The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-24 00:00:00

EnITION..I

Lord
G. SOMERSET sa'd that he would persist
1;11 the amendment, and if it were found that it would
,9t carry out his intentions, it might hereafter be mo-
uified.

Sir R. PEEL said that the words would give a
direct temptation to parties to open their railroads
sooner than they might otherwise do, in order that they
'rngh • i
u
t avoid the necessity of giving she notice.
,I‘,I'..HAWES did not see any inconvenience in the
'lll„,lrnitd* being opened sooner than was at first intended.
i
• air.:• wished to know if parties would be
liable to
any penaltiess who opened their railroads against
the wish of the Board of Trade.
L°lll SEYMOUR thought it would be unnecessary
t°lmpose such penalties, as it would be the interest of
Parties not tA throw open railroads when the Board of
Trade had decided against their being in a fit condi-
tion. He had thought it better to leave minor matters
to the remonstrances of the Board of Trade.
After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Sey-
%our, Lord G. Somerset, Sir R. Peel, and other Hon.
Members took part, it was agreed that the words which
113tiri.as proposed to strike out should stand part of the

Mr. AGLIONBY expressed his opinion that the
Directors should be compelled to listen to the remon-
strancesrneitte of the Board of Trade. He thought the Com-
ought to give a power to the Board of Trade to
Prevent the opening of any railway where they consi-
dered such opening would be productive of danger to
t re
the Public. He would be glad to see such a clause in-
duced into the Bill.
Lord SANDON did not think any such arbitrary
Power at all necessary, for there had not been a single
Instance of a railroad being opened except in a perfect
state ; for the sake of their owa interests, companies
would he most careful upon such a subject.
Mr. THORNELY thought it very important that
there should be a stringent Government inspection of all
railways for the safety of the public.
Ile blank baying been filled up with " one month,"
°Pon the question that the clause stand part of the Bid,
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the clause could only be
defended upon the principle that the House was bound
to Provide for the safety of the public. He was dis-
P°sea to say that every railway had been prematurely
°Pened, and accidents had been very numerous. He
thought one month's notice was little enough, and the
clause ought to be agreed to if any superintendence was
necessary.
H
" ES said the best evidence of the neces-
sity of the clause was the railway companies generally
made no objection to it.
Mr.AGLIONBY did not think the proposed clause
°°1(1 Provide a remed He would suggest that the
~,
j"ard cf. Trade ought ty.to certify that a railroad was
uelore it was allowed to be opened, even after the
raitiee.°
Mr, EA 6
had
n?t
objected
OPE said if the railway proprietors
that to the clause, it was because they felt
l_t_.would prove a dead letter. The inspection
could
actin u°L add to the responsibility of the Directors
g under the advice of their own engineer.
.
W._ w ARBURTON said such an inspection as
er7 contemplated by the clause would be futile, for no
itieer could, by a mere inspection, state whether a
railroad was properly constructed or not.
Mr. AGLIONBY observed that all he wanted was,
if the clause was inserted for the prctection of the
Public,- to make it efficient for that purpose. If it
Was not made efficient then it ought to be rejected
as ebildish.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE knew that the clause had
bees, very much discussed in Committee. He be-
lieved the object of his Noble Friend (Lord Seymour)
had
„been to limit as much as possible the interference
of the Board of Trade, but he could conceive cases
Where Railway Companies had not complied with the
terms of their Acts of Parliament with regard to the
height or width of bridges, and so on, by which great
inconvenience, and even danger, might arise to the public.
~----(Hear, hear.) It was in consequence of the strong
cases proved before the Committee. that they had
thought it right to give that power which was conferred
by the clause. He should therefore vote in favour of
the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ entirely agreed with what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Bridport. No engineer
could go down the line of any railroad, and state that
that line was fit to travel upon, unless he had attended
.to the whole works of the line. He looked with great
jealousy to the Government interfering with railroads,
. and thought it would be much better to leave the mat-
ter in the hands of the Directors.
Mr. EWART observed that every argument that
Ilia been urged against the clause, was an argument
the Bill itself.
Ur. EASTHOPE said that it would be impossible
for any engineer to speak satisfactorily as to the effi-
ciency of a bridge which was covered with an embank-
... ment of probably eighty feet in depth. All he could
do would be, as any other person might do, to report
`Von any glaring defect.
air J. GRAHAM thought it would be useless to
2600 with the Bill, unless the House agreed to this
clause. His opinion was, that the control proposed
to be given to the Board of Trade would prove of
great utility, because there might be cases in which
railroads were passing at right angles, or in which one
railway company might be running trains on the line of
another company to the great danger of the public.
• He hoped the Noble Lord would take the sense of the
Rouse upon this clause, and if it was rejected, he would
tot press the Bill further, because if the House
thought the first clause objectionable, he did not think
i8t.171°.41 agree to the more stringent provisions of the

MARK PHILLIPS had great doubts whether
thiai;i clause ought to be allowed to stand part of the