The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-26 00:00:00

project arose out of a local requisition for better accommodation to
the district through which it is intended to proceed. Several other
routes were originally proposed, but the one before Parliament, from
Tring north west to Banbury, was fixed on as affording the best
accommodation to the whole district, and as the most favourable
for laying down a line of rail, passing, as it does, along
the bottom of a valley, through a very rough and uneven
country. Starting from Tring station, about half-a-mile from Tring,
where it forms a junction with the London and Birmingham on the
level, it passes through part of the town of Aylesbury, through the
neighbourhood of Qualnton to near Winslow and Claydon, where it
meets the Oxford and Bletchley line, and from this it passes
through Backingham and by Brackley up to Banbury. The steepest
gradient on it would be 1 in 157. There would be two tunnels, one
near Claydon 1,100 yards long, and one neat Farthingho of 580 yards
in length. The estimate for the whole line was 900,000!., averaging
22,5001. per mile. The London and Birmingham Company
leased it, guaranteeing to the promoters 4 per cent. and half the
the coals, which are
profits. It was contemplated to carryhave
a
great impediment on the main Birmingham line from Rugby,
by the Great Western to Banbury, and thence along this
rail, and by side rails from Tring to London, by which arrange-
ment it was expected they could be carried at a reduced price,
perhaps three farthings a ton, or less.
3I r. Stephenson added that if the traffic were great, say 700,000 or
800,000 tons annually, coal could be carried at a halfpenny a ton,
d
and at a speed of twelve miles, with a profit to the company ; but he
not mean this to apply to the project before tile Committee which
was rather expensive, for expense and length entered as impartant
elements into the calculation of charge. A line, costing 20,000/. a
mile, and running upwards of 60 miles, where also the speed he
mentioned could be adopted, he had no doubt could pass coals at a
halfpenny a ton.
The formal evidence required by the standing orders of the House
monittebee.ing
the
parties Coal
completed the case for the promoters.
31r, Cocionou, tar the Great Western Railway, and Mr. RICRAZDS,
severally
ebr ncleared, addressed
forTLheordroComarriwuagtsoTr4theerend
andre-
admitted were told that the Committee had decided t
amble of the Bill was proved. that the pre-
The clauses were then severally read
and
passed.
The Committe adjourned till twelve o-morrow.

GROUP XXX V.

This Committee should have met at twelve o'clock, but in conse-
quenCe of a misapprehension as to the hour appointed at the last ad-
journment of the Committee, neither the Chairman, Mr. Bankes, nor
Mr. Bruges were present. The Chairman having been sent for,
business commenced at about a quarter to one o'clock.
There remained bet one Bill ou the list, namely, the
MIDLAND (NOTTINGHAM:AND MANS—
FIELD),
on the part of the promoters of which Mr. DENNISON proceeded
to address the Committee. He said that this railway was projects
by the Midland Railway Company, and that it would diverge from
the Nottingham branch of the Midland Railway, about half aluilie
to the west of the town of Nottingham, proceeding in a northern di-
rection, following the course of the river Lean, and terminating near
the town of Mansfield. It gasses near to the populous places of
Lenton, Radford, Basford, Bulwell, Hucknall, Tockhard, and Sutton
in-Ashfleld. Between Mansfield and Sutton-in-Aslffield it will form
a junction with the Clay Cross and Newark Branch of the Midland
Railway, by which means a communication will be opened with
Sheffield, Manchester, and the North of England. The length of
the line was 16 miles 6 furlongs. The estimate was 275,0001. Notting-
ham was a town of considerable and increasing importance, containing
a population of nearly 80,000 persons, principally engaged in manu-
factures, which were greatly dependent on foreign and distant mar-
kets, and demanded every facility of transit. This line would afford
a more direct route than the present for the trade with Sheffield
Manchester, Leeds, &c. • and will also afford a more direct transit
with Ireland and the colonies, vid Liverpool. The workmen living in
the villages between Nottingham and Mansfield obtained employment
and materials from Nottingham through the means of persons called
middlemen, who, though nominally paid by the masters, were, in
reality, paid partly by the masters and partly by the workmen. By
giving the workmen an opportunity of communicating directly with
their masters, the evils attending the middlemen system would be
obviated, and the proposed line was well calculated to accomplish that
very desirable object.

Mr. Robert Stephenson and Mr. Swanwick were the engineers
The Bill was entirely 'unopposed.
Mr. Thomas Herbert, Ma or of Nottingham, Mr. E. Batchard, and
Mr. J. Williams, ae.ve evidence as to the necessity for, and general
feeling in favour of the line.
Mr. Swanwick gave the usual engineering evidence, which con-
tained few facts beyond those included in Mr. Dennison's statement.
There was one tunnel, the length of which was 165 yards. The
gradient in that tunnel was 1 in 181, and was the steepest on the
whole line. The sharpest curve had a radiant of 25 chains.
The proofs of compliance with Mr. Duncombe's resolutions, were
then given, and the preamble was declared proved.
Having disposed of the clauses of the Bill,
The Committee rose, and dissolved; it being then about a quarter
to two o'clock.

GR.
This Committee (Lord PalmeOrsUP on inXLIV the chair) met at 12 o'clock,
to go through the Bills of the
YOE= AND CARLISLE, AND TORIES/EIRE
AND GLASGOW UNION (AMALGAMA-

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
L'OUSE OF LORDS, Zfay 25.

Their Lordships met at ten minutes before Five o'clock.
The House was crowded to excess in every part, and the
greatest excitement appeared to prevail with respect to the
all-absorbing topic—the repeal of the corn-laws.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from
several occupiers of land in the county of Berks in favour of
the Ministerial measure. The Noble Duke also presented
five petitions from landowners in the county of York and
one from Orkney to the same effect.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
landowners, farmers, tradesmen, and others, in the county of
Norfolk, against the measure that stood for a second reading.
The
Eat
rol theof Es same
o e
Also a petition from the society for theprotection of agriculture,
signed by the chairman, and two petitions from the county of
Stafford
L ( ffecta; we were informed) appeared and
took the oaths and hie seat.
The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition signed by 90,000
of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, and another from Aberdeen,
praying their Lordships to pass the Ministerial measure without
delay.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition signed by 26,000 of the
inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying that their Lordships would
pass the Corn-law Abolition Bill, but at the same time ex-
pressing to their Lordships a wish that they would alter their
Bill, because they said that the postponement of that mea-
sure for three years would he extremely dangerous to all
classes of the community. Now he (Lord Campbell) presented
that petition with the greatest pleasure, and further, he might say
that he concurred in the opinion which they expressed, that it
would be better to have the immediate abolition of the bread-
tax than to wait until the expiration of three years; but he
must at the same time express his humble opinion that it would
be much better to take the Bill with all its imperfections as
they bad received it in the House of Commons, than to have
no such measure at all passed by their Lordships.
Earl GREY presented petitions in favour of the Bill from
Shields, signed by 4A,010 persons ; nine petitions from Sun-
derland ; also a large number from Stockport, Bury, and other
towns in Lancashire.
The Earl of HADDINGTON also presented petitions in
favour of the Bill, from Stockport, and from several towns in
Cheshire.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE also presented petitions
in favour of the Bill from Glasgow, Kinros, and other places
in Scotland.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented forty-four petitions
from the county of Wiltshire against the Bill.
Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Rev.
W. Mallett, of the parish of Yardley, in Herefordshire, com-
plaining of the distress brought upon that parish by the measure
which had lately passed their Lordships' House in reference
to tithes.
Lord CHARLEVILLE presented a petition from a place,
the name of which we did not catch, against any alteration in
the corn-laws.
Lord LONDONDERRY presented a petition in favour of
the measure now before the House with reference to corn.
The inhabitants of Stockton-upon-Tees stated that they
would not support any candidate for the county unless he was
pledged to free trade principles.—(A laugh.) With respect
to their petition, which had been presented by the Noble Da-
on the cross benches, he would be glad to say a few words on
it, but as he believed that their Lordships were not willing to
have any observations made on petitions, he would in the
course of the evening take an opportunity of stating very
shortly his opinions upon the subject.
BIRTH OF A PRINCESS.
The Duke of WELLINGTON then rose, and said—My
Lords, I have to announce to your Lordships that her Majesty
was safely delivered of a Princess this day at three o'clock in
the afternoon, and, according to usual practice, I now, my
Lords, move that an humble address be presented to her
Majesty, congratulating her Majesty on the birth of another
Princess, and assuring her Majesty that every addition to her
Majesty's domestic happiness affords the highest satisfaction
to the House of Lords.
Lord MELBOURNE seconded the motion.
It was then put and carried nemi-Pe emtradieente.
RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
Earl FITZWILLIAM said they were now very close upon
the recess, and he was desirous of inquiring of her Majesty's
Ministers what course they intended to take with respect to
railway legislation. Their Lordships would recollect that
some weeks ago resolutions were passed, and an Act
of Parliament was proposed, with a view of
what might be called thinning the railways. As far as he had
been enabled to observe, these measures had produced very
little effect. He was, therefore, very desirous of knowing
whether her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to bring in any
measure which should be more efficient. If they should fail to
do so, he should feel it his duty, after the recess, to propose to
their Lordships some measure which he thought would be more
effective. The measure which he should suggest to their
Lordships would be--he was not quite determined upon it at
present—but what he thought he should recommend would be,
for their Lordships to postpone the third reading of every rail.
way Bill which might be in their Lordship-' House, until the
whole number of railway Bills which might come up from the
other House of Parliament should be waiting for a third
reading, in order that their Lordships might take into their
consideration the whole mass of those measures and select
such as they might deem desirable to sanction.
The Doke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, my Noble
Friend the President of the Board of Trade mot having had
any notice of the question is not at present in the House, and
lam unable to give any answer myself. I will let my Noble
Friend know of the notice which the Noble Lord has given.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
The Earl of RIPON, in moving the order of the day for
the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill, said,—My
Lords, I am desirous, as much as possible, to compress within
the smallest compass the observations which it will be my duty
to address to the House upon this important question. But,
my Lords, I fear that the very importance of the
question as well as some circumstances of a personal character
connected with it, and applying in some measure to myself, will
compel me, however reluctantly, to trespass longer upon your
Lordships' patience than it is usual for me to do. For thattpa-
tienee I ask your Lordships. Ido not, however, ask for your
Lordships' indulgence, because it might have the appear-
ance of fault, or might indicate that I was about
to do something for which I was bound to make excuses and
apologies. But, my Lords, lam happy to say such is not the
case. I have a public duty to perform, and one of which lam
deeply conscious of its policy. I have, therefore, no apologies
to make, but I think I know enough of this House, and have
experienced upon many occasions too much of its kindness to
doubt that the patience I ask will he denied me.—( Hear. )
My Lords, I have stated the importance of this question. I have
always considered it the far most important question which
could come under our consideration, affecting as it did so muts:i
of the social condition and happiness of the country in general.
—( Hear, hear.) Important, inasmuch as it affects one way or
in another, all classes of the community—important, as it is
unfortunately calculated at all times when brought under dis-
cussion to excite warm, if not angry feelings—important be-
cause whilst one party considers it of great injury to the coun-
try, another absolutely insists upon the measure cf the law
for their own advantage and interest.—(Hear, hear. )
These feelings have prevailed and do prevail on both sides
of the question, but it is nevertheless perfectly true
that the interests of both these parties to which I allude are in
reality substantially identical, considering the nature of the
question itself,—considering that it refers to the absolute
supply of a sufficiency of food to the people.—(Hear,
hear.) My Lords, I need not say then that
the question is an extremely difficult one,—difficult
the more because of the identy, and because of the difference
of opinion to which I have referred. I say, therefore, my
Lords, that it is a question most important, inasmuch as it re-
lates to the supply of food for the people, while the course
which Parliament has pursued upon it sufficiently indicates
its difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) At one time we have had laws
producing great fluctuations and great scarcity in the supply
of food, and while one party has considered them of the greatest
injury to the country, another has contended that they were ab-
solutely necessary for protecting the best interests of the nation.
I think, my Lords, that those are the circumstances—the ex-
treme difficulty in which this question has been placed. My
Lords, 1 have never been insensible to those feelings, and it is
true that I have taken an active part in the diseassion of this
subject. It was my lot many years ago, when I held a subordi-
nate situation in the Government of that day, to propose
in my place iii Parliament a very important measure
for the purpose of regulating the trade in corn ;
but, say Lords, I am anxious for my own vindication
with respect to the course I have pursued, not only upon that,
but upon many subsequent occasions, and comparing that
course which I feel it to be my duty to pursue on the presets.
occasion, I think it is but fit that I should explain to your
Lordships what the principles were on which I supported those
measures, and, above all, to show what were not the princi-
ples upon which I recommended them to Parliament.
11Iy Lords, when I introduced, in 1815, the Corn Bill
of that day I did it. I may say this, for it is fair; and it is
now so long since that I can hardly recollect the inference=
that were awn from the course that I then adopted; but I
did introduce the measure with the greatest reluctance. I
was not a member of the Government, for I held only a
subordinate situation, and when Lord Liverpool sent to me
his desire that I would introduce the meaeute, I certainly did
feel this reluctance, and took the liberty of expressing
that I had a great objection to any corn-law whatever. I
thought then—l have thought so ever since—that a corn-law
is in itself an evil—( Hear, hear)—to be justified solely
by the establishment of some paramount necessit
sufficient in magnitude to overcome our scruples, for, as I have
said, the imposition of such an evil upon the country could only
be justified by the necessity of the times. And, my Lords, in
the address which I took the liberty of making to the other
House of Parliament, in reference to this subject, I stated that
:-;t bought a corn-law was but a choice of positive evils to meet
the difficulties under which this country laboured at the time I
have mentioned. And I proceeded to show the grounds on which
I thought Parliament weuldb3 justified in over-riding that objec-
tion, and adopting the measure which I then undertook to propose.
My ..ords, I did not, however, propose that law ; I never snp-
Forted any corn law upon any grounds upon which that system
of policy has been supported by the House. 1 never, for in-
stance, supported the Corn-law, or thought it wise
or even justifiable. I never supported the Corn-laws upon
the ground of any charge being made on the owners of
land, or their mortgages, or settlements and incumbrancea,
which they are certainly of that nature. I consider that none
of these matters would justify a measure of that kind, and 1
never put
any weight on that argument. I am perfectly
aware my Lords that that species of argument in
support of the corn-laws is now pretty generally abandoned.
at least I think it is abandoned by Parliament. It may not
be abandoned elsewhere, but I do think that it is not an
argument upon which any one is now prepared in either House
of Parliament to vindicate the maintenance of any resolution
upon the importation of the first article of necessity in
the way of food. My Lords, I never supported the
torn-bill upon the ground of its being the part of a great
system of protection to national industry. I never supported it
on that ground. On the contrary, my Lords, I always have
supported the corn-law upon its own especial grounds,
as entirely contradistinguisrats ewraco enpladar part de
o as
a utterlygr standingaitm
hed from, every article of com-
spyuossptseoi
system
eg
orfofournnamdt
iseo pnteoacl usol
policyi
pa prot
rot
wittihst eehl f
ovrilennwdzaetwod
the uniform and universal
protection of native industry, because
I have over and over again laid down an opposite•
principle with
regard to the principle of
shared, year after year, protection, and have
of importance in the earliest measures
of which the object was
in upon that principle of what is called protection to
Brit.to break
dustry, and to get rid, as completely as circumstances ll' in
ad-
mit, of the system, first of prohibition, and then of wrestriction,
which I have always held to be dangerous, not only
to the
country of itself in general, but to the very interest which that
system professes to protect. And, my Lords, lam not prepared
admit the truth of the arguments in favour of that prepared
to
because I find that the maintenance of the corn-law is sup,
ported and insisted upon because it is a part of that
therefore cannot support it on
system. I the ground
on which we are to support the corn-laws, not
only at the present moment, but permanently—as the part of a
permanent system, from which you cannot depart, according to
the views of those who support it, without exposing the inte-
rests of the country to very great danger. But
find it advanced in the most positive manner—much more
• •ately
heard before, and I therefore immediately
answer than I ever
answer and state that that principle I never did support, and
•
therefore lam liable to reproach if Ido not support
m
that principle now. Now, my Lords, I have denied,
aad I new deny, that that is a national principle—
that it is a principle of national policy, at all times and under
ailed protect native in-
-30 circumstances to do what is c