We should have wished, in the third place, to have
had it distinctly proved, that the rail-road being made, it
would undoubtedly remove the difficulties complained of, and
be attended with no other equal or greater inconveniences; and,
in the last place, we should have required it to be made mani-
fect to us, that in passing the bill, we should be committing
no act of injustice. Now, we have at present the whole evi-
dence lying before us, and upon a most attentive considera-
tion of it, we can say conscientiously, that no one of these
requisite points appear to us to be proved ; but as• this is as
yet only our opinion, we shall speak shortly to these differ-
ent points, making brief extracts from the evidenceas we go
along.
The first point, viz. the inadequacy of the existing modes of
conveyance, shall occupy our attention this week, and it is ob-
vious that this is the moat important of all the points, because,
unless the supporters of the bill have been able to prove,thef the
canals are not equal to the demand upon them, they have made
out no case for the rail-ways; the whole question hinges upon
this in the first instance : if the, canals are equal to the work
required, there is then no farther question, there can be no
need of a rail-road. If on the other hand, the canals are not
equal to the requirements, it is expedient to consider whether
-a rail-road is practicable—tatd wether it is consonant with the
principles of justice that it should be made. First, then, are
the existing modes of conveyance inadequate to the demand
uponthem?
It is sufficiently curious, that in order to support our opi-
nions, weshall have otteasion to refer to much of the evidence
adduced for the rail-roads ; and it is worthy of remark, that
seven of the principal witnesses upon that aide of the question
were in the employment of Subscribers to that rail-road which
their evidence was intended to assist—not certainly on that sc.,
count, the most impartial witnesses that could have been
selected.

GEORGE PARSONS is the first witnesi broupt to prove that
the means of conveyance between Liverpool an 'Manchester are
not adequate to the demand upon them. After stating that he'
had-known instances in which there had -been difflcalty'ana
:delay in the arrival of timber, he says,—
In the foregoing instances no application was made to any
Canal, except the Duke's Canal and the Old Quay Company.
and none at all to the New Quay Company, or the Irwell
and Mersey Navigation, for I had only.leave to forward them
by those Canals. Neither the grocers' Company- nor the New
Quay Company, were applied to, and therefore I do not Imo*
but that if I had applied to those Companies, a delivery might
have taken place, agreeably to the early delivery wished for by
the parties.
In another instance, in which delay had taken place in for-
warding cotton, the same witness upon being pored, mys— • •
No application was made to the Leeds arid Liverpool Canal
to forward cotton, notwithstanding the difficulties before-Men-
tioned, because the instructions are to send-by the other convey-
ances; but no reason Cart be giver, why the Leeds and Liver-
pool Canal should not be as eligible as the misers.
And a little farther on, after etaiing that be forwarda his
cotton by the Irwell and Mersey communication, " 1 cammt-
speak," (says he,) " to other conveyances, or form any jailer:
meat of the capability of the means of conveyance."
No wonder this Gentleman should bee unable to do so,' and
no wonder, that in the midst of his difficulties he made no'an-
plication to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, since it is giVen in
evidence by himself, that ".he never knew. or heard of the
Leeds and Liverpool Canal, until he came to London."—There
is something trulr.ludcrowt in a witness. coming ferward; to
give evidence, that the reaps of conveyance between two places
are not adequate to the dineind, and to be absolutely ignorant
of the existence of one of the means. No farther comment upon
this isentlettian's evidence is necessary.
The nest witness is ..T.axics Chowrssesd lie speaks very de-
eidedly•with -regard to the utter inadequacy of the means of
conveyance at present existing: yet, in the instance he cites,
wherein he bad found difficulties in the transmission of 10410.
bags Of cotton, he saps--
.In reference to the transaction of the 1,000 bags'of cotton-,'in
that case, I did not apply to the Duke'of Bridgewater's Canal.
I always strictly abide by my instructions. I do not conceive
it. necessary to make representations to •• my correspondents
upon • the subject of there• being other means of convey-
ances, as they are fully aware of the true state of' the case; but
I have done it.-
I do not know positively that the Duke's Canal would net