The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-04 00:00:00

Committee of which his lion. Friend, the Member for
Bridport, was the chairman ; and, knowing the nutrbcr
of bubble schemes which were brought forward, he
thought the present rule ought not to be relaxed.
He wished to state a fact which he thought of consi
derable importance. The Liverpool and Manchester
Railway Company, a year or two ago, obtained an
Act for a railway to pass through the borough which
he had the honour to represent, and they had con-
trived to introduce a clause leaving it optional to
them whether they should complete the railway or
not. The consequences were, that parties who had
received notice that the railway would pass through
their property were completely tied up from disposing
of their land in any way—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—
and the Company had the sole power of determining
whether the property should be required at any
time for the purpose of the railways.—( Hear, hear.)
lie did think that Parliament should take every precau-
tion for having their works vigilantly and vigorously car-
ried into effect.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to say a few words on
the subject. It seemed to him that the regulation, as
it stood at present, was, like many others, highly
favourable to the rich, and to great capitalists, and
that it went to increase the influence of those who wore
already possessed of enormous wealth, while it acted
injuriously as regarded the smaller capitalist. It had
that effect in the country Irene which he came, where
there was but little capital. They felt severely in that
country the pressure of the present regulation, and he
therefore believed it to be his duty to protest against it.
All railways were now a monopoly, and he thought it
would be
he
bythe Hon. Member.
better, in that
e instance,r. to relax the rule, as
proposed
Lord 110 W ICI.: said that the Hon. and Learned
Member who had just sat down, instead of considering
the regulation as it now existed as favourable to large
capitalists, ought in his opinion to consider it as likely to
operate in an meetly opposite way.—( Hear, hear.)
Before the regulation had been introduced a great in-
justice was frequently done to parties having small pro-
perties in counties through which it was proposed rail-
ways should pass. Schemes for the commencement cf rail-
ways were brought forward, and which, as they were never
curried into effect had no other result than to put resi-
dent landlords to the expense of needless litigation.
He thought it was the interest of small proprietors that
a check should be put upon those who entered into decep-
tive schemes, by insisting rigidly on the rule as it now ex-
isted. He was persuaded that all gentlemen connected
with landed property would do well to pause before
they countenanced the resolution of the lion. Member.
He was not hostile to that particular line of railway,
in favour of which it was supposed the Honour-
able Member had made his motion. He was so
fir from that that he could assure the Honourable
Member, that no one could be more anxious than he
was to see a line of railway carried through that county
which he himself had the honour to represent. But
he felt that whenever a good line could be made
out, the regulation they were now discussing
would not offer the slightest difficulty in the way of
its being carried into effect. On those grounds he
would undoubtedly give his opposition to the motion
of the Hon. Member.—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that they
onght to modify the order as it now existed. In
his opinion the deposit of 10 per cent. would be
sufficient. He did not think that a large per centage
should be required before a BM was brought into Par-
liament. That was the hardship of which he com-
plained, and of which those who were favourable to
the line of railway, referred to by the Noble Lord,
must bitterly complain. The modification which he
(the Attorney-G mere!) wished for, was that they
should require a deposit of 10 per cent. not
before the Bill was introduced into the House, but be-
fore the works were begun. That was the prin&ple which
had been acted on in the case of the Edinburgh and
Glasgow Railway, and which had been attended with com-
plete success. It would, he thought, be quite sufficient
that they should heave a certificate from a public func-
t.onary before a spade was put in the ground. In that
case they would be sure to have a bona fide under-
taking that would sufficiently protect the landed in-
terest, and which would not at the same time discourage
those useful works.
Mr. FRESHFIELD could not see the benefit of
changing the present law. If the undertakings were
of a bona fide and reasonable character, there was no
fear but capital would be employed on them in this
country rather than abroad. The Attorney-General said
that a 10 per centage paid before a spade was put in the
ground would offer sufficient protection to the public.
He (Mr. Freshfirld) was persuaded, on the contrary,
that such regulation would tend to encourage improper
speculation. It could only tend to encourage dealing
in shares, to the injury of the public.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY expressed his approval of
the motion.

Mr. HODGSON HIN DE, in reply said, that
almost all who had addressed the House were.
against rescinding the Standing Order. The Noble
Lord had said that he considered the Standing Order
as most beneficial to the ...ended Interest. Now, he
(Mr. Hodgson Hinde) considered, that if there
was one Standing Order more injurious to the
Landed Interest than another it was this very
order requiring a deposit of 10 per cent., for many
railroad schemes, after having been brought to a certain
degree of maturity, were not brought under the con-
sideration of Parliament on account of the inability
of the parties to make the deposit required ; but these
schemes were not on that account abandoned, they were
merely postponed to another session, and thus these
schemes were kept hanging over the heads of the land-
owners on the proposed line from year to year, in conse-
quence of this standing order, without the decision of Par-
liament. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that. there
were fifty-eight notices for Railway Bills this Session—
now it was not by the cumber of notices given that they
could judge of the effects of the Standing Order, but by
the number of Bills brought in, and he would venture to
assert that not more than half-a-dezen Bills would be
brought in of all the fifty-eight notices. He felt the
sense of the House was against him, but he was desirous
of recording his vote, because that, at another time, when
the number of railway labourers thrown out of employ.
ment would be considerable, the House would be glad to
rescind this Order.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion - 129
Mr. KELLY presented a petition from the late
collector of taxes for the county of Somerset, com-
plaining that the Government, in granting him com-
pensation had acted against the law and custom, and
praying the House to take his case into consideration
by referring it to a Committee.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Dover, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the
Plasterers of Dublin, praying for the repeal of the
Union.