The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-29 00:00:00

STAFFORD and RUGBY RAILWAY.

(From the Railway Magazine.)
Our readers will have perceived that, for some
months past, we have not taken any part in support of
this line, beyond a simple statement of facts as they
have arisen. We have fancied, whether right or not
we cannot tell, that all the efforts which might have
been, and which the character and power of the op-
posing parties required should be, made, have not been
to carry the measure out to a successful issue, and
hence the cause of our saying so little about it ; but
cur opinion of the merits of the project remains un-
changed.
In regard to the conduct of the House in rejecting
this measure, a few observations may not be out of
place. It will be remembered that this is the third
Session this line has hcen brought before Parliament.
During the last Session but one 22 sitting days were
consumed before the standing orders, and 459 objec-
tions, raised by the interested London and Birmingham
Company, reduced to nil. Sixty-one days of business
were also afterwards spent in the " Committee on the
Bill," which drew up a Report recommending—because
it was obvious the time had been eked out beyond that
necessary for getting through the House—that " every
fecility should be afforded to the promoters of the
Bill in a future Session, which the rules of the House
will admit of."
The Bill, therefore, as far as it was possible, was
actually promised by the Committee which represented
the House, and, consequently by the House. What,
therefore, must be the surprise of every considerate
man, to see the Bill, upon its second reading, thrown
out, and not permitted to go even to a Committee, or
to attain the stage it did at the last Session! Lord
Stanley might glorify himself that he has succeeded,
by a little legerdemain, in tripping up the Bill, but
has he not at the same time rendered this august
assembly perfectly ridiculous in the eyes of all
sober and thinking individuals? In the year 1839, the
House, after the most searching and lengthened inquiry
ever bestowed on any measure ever brought before it,
virtually passes a Bill, and in the 'year 1841, the same
House, without any additional reason assigned, and
from the flippant observations of an individual evidently
ignorant of the subject, and, what is worse, dealing out
statements, if he is rightly reported, which are ipse facto
untrue, rejected the self-same measure—that is, the
measure it had previously approved, and, as far as it
could, promised to pass. If the country is to witness
such puerility and fickleness as this in the assembly of
our representatives, what possible confidence can it have
in its wisdom ? or, what respect for its decisions ? The
vagrant wanderings of a weathercock would be just as
certain, and the babble of a gossiping company of old
women at tea as respectable. In the House we look
for consistency at least, if we do not expect much
wisdom ; but it would appear, by the late conduct on
the Stafford and Rugby Railway, that even this element
is a stranger at St. Stephen's.
Lord Stanley has accused Sir Robert Peel of misre-
presenting the case of the Stafford and Rugby Rail-
way, but the fact is, it is Lord Statile', himself who has
been guilty of misrepresentation. He says the House
is asked to sanction the spending one :million and a half
to save ten minutes between Liverpool and London.
Now, the House was asked no such thing. The House
was asked to save nine mile, and a half; or about twenty
minutes every journey for all the country north of Staf-
ford, and south of Rugby—that is, for Liverpool, Man-
chester, North Wales, Scotland, and London, &c., and
above 54,0001. a-year money to the trading and tra-
velling population. The real object, therefore, of the
line is to save one-third of an hour, and about
half the expense, in the distance between Rugby and
Stafford, objects which we should think well deserving
the attentio❑ of the House. We are aware the Lon-
don and Birmingham say it will be only ten minutes,
for they assert that ten or fifteen minutes will be lost
at Rugby in the change of lines. No doubt they
would reduce it to ten or five minutes, or make it a
loss to that amount if they could ; but we imagine
vexatious obstructions, if attempted, would soon be
cured by the House, in the prolongation of the Stafford
and Rugby line to London. So much alive are these
worthies to this, that they promised, if the Bill had
passed, they would afford every facility in their power
to the new offset.

But to return to Lord Stanley. _ Upon reading

the Noble Lord's speech one is so struck with its child-
ish folly and absurdity, as to wonder what, in the
name of all that is good, could have induced
the House to pay any, the least attention to it ; in fact
it is so supremely silly that we cannot help thinking
either the Noble Lord is grossly misrepresented or he
must have spoken after a more than usually good din-
ner. He says Sir Robert Peel had represented that
the proposed railway " was for the benefit of the import-
ant towns of Liverpool and London, and would be of
much service to the people of North Wales, Scotland,
and Ireland," and then argues, " it might be so if there
could be a terminus beyond a terminus. The real
termini, and the only places that would benefit by the
ce iriopno.rtmanetmtobtevrnsmoefanßs Rugby and aitridnSiigtahft-
infoerdas.,u,re,l‘wrhearet
tthh
be so if there could be a terminus beyond a terminus,"
surpasses our comprehension altogether, but the arrant
nonsense of it, as applied to the subject in debate,
induces us to imagine that his mind was ern.
ployed upon his recent dinner while his lips were upon
the railway, and that he meant to say "it might have
been better for us if each had had a bottle beyond the
bottle he took." However this may be, the observa-
tion of the Hon. Member, that " the only places that
would benefit by the measure were the important towns
of Rugby and Stafford," that is, the points where the
line meets the two railways it joins, characterised by so
much ignorance or misrepresentation, that we are asto-
nished the House had not seen it in a moment. Were
the railway to terminate at each of these towns, Lord
Stanley might have been partially right, but the merest
tyro must see that, joining at those places, as it does,
other lines extending far into the country, any benefits
which accrue from its economy and abbreviation of
time are enjoyed by all the places which use the rail-
way, however far beyond the point of junction north-
wards or southwards.
By the decision of this question, the Parliament
sanctions the high charges of the London and Birming-
ham on the public, and has recorded its opinion, that
improvements shall not be made if they affect the inte-
rests of existing lines. We do not quarrel with this
decision if it be openly avowed, but wherefore should
the hypocritical cant of a regard for the public be so
sedulously spread about ? Tell the public, openly and
honestly, that the House does not care a fig for it, and
that Parliament will listen to nothing for its advantage,
and we shall be quite satisfied.
Another argument, used by the London and Bir-
mingham, if argument it can be called, is, that, because
millions more will be required, the public must pay
higher fares to support it. To attempt to reason with
such men would be labour lost. It is true they them-
selves have charged pretty well upon the public, hut we
should like to ask them if, wLen they went to Partin-
• ment to lay out their 21 millions to make their railway