The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

amount of advantages in other respects should be se-
cured to the puplic. He did; therefore, trust that the
result of the proposed regulations would be to prove
as advantageous to the public as that would be which
would be likely to result from that intended by the Bir-
mingham Grand Junction.
Mr. HAYTER said that, year after year, Bills were
moved for, which so continually had the effect of un-
doing what had been done before, that it was very dif-
ficult for Hon. Members to know what they were
actually about. Now, he would ask what were the
grounds upon which the Hon. Member for Inverness had
founded his motion ? He said he conceived that the
public were not yet sufficiently protected, and that those
engaged in railway projects made enormous profits. A
Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject,
and they made a report as to the results of their profits
in the year 1832, and two or three following years.
The Hon. Member then referred to the appendix of the
report, by which he said it appeared that the owners of
railways realised a dividend of nit more than 5 1-3 d
per cent. There was another point upon which not one
word had been said, namely, the taxes paid by railways
to Government, which amounted to 5 per cent. upon the
gross receipts of all railways, from which the public de-
rived a certain amount of benefit. What did that
amount to in the aggregate ? lie would leave the
House to judge, by instancing the case of one line of
railway. In the year 1839, the tax of this description
paid by the Great Western Railway Company amounted
to 22,2291. In the years following, the sum was more in
each year ; but, in the year 1845, the sum paid by that
company alone as a tax to Government was 30,000/. ;
and yet it bad been said that those companies conferred
no benefit upon the public. Then there were the poor
rates, and county rates, and other taxes of that descrip-
tion ; of those taxes the Great Western alone paid
60,0001. in one year, besides other taxes of a description
which no other class of property paid. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Inverness appeared to be an advocate for the
truck system. Well, in Belgium the railways paid nu
taxes of any sort, and in France they were very nearly
free from taxation, or, at least, a rail-road paid only the
same amount of tax as any other road, and they paid no
direct tax to the Government. Now, he would ask,
which was the best system of the two ? In France, a
line, after an existence of thirty-seven years, became the
property of the Government. Now, taking the 30,0001.
a-year paid by the Great Western Company to the Go-
vernment as a tax, that for thirty-seven years would
amount to over 3,000,000/., and this was one of the ad•
vantages derivable to the Government of this country
from rail-roads, of which the French Government knew
nothing. Then, with regard to branches. Many of
them did not pay the company for their outlay, or at
least the only chance the company had of their paying
was by the traffic which the main line should bring upon
them. On those grounds: then he would say that the
present system was the best that could be devised, and,
therefore, he would be sorry that a Committee should be
granted to disturb it.
Lord EBRINGTON said that the Hon. Member who
had just sat down:omitted to state that the French Go-
vernment had the advantage of having their mails trans-
mitted gratuitously by the railways, which he (Lord
Ebrington) thought gave a very fine set-off against the
French companies not paying a tax to their Government.
And as to what had been said about the amount of em-
ployment given by railways, although their labourers
were paid high wages, their wages were squandered,
while they bore no proportion to the low rate of wages
paid to the neighbouring agricultural labourer.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the railway projectors
deserved great thanks for the generous expenditure of
money that they had engaged in ; but at the same time
no person could doubt that they had not interested mo-
tives in such outlay. However, he should congratulate
the public, and also the Hon. Gentleman, on the advan
tages that were likely to accrue from the result of his
motion.

one-fifth of that amount went from the shareholders to
the pockets of the landowners—it was a mere transfer
from the capitalist to the landowner. He had carefully
considered the subject himself, and he had consulted
with some others, well able to form an opinion upon it,
the result of which had been that he became more and
more confirmed in the accuracy of those opinions. In
one line of railway, where the expenditure had been
45,0001. per mile, the sum which went to the land-
owners was (as we understood) 29,0001. In the Midland
Railway, where from 60,000/. to 70,0001. was expended,
6,000/. went from the shareholders. Another sum of
5,000,0001. would be paid for royalties, timber, &c.
Then there might be a decrease of from two to three
millions in the poor-rates, in consequence of the employ-
ment which the expenditure would give. Seven to nine
millions more would be given to labourers, who would
be profitably employed. There would thus be expended
fifty millions, which would go directly into the labour
market, or to those connected with the land through
which the railways would pass. About twenty years
ago from eighty to ninety millions were annually raised
from the taxation of the country, and surely they were
now in a better condition to bear a drain upon their re-
sources than they were then. The fourteen millions,

which was the amount of the expenditure of 1844, had
been expended ; the sum of fifty millions, the amount of
the bills for 1845, was in process of expenditure ; and
from two hundred to three hundred miles of those lines

where he was director would be opened in August, or
some time in autumn next. The whole of the capital
would thus come into operation, and he felt satisfied
that no embarrassment would bo felt as to the employ-
ment of any eaeital which would be expended, provided it
was properly invested. That was the most important
matter which they ought to consider, rather than the
propriety of considering whether they should put a
limit to the power, the wealth, or the enterprise of this
country. He was quite satisfied that no alarm whatever
would be felt as to this expenditure. When they looked
at the income which was annually received from rail-
ways, ho considered that they would have less grounds
for apprehension. That amount had been recently seve-
ral millions a year, or 140,0001. a week. The actual
sum at present was 120,0001.; but he considered, from
the increasing prosperity, they might safely calculate on
the 20,0001. Then, as to the railways from which in-
come would be derivable during the present year, he
calculated the sum from eight to nine millions as the
gross receipts. All that he would impress upon them
was to select suitable lines, and not expend money upon
those which would not tend to the public good. Under
all the circumstances, he would give a negative to the
motion of the Hon. Gentleman, for he did not see what
possible good the Committee, appointed, could do. He
contended that the House, from the information which
it had before it, was in a position to legislate on all
railway subjects; and he could not, therefore, see the
propriety of appointing a Committee. Had the Hon. Mem-
ber brought forward a Bill upon the subject instead of
proposing a Committee, he would have been prepared
to state definitely his views upon the subject, but as he
had not chosen to take that course he considered that
the appointment of a Committee was mere waste of time,
and could not tend to the public advantage. A Com-
mittee had formerly sat twenty-one days upon the
subject, and, after an examination of twenty-six wit-
nesses, a Bill was brought forward and passed the House
for the future regulation of railway business. lie de-
precated, however, this constant interference with rail-
ways. The Hon. Member for Inverness had stated
nothing that they did not know well the last time they
legislated upon the subject; and, as the subject was then
settled by a compromise, ho thought that for the
next seven years they would have had some security
for their interests.—(Laughter.) According to
a statement made in a railway paper, it appeared that
the sum of 67,283,0001. had been already expended on
railways. This was an immense amount of money to be
embarked in any enterprise, and he protested against
any Hon. Gentleman coming down to that House, after
such an amount had been expended, and speculating—
(Laughter)--upon its regulation. Now what was the
amount of interest which many of these lines had paid?
Nine of them paid less than 5 per cent., and four of
them paid from 5 to 6 per cent. The Hon. Gentle.
man surely would not think that sum too large. It did
not, therefore, become the Hon. Member for Sheffield to
make such vague statements with reference to this ex-
penditure. And 6 of them paid not more than 8 per cent.,
and the remaining 7 from 9 to 10 per cent. They might go
on with these alarms, as there were some gentlemen who
appeared to think that their property was never secure
unless the House was sitting—(Laughter)—but if the
Hon. Gentleman. instead of exciting these apprehensions.
would leave legislative subjects to more able hands, he
would consult his own ease and the interests of the pub-
lic for whom he expressed so much concern; at any rate
he should not interfere with what had been granted to
them by successive Acts of Parliament.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he would, in the first
place, say a few words on the question proposed by the
Hon. Member for Inverness. The Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down seemed to be of opinion that no one
was so competent to view the subject as one who had
been extensively engaged in the railway system. He
admitted that there were circumstances in the present
system of railways which required the serious considera
tion of the Legislature. Gentlemen had said that they
ought not to interfere with the good old English prin-
ciple of allowing capital to take its own way. He ad-
mitted that that was a good principle, but was there
nothing more than the employment of capital to be con-
sidered in this matter? They must take into their con-
sideration that the whole of the passengers and goods
traffic of the country was not left in the hands of two
or three companies. It was this that rendered the em-
ployment of capital in railways different from its em-
ployment in other ways. The Hon. Member for Sun-
derland had taunted his Hon. Friend (Mr. Morrison)
with not having brought in a Bill, instead of proposing
an inquiry. He (Mr, Labouchere) thought his Hon.
Friend had exercised a sound discretion in taking the
course which he had adopted. The Hon. Member for
Sunderland (Mr. Iluds(m) had talked about a breach of
faith, but be (Mr. Labouchere) denied that there would
be any breach of faith in adopting the recommendations
of his Hon. Friend. He should consider that any ad-
vantage to the country would be too dearly bought
if purchased at the expense of the good faith of Parlia-
ment. To this motion he should give his most cordial
support. Before he sat down, however, he could not
help adverting to an incident which had occurred that
evening, and which showed the value of Parliament in-
terfering in these matters. The Hon. Member for
Guildford (Mr. Mangles), who was a director of the
London and Birmingham Company, had that evening
stated that that Company intended very much to reduce
their fares—in fact they intended to introduce a clause in
their Bills of this session greatly reducing their present
fares. This showed how important it was for Parlia-
ment not entirely to leave these companies to themselves.
Mr. MANGLES explained he had stated that the
fares were about to be reduced ; but that course was not

Mr. ENTWISLE would merely content himself
with making a suggestion that had long been before his
mind. He could not deny that it was in consequence of
the system of legislation pursued by that House that the
present amount of speculation in railway projects ex-
isted ; and had a more judicious course been pursued, he
ventured to state that not one-half those schemes would

then be before them.—(Hear, hear.) His suggestion
therefore was, that the present Committee should adopt
some uniform description of decision on the subject,
and then the same amount of wild speculation would
not exist. With that view he thought there should
be some preliminary tribunal established so as to put an
end to such speculation. He did not of course mean
that the House should give up its jurisdiction, but that
some tribunal possessing an uniformity of decision should
be established.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME felt bound to express his satisfaction
that the Government should have consented to the ap-
pointment of the Committee moved for, as, however
beneficial the lines of railway might have been hereto-
fore to the public, they certainly were much more ad-
vantageous to the shareholders. They had this evi-
dence from other countries, from France in particular,
that by the system which they adopted, they were not
alone enabled to pay a large per centage on the capital,
but also to contribute materially to the discharge of the
national debt. Now, in his opinion, if a proper system
were adopted in this country, they could also be enabled
to pay off a large portion of their national debt.—(Hear,
hear.) Ho was of opinion that no harm could come of
inquiry. He was as much opposed as any man to a
breach of faith with the public, but he felt himself bound
to give his support to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
for a Committee ; and lie hoped the inquiry would be
conducted with all fairness, and with a desire to fur-
nish all information possible on the subject.—(Hear.)
Mr.P. STEWART would admit that the House could
not be too cautious in proceeding on the subject before
it, but at the same time he felt bound to say that, in his
opinion, the present motion should rather have emanated
from the Government than from the Hon. Member for
Inverness. Now what was the object of the Committee
then moved, for ? Was the Committee to suggest the
enactmentfif some measure to prevent all future specu-
lation in railway enterprise?—(Elear, hear.) He could
now go 400 miles to his own house in one-third of the
time, and at one-third of the expense, that he was for-
merly liable to. If the Hon. Member would apply the
French system to luggage, and add to that the present
payment of 10 per cent., he would be very glad to con-
tinue the present principle. He would take the London
and Birmingham Railway as an instance. From London
to Rugby the distance was 84 miles. In the first class
the fare was 14s. 6d., in the second 10s., and the third
class 6s. 10d. The distance from Paris to Rouen was
83 miles, and the fare in the Ist class was 16 francs.
The fare in the second class was 10d. dearer than the
second class from London to Rugby, and the third class
amounted to Bs. 4d. against 6s. 10d. for English fare.
The average of fares in France was more
than in England. Were they prepared to
to adopt the French system—it would be no doubt a
great improvement if it could be done constitutionally ;
but look at the vast sums of money spent by the English
railway companies in fighting through the difficulties at-
tendant on their formation. Was he wrong in saying
that the London and York Railway Company, not having
got their Bill, had spent nearly half a million.—(Several
Hon. Members, " No, a quarter.")—Well, it might be a
quarter, but he still thought it was more. There was
the West Yorkshire line, which he had before him in
Committee last session; that company was now coming
on for their Bill, having spent nearly 200,0001. without
having obtained it. Under the French system, the bed
where the line was to be planted was given over. The
company went on to work the line for a certain number
of years under a tariff, and it was then given back to
them. The French were 16 years later in starting the
railway system than the English, and the English had
to use their capital to work their way. We could now
ride over 3,000 miles of railway, while they could only go
over 300. Let the English copy from them what was
good, but reject all that was otherwise. With regard to
his Hon. Friend's expose of the French system, his Hon.
Friend did not seem to know how that system was
framed. His Hon. Friend, in speaking of the London
and Birmingham and the Great Western, mentions them
slightingly. Was it proper to speak lightly with refer-
ence to two great bodies who had been of so much utility
to the public? Neither did his Hon. Friend seem to be
in favour of the principle of amalgamation ; but
he (Mr. Patrick Stewart) knew that amalga-
mation had the effect of lowering the rates of charge—
allowing of increased speed and increased accommodation
to the public. In fact there was only one instance to the
contrary, and the principle pursued in that instance
would preclude the possibility of improvement. He did
not think this discussion at all premature, because they
had been constantly meddling with a great institution,
and seeking in the dark for something which they knew
would be better than the present system, without know-
ing where to find it. If the Government gave his Hon.
Friend the Committee which he asked, they would have
something like final legislation, a legislation that would
last for years; but, unless they constructed the Commit-
tee in a superior way it would do more harm than good.
There would be constant jealousy and interference, and
the reason would be because each line would envy its
neighbour—judging on the same reasons which Fulton
said induced a man to envy his neighbour, namely, that
he compared the inside of his own possessions with
the outside of his neighbour's, which appeared to look
better, as appearances were always fair.
Lord WORSLET said that great attention would be
given to this subject when the Committee was named,
which should investigate it. Although he did not know
the Hon. Member for Inverness, he knew that his obser-
vations had suggested some preliminary inquiry should
take place outside the House, which inquiry would
prevent the labour falling so heavily on Hon. Members.
He could not help thinking that her Majesty's Govern-
ment could find some tribunal which would perform the
duties now performed by Hon. Members. There were
now forty-two Members on the Committees, and their
duties were most arduous ; would it not be bet er to
have some competent engineer to examine into the diffe-
rent features of the lines—such as gradients—previous
to the sessions? That person should be one in whom
agaswentroheooueatnlhratdceeecrssobpantevohfiej
adanbtetglnemtcroeeti could be reposed. Such a proceeding
great
owthht
takeilcabhbeohusieunr
submitted
omaa
sinct doat
enndtsxhi
dote Committeeseoursta
htt
oeothem. There
thel
Tt hheev
rawaertoitwoue
various
s
.
ahlieanierinywcdcoaoynmsnissh
many
monquiyult
Idet
ten
enecxswoe
attaghosbgif
see the change which
tht thathiaoedn oothlf been Committees
m
h traffice.syllade
sumnois in
the
railways.
trsiraenutsgees 11:7 rtnda t
in
statementsutnamely,nodbe by
had been made, but the persons objecting to the railway
had every opportunity of exposing any such attempt on
the part of the undertaking. It was true that although
traffic was not to be inquired into, the principal towns
on the line from which the: traffic was to be expected
should be laid before the Committee. He did think that
teo much importance was attached to this opinion,
that too much money would be invested in railway spe-
culations from the state of the money-market. Dime
tom in the event of their obteinincs their Bill, 'tavola
asaka .asesseliate 4%11, aed '..absy dui wo“41 r.aL
be exorbitant; he also thought that no company start-
ing with large capital could, if they were to order new

efigines, get theth made for two or three years, for there
was such a demand upon the engine makers, that unless
it were to oblige some old established company they
could not make any. Under the circumstances he cer-
tainly thought it was necessary that some improvements
should be made in the manner of disposing of these
railway Bills.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, that in the course of the re-
marks that had fallen from his Lion. Friend (Mr. Stewart) he
had observed that he spoke of amalgamation as not a beneficial
practice. He believed that it was a most important question.
His Hon. Friend, the Chairman of the ionsraittee of Classi-
fication, the other night, on the part of his Committee, called
the attention of the Government to this subject, and put a
question to the President of the Board of Trade, in order to
ascertain what where the views of the Government on this
point.

Mr. P. STEWART said he did not say that amalgamation
was not beneficial.
Sir R. PEEL said that there was a point of considerable
importance, which he had not heard referred to in this dis-
cussion. The Hon. Gentleman would take into Committee
views which would be in conformity with the principles laid
down in his pamphlet, which showed great research, and
directed the attention of the public to many points of railway
legislation to which no atten ion had previously been given.
The Hon. Gentleman was under the impression that great
errors had been committed in the railway legislation of this
country. The Hon. Gentleman asked—might it not be de-
sirable to establish some tariff on all railways seeking the in-
tervention of Parliament? and said that it was a question
whether it would not be ch sirable to adopt a fresh system,
so as to give to each company newly formed only a temporary
interest in the possession of the railway. In order to illustrate
these subjects, the Hon. Gentleman would lay before the Com-
mittee every information connected with foreign railways.
Considerable time might elapse before the Committee gave
any opinion, and what was to be done with regard to
the railway Bills now in progress? It appeared to him
that this was a subject to which the Committee at once directed
their attention. It was quite clear that Parliament had the.
right to correct an error, and apply new principles to new rail-
way companies seeking the intervention of Parliament, and
there was every opportunity of now trying the question. Where
existing companies applied for power to amalgamate with other
companies, the house might have a right to impose some new
restriction on that line, if it sought for any extended powers.
The House could suspend its legislation in these cases until the
report of the Committee was made, and could put into each
Bill a clause subjecting the company to any regulation which
Parliament might make in consequence of the report of the
Committee, in order to affect the interest of the company in the
railway. The Bills giving those companies a permanentin-
terest in these railways could have a clause in them,
restricting their powers—a clause enabling Parliament
to terminate the interest of the company in twenty
years. There had been a legislation framed for these
railways since, but a few years had changed the aspect of
things. New alterations and new lights had came forth, and
it was not to be wondered at, since two years ago no one ever
contemplated the possibility of having such a number of rail-
ways as they had at the present time, and it should be for Par-
liament to institute new regulations to suit that increase. It
is important to know the beat means of serving the public
without interfering too far with the application of individual
capital, and on this ground I have no' objection to the appoint-
ment of the Committee.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord J. RUSSELL, who, in his opening observations, was
inaudible in the gallery from the noise that prevailed at the
bar, said the Right Hon. Baronet, at the beginning of the
session, had expressed great fear respecting the application of
the large amount of capital subscribed for railway projects,
lest it should damage seriously the commercial transactions of
the country. Nevertheless it seemed the Government had re-
commended nothing to meet the evil apprehended. Nothing ap-
peared to have been done beyond the plan for conducting rail-
way business acted upon last session. The question before
them was one of great importance, as it involved the application
purposes in the present
better if they had taken the
yencement of the session
ysubject
r large
twoocuolnds amounthi
consideration
capital
t?ene na!
mttohue commencement
witmia
instead of leaving it for inquiry to a Select Committee.---( Hear,
hear.) He (Lord John Russell) had been led to believe that
the Right Hon. Baronet had in view, when he made his state-
ment on railways at the beginning of the session, some general
plan as to what the Government intended respecting the large
sum that was proposed to be expended in this way.—( Hear,
hear.) As that had not yet been done, he hoped when the
Commmittee was appointed, with the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of tne Exchequer as one of its members, that
he would state his views with respect to railways generally, as
to the best course it was advisable to pursue.—( Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question was of a twofold character. One had relation to the
influence which the large amount of capital proposed to be ex•
pended on railways would have on the money-market, and the
other relating to competition between lines of railway and the
accommodation of the public. With respect to the first, the
circumstances which had led to the fears expressed at the
beginning of the session were now somewhat
changed. Those fears arose from the large sums that were
proposed to be expended in this way, amounting, according to
the Bills before the public, to nearly 800 millions of money.
799 millions was, at the beginning of the session, the total
amount, on which his Right Hon. Friend made his statement as
supposed to be required for the various railway schemes pro-
jected. Certainly, if Billsinvolving that sum bad come before
the railway Committees, there would have been a necessity for
taking some extraordinary measures to prevent the evils to in-
dividuals and to the country that must have resulted from the
too rapid application of capital to the purposes of these Bills.
Since the period that he had referred to the Bills had been re-
duced to one-half of the whole, by the operation of the standing
orders and other causes, and of this number many no doubt
would not be brought into action. The case therefore was dif-
ferent now to what it was at the former period to which he re-
ferred, and induced the Government to forbear interfering with
the capital of private undertakings. There no longer existed
that necessity for the interference of the Parliament which was
at one time apprehended, and it was thought best to leave to
the discretion of the Select Committees the selection of those
ines best calculated to serve the public accommodation. With
regard to the question for the investigation of which the pre-
sent Committee was appointed, he would say that he was
prepared to attend, and. to the boat of Ilia ability, oncicovour to
develop facts for the information of the House. Respecting
what was said about the superior advantages of the French
plan, he would not then given an opinion. He would not an-
ticipate the question, but go into the Committee with every
disposition to adopt tke best plan to secure the end in view—
to protect the
_public against the effects of monopoly, and at
the same time to act fairly towards those who had embarked
capital in railways.--(Hear. )
Mr. BARING thought that something should be done to
meet the evil complained of, and to facilitate railway business.
He thought it would be of considerable advantage if it could
be arranged for joint Committees of the two Houses to sit en
Bills, instead of their passing through separate Committees, to
the great loss of time.
Mr. HORSMAN referred to the Committee that sat in
1844 on this question. They were told then that the fares
would be regulated by what the coach fares had previously
been, and that the regulation of railway tariffs should keep this
point in view. This he disputed. An engine could do the
work of two thousand horses, and a train taken from London
to Birmingham would cost only 26/. It was, therefore, evident
the rate of fares was extravagant. It was a fact that the in-
terests of the public and the railway companies are opposed.
It is the interest of the public that passengers should be
carried at a low rate, while it is the interest of the companies
to car!), few passengers at a high rate. It was then also given
in evidence that the effect of amalgamation was invariably to
raise prices. There was a case in point referred to, he be-
lieved, by the Hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson)—
the Midland, Birmingham, and Derby line—in which the di-
rectors said the object of the amalgamation was to raise the
fares. When he (Mr. Horsman) compared the lines of the
south on the subject of fares with those of the north, he saw
great difference. The Hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr.
P. Stewart) stated a fact respecting a line with which he was
associated (the Glasgow and Greenock Railway), in which
first-class passengers were carried for lid. a mile, second-
class at ld., and third-class at id., running the trains at the
rate of 26 miles au hour, against the formidable competition of the
river Clyde, and yet the secretary stated that they were doing
well ; yet this line had cost 30,0001. As had been stated by
the Right Hon. Baronet, in his unanswerable speech at the
beginning of the session, it was to be hoped great attention
would be taken to prevent their going beyond the resources of
the country, and that no railway Bills would be passed but
what were really required by the urgent necessities of the
country, and of which there was some certainty of their being
beneficially carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) But the ques-
tion now was—were they performing their duties to the public?
It might happen that a railway once commenced would be
left unfinished, and it would only be in such a case that they
could conceive the great misfortune of passing Acts for the
completion of which there was no money, nor other resources.
Let them conceive an individual proprietor, through whose
lands a railway passed—a railway that at first, perhaps, was
viewed by him with great apprehension. That railway, once
begun, was uncompleted ; and this, too, after gangs of la-
bourers had traversed his grounds. Under such circumstances,
they were sanctioning lines to the extent of two or three times
the resources of the country, not only thereby, inflicting an In-
ber of it.
jury on the country generally, but on each individual mem-

about to be taken in consequence of the motion of the
Hon. Member for Inverness, or in consequence of any
proceedings in Parliament.
Mr. LABOUC HERE continued. He wished to say
a few words with respect to the subject which had been
brought under consideration by the Hon. Member
for Sheffield, which was, whether it was desirable
to interfere in au extraordinary manner to check
the application of capital to railway enterprises
during the present session, to prevent any injurious re-
sult which such excess in the application of capital might
produce in the public interests. That was a grave ques-
tion indeed. When the question was brought before the
House some time ago, by the Right Hon. Gentleman the
First Lord of the Treasury, he (Mr. Labouchere) ven-
tured at that time to express an opinion, that if any step
of so unusual a character were taken, it should be upon
the recommendation of her Majesty's Government, after
they had duly weighed all the consequences of such a
step. On the appointment of that Committee on rail-
ways of which he had the honour of being a member.
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), an the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Ireland, led him into the im-
pression that it was the intention of the Government to
propose some limitation. It was true that the Govern-
ment laid before the Committee a classification of the
railway Bills of the present session. After looking at
that classification, he confessed that it would be most

difficult to decide where the limitation should be placed.
As to the question of limitation, the Committee came
to the decision that it would not become them to consi-

der it, unless it was brought before them by the Go-
vernment. After waiting for a month, the members of
the Government, who were on the Committee, told them
that they had no intention of raising the question in
the Committee. He was still of opinion that a Commit-
tee, such as that suggested by the Hon. Member for
Sheffield, would be useless. The whole matter was one
which alone should be considered by the Government,
and ought to be brought forward by them.
Sir G. CLERIC said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
given a correct description of the proceedings of the
Committee. The Government had originally intended
to adopt a plan nearly similar to that suggested by the
Hon. Member for Sheffield ; but when they found
that the number of plans deposited at the Board of
Trade had been reduced before the meeting of Parlia-
ment by nearly
-one-half, they did not think there was
then sufficient cause for interference. The number
originally was upwards of 800, but they had been re-
duced to about 440, and these included Bills for amal-
gamation, and several Bills were for the same scheme.
The Classification Committee had comprised the whole
of the railways in fifty-six groups. He should give
support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Inverness.
He did believe that the average amount of return did
not realise more than from five and a quarter to five and
a half per cent. upon the capital. But when this House
considered that the moat easy modes of communica-

tion in this country were likely to be carried to such an
extent as to supersede all other modes of communication,
it did become the duty of the Legislature to take the
matter seriously into consideration, with a view to se-
curing the public every possible advantage.—(Hear,
hear.) In the year 1844 a Committee was appointed for
the purpose of making inquiries, into this subject, and,
after a most laborious inquiry, a Bill was brought into
this House for the purpose of limiting the powers of
railway companies ; and after a great deal of opposition
the Bill was earried. It would, however, be extremely
desirable, when a great number of railways should be
projected, that a strict inquiry should be made into the
actual amount of advantage which they would be likely
to confer upon the public. In speaking upon this mo-
tion, he (Sir G. Clerk) did not mean to say that he would
support all the views of the Honourable Member
for Inverness ; but be hoped he would have an oppor
tunity of bringing the whole of the details of his motion
before the House ; and he felt assured that every facility
would be afforded him to do so by this House. But
when they saw the many attempts that had been male
by companies to aural gamate with other companies, and
the determined opposition those companies had met
with from rival companies ; and when they considered
1/,lrq ,-tke te,jul.-1
to &rive by the ketvialgamation of other IA
order to bring a long line under one management, then
the Government shcjuld take pare that a commensurate

After a few word from Mr. WAWN,
Mr. MORRISON replied. The giving an uniform scale to
railways was a matter that required early and deep considera-
tion. What they had to complain of at present was a want of
system, and it was with a view of remedying this evil that he
moved for the present Committee. He had no idea of reply..
ing to all the remarks of Hon. Members during that evening,
some but he could not help saying that it was rather unfair for the
Hon. Member for Renfrewshire to compare the Rouen Rail-
way, the dearest line in France, with the London and Bir-
mingham, which was universally allowed to be the cheapest.
It was curious, too, to hear Gentlemen connected with rail-
ways complaining of interference. Why, their very existence
depended on their interference with the rights of others; and
it was still more curious to hear the 11on. Member for Sunder-
he himself, with
landso
manyssep
schemes.
ea
it
ha
oke
es. rof
s,thel
brought
rrightswouagshhtoi
high
before
h cf
to o
time
petehtthe House
ti
that
n' when
en
fares should be established, for he had been assured, no later
than that
a thattodwany,otn Hhatoaunrsaliolwway
Heath, company
for the benefit of the to so inenaenryl system of amalgama-
tiona
Windsor intended to
f
work-
ing classes of London, to which they might be conveyed for
twopence, and back again at the same rate. This surely would
be better than living in the purlieus of Whitechapel, and such
like places,
The Committee was then agreed to,aces, and perhaps walking three miles to their work
INDIA PO ST- OFFICE.
Mr. HUME moved for returns of the receipt and eipsndi-
tore of the post-office at each of the Presidencies of Bengal,
Madras, and Bombay, under separate heads, for each of the
years 1842 and 1843; of the number of letters, packages, and
newspapers, dispatched from and received by each of the post-
offices at Calcutta, Agra, Madras, and Bombay, in each day,
for the period of one month in 1846.—Agreed to.
AFFAIRS OF MALTA.

Mr. HUME moved for an address, that her Majesty would
be graciously pleased to lay before the House a copy of the
orders issued by Sir Patrick Stuart, the Governor of Malta,
and by Mr. Selby, officer of police in that island, interfering
with the amusements of the people in that island at the car-
nival, in February last; and, also, copies of any dispatches or
reports that may exist concerning the riots that took place in
Malta on the 22d of February last.—Agreed

AFFAIRS OF THE COLONIES.
Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the rules issued by the
Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, dated the 27th
day of October, 1843, and sanctioned by the Secretary •f State
for the Colonies, relating to the immigration of Chinese labou-
rers from the British settlements in the Straits of Malacca into
the colonies of Guiana, Trinidad, and Jamaica. Copy of a dis-
patch addressed by Lord Stanley to the Governor of Jamaica,
dated the 26th day of October, 1843 (so. 160), relating to
contracts with labourers. Copy of any dispatch addressed to
the governor of Trinidad, disallowing an ordinance passed by
the Council of Government of that Colony, on the 29th day of
January, 1845, for regulating the relative rights and duties of
masters and servants.—Agreed to.
BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
-•••- •

The House then resolved itself into Committee en this Bill.
Mr. HITAIE said this Bill was intended to abolish certain
monopolies possessed by the Guilderies, and he thought it
u;hit tl7s !ix.e tl crtiz hriolts !„.ai
keen impo;eti. in eesissquenea of these monopolies. For in-
stance, certain trades were compelled at mirtain times of the
year to act as guards to the magistrates.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1846.

' The LORD ADVOCATE said the origin of the burdens
complained of was not known, and not connected with the ex-
clusive privileges.
Mr. HUME did not know why the Lord Advocate could
not abolish these burdens by the Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the Hon. Gentleman could
introduce a Bill himself.
Thi clauses were then agreed to, and the Bill was re-
ported.
MUTINY BILL,
The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT proposed the following
clause And whereas certain soldiers, who have hitherto
been duly enlisted, and who have voluntarily taken the oath
of allegiance and fidelity, and are now receiving her Majesty's
Pay, have been sworn and attested, but doubts have
arisen whether the justices before whom the said soldiers have
been so sworn and attested were duly qualified to administer
to such soldiers the oaths prescribed by the several Attu passed
for the punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better
payment of the army and their quarters : be it enacted, that
in every case where any such soldier, having been
duly enlisted, shall have been so attested and sworn, and
shall not have claimed to be discharged on or before the seven-
teenth day of March, 1846, he shall not be entitled to his dis-
charge by reason of such informality, but shall be liable to al
the provisions of this Act, and of the Act passed during thel
last session of Parliament, for the punishing mutiny and de-
sertion, and for the better payment of the army and their
quarters, where in force, and shall be entitled to the full benefit
of his past service, and to all pay and pension in respect thereof,
to all intents and purposes, and in like manner as if he had
been duly attested and sworn."

After i few words from Mr. Huant and Capt. LAYARD, the
Bill went through C.immittee, and the House having resumed,
the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
On the question being put that the Speaker do leave the
Chair for going into committee on this Bill,
Sir C. NAPIER rose, and said he did not intend to oppose
the Speaker leaving the Chair, but before going into. com-
mittee, he wished to ask the Government whether there was
any intention to revise the articles of war. Many of those
articles were repugnant to his feelings as a naval officer, and
while some of them rendered men liable to be punished without
tke ordeal of a court-martial he thought they were highly objec-
tionable. For instance, a sailor who fell asleep on the watch was
liable to the punishment of death, and he believed this article
was framed upon the principle that a sentry on shore was under
similar circumstances liable to the same punishment. There
was, however, no comparison between the two cases, for a ship
on the sea was not open to an immediate attack, like a military
post on shore. The articles of war ought therefore to be
revised, and he for one wished to see them more humanised than
they were at present.
Mr. CORRY was not aware that there was any intention
on the part of Government to alter the articles of war, as they
at they at present stood.
Mr. HUME objected to the reply of the Hon. Member,
and thought that the Government ought to hold out some
hope that the articles of war would be at ne distant period so
revised as to make them in accordance with humanity and com-
mon justice.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. HUME rose, and objected to their proceeding further
unless a more favourable answer was given to the question of
the Hon. and Gallant Member for Marylebone. The articles
of war were certainly not in accordance with the spirit of the
age, and as the punishment of death had almost been abolished
in our criminal courts, it ought to be removed from the naval
articles of war.

Sir GEORGE COCKBURN said no difficulty of this sort
had ever arisen before, nor had it ever been found impracticable
to carry out the articles of war. The Hon. and Gallant
Member complained that men were frequently punished without
being subject to the ordeal of a court-martial ; but the Hon.
Member forgot that it was competent for the man to demand
being tried by such a tribunal.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, in the whole course of his
experience, he had never heard of a man who had been sen-
tenced to a punishment by a superior officer demanding to be
tried before a court-martial previous to his sentence being
carried into effect. Had a man done so, he believed it would
have been deemed a presumptive act, and he would have ren-
dered himself liable to further punishment for it.
Sir GEORGE COCKBURN having made a few further
observations, being, in fact, similar to those which he had pre-
viously made,
Sir CHARLES NAPIER gave notice that he intended
bringing forward some measure to remove the grievances which
he complained of.
Captain LAYARD, having made a few observations as to
the unnecessary severity of the present law, and the extra
powers of punishment which were given to the captains of the
ships,
The subject dropped, and the Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

The Fever (Ireland) Bill was then read a third time, and
passed.
The House adjourned at Half-past Eleven.

If OUSE OF LORDS, March 19.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Fire o'clock.
THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a
Landed proprietor in Galway against the Midland Great
Western Railway. He moved that the petition be re-
ferred to the Committee on the Bill.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN.

The NOBLE AND LEARNED LORD also presented a peti-
tion from the undertakers of the Grand Canal, Ireland,
praying that they might be 'heard by counsel against
the Great Western ; and a petition from Thomas Berry,
a proprietor in the same Company.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Lord DACRE presented a petition against this Bill.

DIRECT POIiTSMOUTII AND EPSOM, AND
DORKING RAILWAYS.

Lord CAMPBELL said he had two petitions to pre-
sent, in which he took a lively interest, against these
railways. from a lady of the highest respectability—the
widow of the late Under-Secretary for Ireland, Mr.
Drummond. She stated that she was now the
proprietrix of a beautiful estate, near Ledwell (as
we understood), in the county of Surrey, which was
formerly the property of Mr. Richmond Sbarp—(Hear,
hear, from Lord Brougham)—who he believed was well
known to his Hon. and Learned Friend. This estate
commanded the most beautiful prospect in the world.
Now, he was of opinion that her rights were by no
means respected, because she was a widow, as the Direct
Portsmouth and Epsom and Dorking Railways were
projected to run through the very heart of her estate,
which in that part was laid out in most
beautiful plantations, upon an elevation of fifteen feet.
This he conceived to be a very great hardship, and he
tructed that such spoliation would not be permitted. It
was a mere mockery to speak of compensation in
such a case as this. If the late Mr. Drummond
were alive no such aggression would be attempted, and
therefore he (Lord Campbell) hoped that whatever
Committee should have charge of the Bill they would
take care of the rights of the petitioner.
LAWS OF MORTMAIN.

Lord BEAUMONT begged to correct a mistake that
had been made in the public prints, in reference to a
petition he presented to this House a few nights
ago. That petition was from several extensive
landed proprietors in the counties of Durham and
Northumberland, praying that the powers of
the Roman Catholic bishops, as defined in the Mort-
main Act, might he restricted. But the newspapers
had made it appear that the petition was from
the inhabitants of the city of Durham, and the
consequence was, that a meeting was held in that town
for the purpose of ascertaining who the parties were
who had signed the petition. He, therefore, hoped that
this explanation would go forth, in order to remedy the
error.