The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-17 00:00:00

THE gUN, LONDON, WEITINESDAT_ EVENING, JUNE 17, ma.

that should be incompatible with the. inTeresli of the public
and the companies concerned. Now these were the simple
conclusions at which they had arrived. And the Hon. Mem-
ber opposite would bear in mind that, in the first instance, the
Caledonian was considered to be the best for Scotland at large,
and they left the question as to the best railway accommodation
for the western district to a future decision. They were de-
cidedly of opinion that that district should be immediately pro-
vided with railway accommodation.' lie had felt himself called
upon to lay this short statement. of facts before the House.
Mr. ESTCOURT rose, and was almost inaudible in the
gallery, but we understood him to say that he was glad he had
heard the opinions of the Chairman of the Committee
last year. He begged the House to recollect that that Com-
mittee had given its decision on evidence such as was laid
before them, and the facts as they were there stated no doubt
appeared to justify that decision. Both schemes went into
Committee, and that Committee it seemed preferred one of
them on the grounds then laid down. But that Evi-
dence was also introduced, no doubt, by the Niths-
dale Company, and that was the time when the Caledonian
ought to have opposed it ; now to come in and oppose it,
however good a line it might be, however convenient for the
country, was too much. All that had been done by the Com-
mittee of this year was, that they disallowed one expression
used in the decision of last year's Committee, "that there was
not sufficient traffic for both lines," and gave it as 'their opinion
in the decision they had come to, that there was traffic enough
for both lines.
Mr. AINSWORTH said that an impression seemed to have
been made on several Members of the House that the Com-
mittees of this year refused to hear evideive ; such seemed to
he the iinprersiom made on_the Hon. Alernber for Perth.

_ .
IVllathacibeen said in that Committee was simply that they
were ready to receive all information that might be offered on
the merits of the line, but they had nothing to say with
ought that had been done by a Committee of last year.
They listened with the greatest attention to the whole of the
immense quantity of evidence adduced before them in order that
they might come to a just decision on the merits of the Bill. It
had been stated that theCaledonian and Nithsdale were rival lines,
but this was not so, and he considered the distinction drawn by
the lion. Member for Oxford was a fur one. The Caledonian
was given last year as a direct line to the north, and without
the slightest regard to affording railway communication to the
eastern and western districts of Scotland ; it was not granted with
any view to intersect those rich mineral and agricultural dis-
tricts. They had the evidence of parties from Kilmarnock
and from the mineral districts, and of every landed
proprietor, all of whom were praying that the Nithsdale
line might be made, as it would promote the interests of
the country at large ; in short, they had the evidence,
it seemed, of the whole population, whose prayer was to the
same effect, and the country from Dumfries up to Kilmarnock
had been illumninated by the decision of the Committee.—
( Hear, hear.) And there could be no doubt that it would he a
very great benefit to the whole country at large. It appeared to
him that the Committee last year looked forward to this
Caledonian line as connecting the South with the North of
Scotland, and the Committee this year viewed it in this light
when they refused to pass the North British Railway, as
they c:msidered it would compete with the Cale-
donian Railway; but. they could not take that view of the
Dumfriesshire line, as no reason was adduced why the im-
portant districts of Dumfriesshire, Kilmarnock, and Ayrshire,
should not have the communication with the Dumfries line.
—(Loud cries of" Divide, divide.")
Mr. LOCKHART considered that the Committee were
justified in passing the Dumfriesshire project, but that they
were not justified in cutting off branches projected by the
Caledonian, which in the aggregate amounted to seventy miles.
!gr. ENVART said, as he represented the district which the
Nithsdale Railway was proposed to traverse (Dumfriesshire), he
wished to state that upon its success depended in a great mea-
sure the prosperity of those large districts. He would not say
one word more, except to express his hope, that after
the unanimous opinion of the House and of the Honour-
able Member for Oxford in favour of the project,
the Hon. Member (Mr. H. Johnstone) would not per-
severe in his motion. (The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst
loud cries of " Divide, divide, ")
Mr. CURTEIS wished to ask the Honourable Member for
Renfrewshire whether he was a reader of the Edinburgh Ad-
verti,f,r.--(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He wished to ask
the Honourable Member this question, because he thought it a
most unbecoming thing for any lion. Gentleman to go to a
public meeting and say that the decision of the Committee
was a partial one, for that was what the remarks of the Hon.
Gentleman amounted to. lie stated that the Committee had
been dazzled by the case attempted to be made out
by the promoters.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
He did think there was something very im-
proper, and indeed something very unfair, in the
remarks made against the chairman of that Committee. He
did not care one farthing whether they set aside the decision
of the Committee or not; he did not care in the
slightest degree whether or not they upset the vote
of the Committee; but he would say what was
the use of sending Bills before a Committee when
the decision of that Committee was to be opposed in that
House by Hon. Members for no other reason than that they
differed from that decision? All the Scotch Members in that
House were up in arms against the decision of the
Committee.—(Great confusion.) He believed that there was a
Gentleman who had just entered the House who expressed
himself very strongly at a public meeting against the decision
of the Committee, and he believed that the Hon. Member
went so far as to say that the decision of the Committee was
not a fair one. He would not allow any one to say that he had
been influenced by any but the most impartial motives
in voting in that Committee, and he would take the
first opportunity of fully contradicting that imputation when
he met that gentleman in private. He thought such conduct
was most unprecedented and unworthy. He wished to know
if the lion. Member had read the report of that meeting in
the Edinburgh Adertiser. He would hand the paper to the Hon.
Member for his perusal.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide,"
during which the Hon. Member handed the paper to Mr. P.
Stewart.) The Hon. Member proceeded amidst great confusion.
Hon. Members ought not to go to public meetings where all
were on one side, and there attack a Committee who could not
be present to deny or contravert what was stated.—(Hear. )
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
On our re-admission, after an exclusion of nearly two hours,
we found that the numbers were—

For the motion that the report be considered ... 119
For the amendment ..
Majority .... . . —2
Mr. HUME then objected to the votes of some Hon. Mem-
bers, as they were interested in a pecuniary mariner in the
railway.
A long discussion then ensued, and the House again divided,
when the numbers were—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority against the Bill —4
11r. EW ART suggested that the motion should be post-
poned for a week. It was in vain for the House to purify its
Committees if it admitted of such verdicts in its own body ;
verdicts obtained by the most indirect motives.
After some remarks from Mr. GREENE, which did not
reach the gallery,
Mr. CHRISTIE said that under all the circumstances this
second division must have been anticipated. The motion was
lost by a majority of two, and it appeared that there were two
directors of the Caledonian Company amongst the majority.
The House ought to allow further time for consideration.
Mr. WARD said that the observations made by the Hon.
Member were most unfair. 121 Members had voted on one
side, and 119 on the other. How many Members did the
Hon. Member require to give their votes in order that the
sense of the House on a private Bill might be ascertained?
Lord PALNIERSTON suggested the adjournment of the
debate,' which would more fairly meet the views of all parties,
and concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.
The SPEAKER' then put the question, and after some
further conversation,
Mr. LABOITCHERE strongly urged upon the House the
necessity for supporting the decisions of its Committees, and
should be most happy to let the House have another opportu-
nity of considering this question.
Mr. PAKING TON agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that it was most important for the House to support and
respect the decision of its Committees, but this was a very par-
ticular case. It in fact established a dangerous precedent, and
showed the inconvenience which resulted from a Committee of
this year reversing the decision of the Committee of last year.
For his part he was ready to agree to an adjournment, but he
confessed he felt strongly
disposed to support the Committee of
last year.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. AINSWORTH pointed out to the House that the evi-
dence brought before the Committee of last year was entirely
different to that which induced the Committee of this year to
pass the Bill. He should support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Kilmarnock.
Sir T. COLERROOKE complained that their legislation
with regard to railways was most defective. There was no
principle to guide them, and the consequence was the decision
of one Committee was not binding upon another. Something
ought to be done to render their system more binding and
uniform, and more in accordance with the principles of common
sense.

The House then divided on Lord Palmerston's motion for
returi t
adjournment, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against
n to the gallery we found
Maj,wity in favour of it
On our
Mr. PARKER suggesting that both the Bills should be
postponed for a twelvemonth, and then parties would have an
opp Irtunity of reconsidering their respective positions.
Mr. HU lIE said there had been a good deal of crimination
and recrimination indulged in in the progress of this discussion
on the part of some lion. Members, but being the humble indi-
vidual who suggested that the votes should be tested, he begged
to assure the douse that he did it upon principle, and without
the slighest intention of wounding the feelings of any Hon.
Member.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE,

. =1

Mr. HUDSON expressed it as his opinion that the question
ought to be discussed, not in the light of a private measure, but
as a matter of public policy. He protested against being
thought to have any shares in this undertaking. At the same
time he believed that shareholders, if there were any in the
House, and if they voted at all, would vote on public grounds,
and consider only the public interests. The Hon. Gentleman
sat down amid cries of " Divide."
After a few words from the mover and seconder in reply,
the House divided, when there appeared—
Against the amendment
In favour of it
Majority against the amendment
The debate was accordingly adjourned till Tuesday next.
Messengers from the Lords brought up several Bills, which
were ordered to lie on the table.
BATTLE OF THE GAUGES.
Mr. GREENE presented a petition from a number of 1
carriers of the metropolis praying the House to adopt some 1
measures to secure the uniformity of gauges.
Sir G. CLERK rose to call the attention of the House,
pursuant to notice, to a case of considerable importance, the
question of uniformity of gauge, and to devise some means for
obtaining a gauge throughout the country of a uniform charac-
ter. A commission was appointed last year, upon the motion
of the Hon. Member for Stockport, to consider what measures
should be adopted upon this subject. A report had been made
by that Commission, and the Board of Trade were requested to
consider what practical measures could be adopted for carrying
their resolutions into effect. Their report had been laid before
the House. No person could doubt the inconvenience of having
a diversity or break of gauge. At the same time, when it was
considered the large sums of money which had been ex-
pended by these companies in constructing their lines, it was
hard to compel these parties at their own expense
to alter the gauges. It was also a measure
not to be entertained that the charge should be made at the
expense of the Crown. Several ingenious mechanical con-
trivances had been laid before the Committee for the purpose
of obviating these evils. The Government had to consider
the whole bearing of the case, both with respect to lines al-
ready-constructed or those about to be constructed. The Com.
missioners considered that the South Devon line, which was
merely a continuation of the Great)Western Railway, should be
allowed to remain a broad gauge line. They also thought it
desirable that the South Wales should be allowed to be con-
structed on the broad gauge. There were two lines which
were passed last year by the Parliament in which clauses
were inserted compelling the parties to lay down, if
it was required, a narrow gauge upon these lines. These
lines were the Oxford and Rugby and the Oxford, Wor-
ceer, and Wolverhampton. It was proposed by the Com-
missioners to compel the parties forthwith to lay
down the narrow gauge according to the terms of their Acts.
With regard to all railways hereafter to be sanctioned, the
Board of Trade proposed that the Government should nn

permit any line to rnaie upon any other than the gaugo of
4 feet 8L- inches. This recommendation the Government pro-,
posed to carry out with certain modifications, which could be
seen from the resolutions he was about to submit to the House.
He knew it would be difficult to resist the application, which
• would doubtless be made, for making lines in connexion with
the Great Western. He hoped however, that it Lee House
should sanction the resolutions which he would propose to the
House, • that it would effectually prevent parties frum coming
forward to construct broad gauge lines in the country north of
the Great Western Railway. It was owing- to the utter im-
possibility of effecting any uniformity of gauge by any
equable mode of proceeding—either by compelling
the Great Western to lay down the narrow gauge
on their line, at their own expense or at the ex-
pense of the Crown—that the Government felt it their
duty to propose for the consideration of the House the resolu-
tions of which he had given notice. The House most bear in
mind that the Great Western Company had led the way in all
the great improvements which had taken place in railway tra-
velling. The narrow gauge had now nearly come up to the
speed of the broad gauge. Taking all the circumstances into
consideration, he was not prepared to state that there was any
superiority in the case of the broad over the narrow gauge.
He would, therefore, mova the resolutions of which he had
given notice:-
1. That no line shall hereafter be formed on any other
than the four flet eight and a half inch gauge, excepting
lines to the south of the existing- line hams London to Bristol,
and excepting ,mall branches of a few nsil,s in length, in
innisdiate co:lnes:ion with the Great Western Railsvay ; but
that no such line as above excepted shall Lr c„m„tio„eti
Parliament, unless a weial report, shall have been male tiv
the Committee on the Bill, cetling f-irth the reasons which
have lad the Committee to advise l!nat such hoe should be
formed on any other than the four feet eight. and a half inch
gauge

s. That, unless by the consent of the Legislature, it shall
not be permitted to the directors of any radway company to
alter the gauge of such railway.
3. That, iu order to complete the general chain of narrow
gauge communication from the north of England to the
southern coasts, and to the port of Bristol, any suitable
measures should be promoted to form a narrow gauge link
from Gloucester to Bristol, and also from Oxford to Basing-
stoke, or by any shorter route connecting the proposed Rugby
and Oxford line witk the, South-Western Railway.
4. That the South \Vales line, and its branches to Mon-
mouth and Hereford, should be permitted to be formed on
the broad gauge, as sanctioned by their Act.
5. That the Rugby and Oxtbrd line, and the Oxford, Wor-
cester, and Wolverhampton line, should be permitted to be
formed on the broad gauge, as sanctioned by their Acts :
that the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade
shall exercise the powers conferred upon them by the several
Acts, and shall require that additional narrow gauge rails
shall forthwith be laid down front Rugby to Oxford, and
from Wolverhampton to the junction with the Birmingham
and Gloucester line; and that if it should hereafter appear
that there is a traffic requiring accommodation on the narrow
gauge from the Staffordshire districts to the southern coast,
any suitable measure shall be promoted by Parliament to
form a narrow gauge link from Oxford to the line of the
Birmingham and Gloucester Railway.
Mr. LA BOUCHERE said that the question which the
Right lion. Gentleman had submitted to the House was one
of the most important with respect to the railway interests of
the country that could be submitted. He confessed that if he
thought that it was necessary for the public interest of the
country that all the railways throughout the country should be
on the narrow gauge, it would not be the expense of the
alteration of the gauge that would deter him from supporting
the alteration. He did not wish to enter into any discussion
of the merits of the two gauges. But any one who had
travelled on the Great Western must have felt that it was an
easy mode of travelling, and that the railway was a great un-
dertaking. Look, again, at the effect of competition on rail-
ways of different gauges. Taking these circumstances into
consideration, and looking at the fact that the railway system
was still in its infancy, he should feel no difficulty
in pronouncing an opinion against the broad gauge. He
thought there were evils in a diversity of gauge, which would in-
duce the House to say, (We, is paribus, that railways of different
constructions to the present might be created. There was one
part of the resolutions on which he would venture to throw out
some hints for the consideration of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
There was one point which recommended that both the broad
and the narrow gauge should be constructed on the same line.
He was of opinion that that double system should be admitted
only in special cases. In the case of the Birmingham and Ox-
ford, and the Birmingham, Dudley, and Wolverhampton Rail-
ways, he would suggest to the Government whether it
might not be allowed to establish the double line, and
also in cases of the like description. He held that the decision
on the gauges should be decided by public opinion alone, and
that no board, whatever might be their authority, should be
suffered to pronounce a dictum which could not be appealed
from. The Hon. Gentleman then briefly adverted to the ex-
ercise of the powers conferred on the Boat(' of Trade, and
concluded by saying that he was of opinion that the Govern-
ment had adopted the best course under the circumstances that
it was possible for them to adopt.
Mr. HUME could not. agree with the Government in the
course that they were now taking. He would fully confess
that formerly he was in favour of the broad gauge, and it was
only since he had perused the report of the Board of Trade
that he was at all altered in his opinion. He thought
the Commissioners had come to a wise judgment—they had
stated that a break of gauge was a great inconvenience. The
broad gauge had been carried on with great public spirit, but
still he was not satisfied that it was the more proper. The
railways extended, he believed, to 2,200 miles, and he wished
to ask himself whether it was possible to have a universal broad
gauge? He thought that every additional mile that was added
to the broad gauge, was only increasing the difficulty of rail-
way legislation. He hoped that the House would agree to the
first resolution of the Commissioners, that the gauge of rail-
way should not exceed four feet and a half. He thought the
intentions of the Government, if carried out, would only in-
crease the difficulty in which the gauges were already enve-
loped. Perhaps an intermediate gauge might be found, in
after years, to be superior to either the broad or the narrow
gauge. The opinion of the House ought to limit, at least for
the present, the construction of railways to the narrow gauge
alone. He would submit, in answer to the motion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the following amendment :—That the
gauge of 4 feet 8 inches be declared by the Legislature to be
the gauge to be used in the construction of all railways, in
after years, in Great Britain.

Sir- G. GREY thought, in order to prevent the Great
Western Company from completing their continuous line to the
Western Coast, by means of the Cornwall and South Devon Rail-
way, it would be necessary to allow the Right Hon. Gentleman's
motion to pass. With regard to the third resolution, he was
not prepared at present to carry cut its provisions. It would
only increase speculation in the market, and he thought that
until some tangible schemes were produced, the House
should suspend its judgment. He should decidedly object to
the fourth resolution. The South Wales Railway had already
been passed, and the broad gauge line had been declared to
be the proper gauge for it.. The same remark applied to the
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line, with the excep-
tion that the Board of Trade possessed the power of com-
pelling the company to lay down rails on the narrow gauge.
With these exceptions he was prepared to support the substance
of the resolutions.

Mr. E. ELLICE had adjourned the Committee of which
he was chairman that day in order to get at the
opinion of the House with respect to the gauges
on the Bristol and Birmingham line at the Gloucester
and Stonehouse Junction. The Midland Company proposed
to alter the broad gauge between Stonehouse and Bristol to
the narrow gauge ; hut such a proceeding was contrary to the
spirit of the resolutions of the House. He had been teased
with the opinions of counsel on the subject, and had heard a
multitude of witnesses, but could not form a competent opi-
nion. He bad adjourned his Committee for the opinion of the
Government, so that he might be guided in coming to judg-
ment on the subject.

Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL said, it was his intention to
support the resolutions of her Majesty's Government, and
should oppose the amendment. It would be a great injustice
to compel the supporters of the broad gauge to alter their gauge
to the narrow line, after the immense sums they had expended
in the broad gauge. He had no objection to the repot tof the
Board of Trade ; it was plain, short, and above all it was prac-
ticab!e. The broad gauge was to have possession of one side
of the country, and the narrow gauge the other; and the report
ordered that in particular cases the narrow gauge should be
laid down in addition to the broad. The Government he
thought had acted wisely in not binding themselves to either
gauge:; that was in not ,expressing itself in favour of the narrow
gauge. The broad gauge had advantages over the narrow,
independently of speed and power. It afforded more accom •
modation to trade, and was far more convenient for passengers.
He admitted that a break of gauge was attended with some
degree of inconvenience, but he thought the evil, if evil it
could be called, had been greatly exaggerated. They had as
yet only the experience of one break of gauge, and that occurred
at the junction of two lines whose proprietors were opposed to
each other, or rather the narrow gauge company adopted
a policy antagonistic to the broad gauge company. The
broad gauge, it had been proved beyond a doubt, could be
worked more economi,,ally than the narrow, and this enabled a
broad-gauge company to carry passengers cheaper than a
narrow. Under these circumstances, he thought the narrow
gauge line, the only narrow gauge ine which existed in the
Great Western district, ought to be changed. The Great
Western Company had done all they could to effect that object,
bnt hitherto without success. They had offered to convert the
narrow into the broad gauge, or to lay down an additional
line on the broad gauge, but it had been refused. Still, how-
ever, the Great Western Company did not object to the reso-
lutions, and he, for one, should give them his most cordial
support.
Mr. CHOLMONDELY said it was important that some
tribunal should be established to whom should be referred dis-
puted questions as to the applicability of either gauges to par-
ticular districts, or great injustice must eventually be inflicted
on many parties. He would mention a case where injustice
would be done through the, want of such a tribunal, or rather
through the decision of the Board of Trade. The House was
aware that the Great Western line already went to Oxford,
while last year a Bill was passed for extending it on to Wor-
cester and Wolverhampton. Now after, or perhaps before, the
passing of that Bill certain parties suggested that it would
be a gre t public advantage, particularly to Irish
traffic, if that line were continued on from Worcester,
through Wales, to Portdynllaen, but it was discovered that the
traffic of the district was of so meagre a character as not to
justify the construction of such line by an independent com-
pany. Ultimately, however, the Great Western Company, seeing
the necessity of shortening the communication between the
metropolis and Ireland, were induced to take up such a scheme,
and last session it was sanctioned by a Committee of that
House, and it stood in the other House in the position of a pri-
vileged Bill. Now, if these resolutions were carried, the line
could not be made upon the broad gauge, and might in con-
sequence be altogether abandoned, or at all events, if it were
carried out, it would involve another break of gauge at
Worcester. Now he thought this was a hard case, and it
served to convince him, and he hoped it wouldconnrvitnricbentnhael
House too, of the necessity of establishing some boat dto whom such cases as these could be referred.—( Hear.
Mr. M. GIBSON said the Portdynllaen Railway C)
ompany
having obtained an Act from that House to make
the line on the broad
it could not, or at lea:t it ought not, gauge
he thought
to interfered with by
these resolutions. But he rose for the
of law h
purpose or
af askingr than
question, which might perhaps be a question
a question coming under these resolutions. He wtanetediato
know if a railway company, having obtained power to make a
line on the broad gauge, had thepower of making it on the
narrow as well as the broad, although there is no mention of
the narrow gauge in their Act? He asked this question because
last year a branch railway was sanctioned on the broad gauge
from Yeovil and Taunton, and now he understood that the
Great Western Railway proposed to carry their line to Yeovil,
and the South- Western which was on the narrow gauge, pro-
posed to carry theirs to Taunton, and the consequence was the
promoters of the branch passed in the last session were anxious
to make it upon the narrow as well as the broad gauge.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said he had not legal know-
ledge enough to enable him to justify his answering
the question of the Honourable Member. He begged
leave to state also, in answer to the Honourable Baronet
the Member fur Devonport, who asked, in reference to the
Oxford and Rugby line, where power was already given to lay
down rails on the broad and narrow gauges, whether it would
be necessary to receive again the sanction of the Legislature,
that any additional sanction was unnecessary. The Member
for Coventry, the chairman of the company for the construc-
tion of the connecting trunk of railway between the north of
England and the south coast, a line from Rugby, suggested that
3