The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-24 00:00:00

the Bill to take advantage of the forms of the House, and get
the debate adjuurned so as to try and get the decision rescinded.
—( Hear, hear.) it was a most objectionable course of pro-
ceeding, and one that he hovel the Howe would not ei.cou-
rage. He would e:.:nclude by hoping the House would confirm.
the decision it bad come to en the previous evening, when the

matter was fully considered.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. HUME hoped the decision of the Committee would
be sustained. It was a question of jet cat imeortance whether
they would deprive such an important district as Nithsdale of
railway accommodation in order to please the Caledonian Com-
pany. It had been stated that the Caledonian would require
the whole traffic of the country in order to maintain it. Ibis
he did not believe, but considered that Company wanted to
maintain a monopoly. He had received a letter from
a person from Kilmarnock, who expressed great alarm
lest the Bill should be thrown out by the House, as
it would be of the greatest advantage to the country
through which it passed, and that feeling was general through-
out the whole of Nithsdale and Ayrehire.—( Hear, hear.)
The writer said it would he the only means of preventing the
monopoly of the Caledonian Company. On every principle
of fair play, and the granting of competition to the public, see-
ing that the whole of the inhabitants of Nithsdale were in
favour of the line, he trusted the House would confirm
the decision of the Committee. On these grounds he supported
the Committee, one hoped they would be supported in what
they had done, so as to put an end to an injurious monopoly.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that the Committee had been sitting
upon the Bill for three weeks, and that they had taken every
possible fact into their consideration, and they arrived at the
c,mclusion, that it was desirable that there should be a line
through the part of the country where it was proposed. The
committee had not even a division in opion, and they were men
ordinrry intelligence lie would presume. What then would
be the posh ion of tee House if they ieversel the decision of
tho Committee? He considered that they should put that
question seriously to themselves. There had been a system of
canvassing with regard to this Bill, both in and out
the House, which was most unfair, to say the least of it, to
those gentlemen who had been sitting upon the Committee
He would remind the House that the line ran through forty
miles of a very important and populous district, and he would
say that by rejecting the Bill they would be destroying all con-
fidence for the future in the decision of Committees. if Mem-
bers were encouraged to give an upright, unbiassed decision,
the House ought to give them a more consistent support.
Sir W. CLAY said, as chairman of the Committee, he hoped
the House would give him their attention for a few
moments ; he confessed he felt a very great anxiety on the
course which would be adopted, not on his own account but
for those of the gentlemen with whom he acted; but what-
ever might be the result they would have the consolation of
being certain that they had discharged their duties to the
utmost of their abilities. The public were beginning to have
already serious doubts as to the competency of the House to
legislate on private business, and on railway matters especially.
There were strong party and private interests represented in,
that House, and they were about to appeal from a com-
mittee of gentlemen sworn to be no way intee
rested one way or the other, who hail heard the whole
of the evidence, to a tribunal which had rot beard any of the
evidence at all. They appointed a Select Committee of five
Members, and they made each of them sign a declaration that
they were no way interested, and to give their decision accord-
ing to the evidence. They were pretty well aware that such
a tribunal was most effective,—but what were they about to do?
—why to reverse the decision given by that sworn Com-
mittee, and appeal to a tribunal for a final decision which
had not heard a particle of evidence.—( Hear, hear.)
The members of the Committee, and the members of all the
C.mmittees on railway Bills, signed a written statement, de-
clarine on their honour that they had no interest in the under..
taking assigned to them to investigate and decide upon, they
stated in this case that they had no pecuniary interest in
either of the lines, and that they were therefore in a position
to give an unbiassed opinion. So far from agreeing with his
Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) that the
House should look_ carefully into the decisions of Committees,
he considered that the House was, in its collective
capacity, unfitted to discuss and decide upon Bills
of this kind, as a Committee representing the House
was the proper -tribunal tribunal to do so; but he went to
this extent, that unless there were grounds for considering that
the Committee had not discharged its duty properly, or that
fresh facts of importance had been obtained, the House ought
not to interfere with its decision—(Hear.) Unless this occur-
red, or even it fresh evidence were obtained after the decision
of a Committee, they ought to allow the Bill and these new •
facts to go to the Committees of the Lords, there to be dealt
with. But was the decision of the Committee on these two
Bills wrong? He solemnly assured the House that he bad
the most perfect conviction, that if the House had heard
the evidence and the arguments which were adduced before the
Committee, that they would be unanimous in its favour.
What were the two grounds on which they came to their deche
sion? It was said it was passed in accordance with the opinion of
the Board of Trade and of the Committee of last year. But
these suspicions were entirely groundless, and he maintained
that there was scarcely a shadow of a reason for such a state-
ment. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr.
F.
Nlaule) stated that the parties opposing the Bill applied to the
Committee to have the evidence given before the Committee of
last sear produced, and that they had refused. Now, the
Committee never decided on that question, and stated that if
they did decide the question they would do
.10
irrespective of another question then before the
Committee ; hut the subject was considered of f°
little importance that neither the Committee, the committee
clerk, or the short-hand writer recollected anything about it;
and if it was of so much importance, the able counsel for and
Caledonian would no doubt have taken advantage of itt
hdo
argued the subject before the Committee, but they did no jai
so. But the short-hand writer's notes of the evidence sb
sear was taken before the Committee referred to in the
examination of everS, witness. There was not °ne
single point in the evidence given last year which
was not brought fully before the Committee this year in order
to test the evidence produced. The main question
which oecupied the time of the Committee was, whether
the new line would take any of the traffic from the daledonian?
This was the main question. They had the traffic tables on
which the ewe of the Caledonian was grounded last year, and
also the person who framed them. They underwent the
most strict and complete investigation, but the case
completely broke. down. So much for not having the
evidence of last year before the Committee.
'['he question last year was, which was the better trunk line
for Scotland ; but that was not the querion this year. That
which the Committee had to consider this year was, which
Wall the best line north of the Tweed for the country ? They
went completely into that question, and it was the main one;
and the opponents urged, in the most able manner, their ob-
jections, but in that they moat signally failed —( Cries of
Divide, divide.") That cry showed the disinclination on the
part of Hon. elembers to hear the facts of the whole case.
Atter a few obs rvations from Mr. B. EAST, which did
not reach the gallery,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that his Hon. Friend, the Member
for the Tower Hamle's, had said that they should not throw
eway the labours of the Committee. If it were true, as his
Hen. Friend the Member for Lambeth said, that Committees
were infallible, what occasion was there for the House to
have the trouble to move that the reports of these
.committees be received and adopted? The House did not
trust to the Committee the same discretion as they allowed to
an Election Committee. The matters of which the Committees
were appointed to consider, were afterwards to be referred to
the judgment of the House. He did not know whether it was
the Hon. Member who had said, that if they reversed the deci-
sion of the Committee this year, they would confirm.
the decision of the Committee of last year. Under all the cir-
cumstances, unless they meant to make the House a
pepetual arena, it would be better to suffer the decision of the
very small majority they had already obtained to stand, instead
of brineing down the large number of Members then in the
House to decide the question. Under all the circumstances he
should tippos,-, the motion.
Mr. F. MAULE said that this was a question in which he
on the last occasion took some interest. That interest arose
not from any connexion whatever with either of the
parties engaged in this warfare, but from a desire
to see a railway communication extending through his own
country, and to protect those companies before Parliament
who had invested their capital in these undertakings. What
the House had heard from his Hon. Friend, the Member for
the Tower Hamlets, seemed to him to be a call upon them to
reverse the decision to which the House came on Tuesday last,
and he did so on the ground that they should depend
in entire security on the decision of a Committee et
that House. The decision of the Committee might be
ruinous, and would be to the serious injury of those parties who
were interested in this matter. His friend had observed that
the line before the, Committee was the same line as last years
and a competing line with the Caledonian. The Board of
Trade had already decided that the district was one which
would not be likely to afford a competition when the line was
brought forwardlast year, and he asked if the circumstances of the
case were altered one single iota. In this case the Committee bed
first stripped the Caledonian line of every branch from the root up-
ward., and they then said that the line did not furnish an ade-
quate communication through the district. He would not
detain the House any longer. The present question involved
the fate of a company and the sum of 2,000,0001., which they
had already invested in the seheme. He trusted the House
would do justice to the parties by doing justice to the Cale-
donian line, and he should therefore support the motion.
Mr. S. WORTLEY had no interest whatever in the line,
but his constituents telt considerably in favour of the line. It
had been said that the House should be cautious how they gave
their sanction to railway schemes. There was no district more
deserving of railway consideration than the district through
which the line passed. He considered that the present was
not a competing line with the Caledonian Railway, and until
they could prevail upon Scotchmen to travel '24 miles round,
and to pay for 24 miles of extra travelling, they would neot
pre-
vail upon persons residing in Scotland to support ttlitehleirr line. The
teeestien for the House was, were they to
support
of the line,
te
mittees? There was a general feelinigimilee d ncce arm'
a member of the original
and that was, he contended, a prima facie eviittee.
of the correctness of the decision of the Coon'
Viscount EBRINGTON was favour of
li.nefleas a
as a trunk linrieve,
the Dam
Committee. He did not think at the
competing line—he
supported
still do so. His conviction!strengthened by the decision
Committee had arrived.
and indeed two branch lines had been
Enidmidounaottiowni.sh
Forto deprive
part he wished
at
,swihr.icHh thjeosueesonsdlCoao were
fries people of railway e
the Caledonian for that purpose proposed from pose this year, and he
the slightest oppositionP
would not offer date, .
to accommodation its
they were accommo
auciotrinlei3heaatipeiar
apprise
division
tnthhei
on
tCaledonianh eH Committeeou se oo
on the
line;
that direction
iletr'baAlria:re.ttih,Pea aAtncitdß; ll'CheetEht wheßeonyu said,l
Chd eart (it) t again, after having considered
s
it over, glee it the benefit of his vote. It appeared to him that
the two lines were competing, and that the traffic would not
sulrtboth.
The, House
thendivided on the question that "the report be
considered this clay
six months," when there appeared,
Fur the motion
100
Against it
Majority against it -- 68
After a few words troin Mr. F. MAULE, who declined
pressing the matter further then, but intimated that the pre-
sent decision would not preclude him from taking the souse of
the House on the third reading,
The report was received, an 1 the Bill ordered to be en.
grossed.
DUBLIN, DUNDRIII.IIII, AND ENNISKERRY RAIL.
WAY.

Mr. GREGORY moved that the Dublin, Dundrnrn, and
Enni kerry Railway Bill be re-committed. It appeared from
the statements made by the Hon. Member, that in consequence
of some technical error, the petition of Mr. Peter against the
13111 ,as not heard.
Dr. BOWRING, chairman of the Committee, made some
explanations respec ing the error, and stated that the Com-
mittee had unanimously determined upon sending the Bill to
Mr. Greene, no person appearing for the petition when called
upon by the Committee.
Atter a few words from Mr. COLLETT and Mr. hurl,
who oppo ed the motion, on ti :e ground that if Bills were to
be referred a second time to Committees, it was of no use
sending them to Committees at all,
Mr. C. POWELL hoped the Hon. Member would not
divide the House on the question.
Mr. GREGORY slid he would not press for a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, as the motion was withdrawn.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition from a deanery'
in the diocese of Peterborough against the pros union 0 I
the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph's.