The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-21 00:00:00

might not with great advantage be adopted in this
country. Experience had shown that parties are quite
willing to undertake the whole cost of constructing rail-
ways in France ta be held for terminable periods. This
was, in fact, mainly a matter of policy -on the part of
the state. Of course a sinking fund would have to be
provided out of the profits, in order to reimburse the
original expenditure at the expiration of the lease; and
that was no real ha:dahip to companies. The whole
transaction resolved itself into the. nature of a loan to
the state, in the shape of an annuity for a certain num-
ber of years. It therefore appeared to-him that there ,
could not be two opinions upon the subject, and that if
it were practicable to get our new railroads undertaken
upon this principle, it was most desirable that no time
should be lost in adopting it. No one could pretend to
estimate to what extent the railway system might be
carried in twenty or thirty years, or what might be
the effect of improvements in cheapening the cost of
locomotion during shut interval. But it was mani-
festly desirable that the state should, as early as
possible consistent with the public advantage, obtain
the control of those lines of public communica-
tion. And there was this obvious advantage in
adopting this system of leases, which had been
so successfully introduced into France, that every
railway Act that was passed would be a conversion
of so much of our general taxation into annuities ter-
minable with the expiring of the leases, and without the
sacrifice of one shilling by the state. Now he would
never advise the House to give up the principle of com-
petition, for it was it very valuable onc, but competition
was not enough. In the case of the Bank of England
it had been admitted that competition was not enough,
and he thought the Rigbt Hon. Baronet, if be would
devote a little attention to the subject, would acknow-
ledge that in the case of railways, as well as of bank
ing, something more than competition was necessary.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Morrison) had stated
that the experience of the last year had been of infinite
value as regarded railways. That of the next three
years would be more so ; and, indeed the expe-
rience -of -each succeeding year would furnish addl.
tional evidence as to the extent to which traffic was
likely to be carried. That there were the means in this
country of working railways cheaper then in France could
not be a matter of doubt, upon comparing the re-
s Jurces and relative amount of population • of
each. The Honourable Member illustrated this po-
sition by reading the following statistical details :
" Population of France in 1842, 34,213,929, and dividing
this sum by the area of 203,736 square miles, the popula-
tion for each square mile is 167.932. The population per
square mile in England is at present 297.698 ; and of
Great Britain, 210476. The trade and mercantile marine
o, France are quite inconsiderable compared with those
of Britain. In 1844, the total customs revenue of France
amounted to 215,825,704 francs, or 8,633,6281. ; whereas
the total customs revenue of the United Kingdom, during
the same year, amounted to 24,107,3481. In 1844, the
cnstoms revenue of Liverpool amounted to 4,487,6641.,
while the customs revenue of Marseilles, which has the
largest trade of any town in France, amounted during the
same year to only 36,688,000 francs, or 1,467,5201. And,
with the exception of Havre, the customs revenue of
which in 1844 amounted to 1,085,040 L, the cus-
toms revenue of no town in France exceeds 500,000/. ;
whereas in this country the customs revenue of the
Clyde amounted in 1843 to 938,5141., that of Dublin to
977,8901., that of Leith to 628,0081., and that of Hull to
525,4181. The proportion of the population living in
towns in Britain is Incomparably greater than in France.
fhis is evident from comparing the present population of
the ten principal towns in each.
In Great Britain. In France.
Population, 1841 : Population, 1842 :
London
Manchester ..... 296,183'Marseilles
Liverpool
Glasgow 274,538 Bourdeaux . 99,512
Birmingham .... lB2,922'Rouen 90,580
Leeds
Edinburgh-- ..... 138,182 Nantes
Bristol 122,296 Lille
Plymouth
Sheffield ... ..... 68,186 Amiens

3,474,578 i

" The discrepancy in the an
he principal English and Fre]

Shipping exclusive of steamers
belonging to the ten principal'
English Ports in 1844.
Vessels. Tonnage.
London
Liverpool ......1,287 342,142
Newcastle ......1,236 273,95:1
Sunderland ... 813 165,697
Glasgow ' ..... 393 96,61(
Greenock
Hull
W hit ell aven
Aberdeen ...
Dundee 326 48.9 K:

1,679,20 S
fount of shipping belonging to
ich ports is equally remarkable,

Shipping exclusive ofsteamers
belonging to the ten principal
French Ports in 1844.

Vessels. Tonnage.
Havre
Bourdeaux 365 61,501
Nantes 541 00,520
horseflies 630 54,896
St. Malo
Dunkirk
Granville
Rouen
Nouvelle
Dieppe .. 174 S 10,837

8,688 1,766,4421 2,991 836,398
" Total shipping belonging to ports in the United King-
dom :

-
Number of Vessels. Tonnage.
22,297 2,848,149
" Total shipping belonging to ports in Franca :
Vessels. Tonnage.
13,578 595,344
" The total tonnage of France being very little more than
that of the single port of London."
The Hon. Member then observed that he had not alluded
to the other advantages which would be derived in this
coui.try from adopting the French system, because they
would form a proper subject of inquiry by the Com-
mittee, and concluded by moving for a " Special Com-
mittee to inquire whether, without discouraging legiti-
mate enterprise, conditions may not be embodied in
Railway Acts better fitted than those hitherto inserted in
them to promote and secure the interests of the public."

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.

TIIUR3DAY, MARCH 19.

The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Rlils
ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members :
Surrey Iron Railway Company (llissolving)—Mr. Kemble, Mr.

Antrobus, and Mr. Trotter.
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley—Viscount Ingeatre, Mr.

Muntz, and Mr tip,, er.
Bristol and Birmingham (Gloucester and Statehouse Junction)—Mr,

Hudson and Mr.i'lullpOtts.
Edinburgh and Bathgate—Sir J. Hope and Mr. W. Bailie.
Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junetion—Mr. Oswald, Mr. Den.

nistoun, and Mr. W. }Unite.
Glasgow Southern Terminal—Mr. Bouverie and Mr. P. Stewart.
Leeds and Thlrsk (Knaresborough Branch Extension)—Mr 0. Dun..
combe, Sir G. Cockburn, and Mr. Aldam.
Scottish Midland Extension —Viscount Duncan and Mr. Duncan.
Horbury Bridge and Calder Railway—Mr. Beckett and Mr. Aldam.
t,ast Deteham and Norwich—Mr. Bagge, Mr. Chute, & Mr. B. Smith.
Shrewsbury and llereferdshire—Mr. W. 0. Gore, Mr. Hughes, Mr.
Ackers, and Mr. J. Bailey, jun.
Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Leeds, and Bradford—
Viscount Mef petit and Mr. Stanslield.
Northumberland and Lancashire—Mr. Ord, Mr. Granger, and Mr.
Watson.
Buckinghamshire (Tring to Banbury)—Marquis of Chandos 194 Mr.
Tattered.
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate—Mr. Mangles and Mr. Wall.
Worcester and l'orthdynliaen - Mr. Clive and Sir W. Wynn.
West London Improvement and Extension—Colonel Anson and Mr.
Mangles.