The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-14 00:00:00

RAILWAY TRAVELLING (IRELAND) BILL.

Sir C. O'LoGHLEN moved the second reading of
this bill, the object of which was to deprive railway
companies in Ireland of the power of shutting up
railway communication in districts in which they
may have lines, and also for making better provi-
sions for third class passengers. He could not but
think that his last attempt had been defeated by the
combination of Scotch members, who objected to
railway travelling on Sundays. The people of Ire-
land were in favour of running trains, and he did
not see why their wishes should in any way be in-
terfered. The Waterford and Limerick Railway
had abolished Sunday trains, and the result was
that every person living in the district of this line
was greatly inconvenienced, as communication from
Clare, for instance, was entirely shut up from four
o'clock on Saturday afternoon until eight o'clock on
Monday morning. The bill enacted that these
railway companies should run one train each way
on Sundays, which he did not think was a very
serious hardship. It had been said, when he
brought the matter forward last year, that the
average of Sunday passengers on the Waterford
' and Limerick Railway was only about three or
four, of which he (Sir C. O'Loghlen) was one.
He had in his possession Parliamentary returns,
which showed most incontestibly that the statement
was altogether unfounded, and that in place of three
or four the Sunday travellers averaged between
50 and 60, and that the fares paid were
quite sufficient to amply remunerate the
railway company. The opposition to the bill
had been got up by the Sabbatarians, and not Irish
people at large, and therefore he asked the house to
read the bill a second,time.
Mr. BLAKE opposed the motion, and moved the
bill be read a second time that day six months. He
said the object sought by his hon. and learned friend
was unjust and unnecessary ; there being no demand
for Sunday traffic to warrant compulsory legislation
in that direction, involving, as it did, the employ-
ment of a large number of railway servants without
an adequate purpose.
Mr. APLAREN was of opinion that if the directors
of a railway thought it was commercially profitable
to run trains on Sundays the directors would most
certainly do so, and, if not, he did not think an act
of coercion should be passed to compel them to
do so.

Mr. MILLER opposed the bill, as he considered it
both vicious and tyrannical
Sir P. O'BRIEN supported the motion for the
second reading. He said the people in the counties
who travelled by the railway alluded to by the hon.
member for Clare were greatly in want of the re-
quired accommodation, and he could not see the
force of saying that because a few religious people
in the country set their face against Sunday tra-
velling that they were to rule the majority.
Major GAVIN also supported the bill. He had
seen gentlemen who now opposed the measure
sauntering in Kew Gardens on a Sunday. He had
seen them at Hampton Court, and also enjoying
the sea breezes at Brighton on that day, and he
could not see how they could, in effect, deny the
same privilege to the working people in Ireland.
Mr. M. GIBSON said it had been suggested that
the present bill should be reported to the com-
mission now sitting on railways, but that commis-
sion, he believed, had concluded their inquiries as
far as Irish railways were concerned. The com-
mission could, of course, be instructed to re-open
their inquiry ; but, according to his view of the
matter, that would only be a postponement of a
case which Parliament would have afterwards to
deal with. He should feel inclined to vote for the
second reading of the bill, provided his hon. and
learned friend would consent to limit its operations
to new companies or to old companies coming to
Parliament for new powers. If, however, that_was

declined, he could not give his vote in favour of the
bill. There was one clause in the bill which he
thought was much required, and that was with re-
spect to third-class passengers, and he highly ap-
proved of that portion of the measure which enacted
that where first and second class passengers were
taken through, the third-class travellers should
be left behind or else in the middle
of their journey. With respect to Sunday
trains the hon. and learned member had not been,
in his idea, sufficiently explicit in his bill as to how
he proposed the Board of Trade should say these
Sunday trains were to be run. He considered that
the arrangement of discontinuing the Sunday trains
on the IVaterforcl and Limerick Railway was not
n accordance with the Act of 1854, which laid
down that reasonable facilities should be given on
all occasions to railway travellers.

After a few words from Mr. HENLEY,
Sir C. O'LOGIILEN said he accepted the sug-
Bestion of the right hon. gentleman, the President
of the j3oard of Trade.