The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
P. HOWARD supported the second reading of
the. Bill, believing it would relieve trustees from the re-
sponsibility whin at present rested on them in reference
to making agreements with tenants in certain cases.
•The Bill was then read a second time.
Mr. PUSEY hoped the House would grant an early
day for the committal of the Bill, looking at the dis-
tressed condition of the farming interest in the country.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER would resist any attempt to
hurry this Bill through the House without the fullest
discussion.
Colonel SIBTHORP said there could not be a more un-
fortunate time for bringing in a Bill of this kind than the
present, and he would oppose it at every stage, believing
that it wasfill-timed, and calculated to lead to disappoint-
ment among the tenant-farmers.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed to-morrow.
RAILWAY TRAFFIC BILL.
Mr. RICARDO proceeded to move the second
reading of this Bill. He]was chairman of a rail-
way company which had in view the shortening of
the distance between London and Manchester.
Six Committees had sat on this subject, and had pre-
sented reports, independent of the reports of the
Railway Commissioners, and he thought that if any gen-
tleman went through these reports carefully he would
come to the conclusion that some such measure as the pre-
sent was required. The Committee of 1835 recommended
that all the lines of railways should be subjected to some
general control, as did also the Committee of 1841.
A Committee, over which the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford presided, recom-
mended the interference of the Board of Trade in the
matter of Parliamentary trains, and he would just quote
a few figures to show the result of Parliamentary in-
terference. He found that the receipts of the one
Parliamentary train per day were 1,055,7851., and
of the other six or seven trains 5,035,000/.
The average per mile for the Parliamentary train
was 6s. 6d., for the other trains, ss. So much for
the interference of Parliament, and he could only point to
this fact, when he saw parties come to Parliament with
Bills empowering them to increase their rates of toll.
The interference which he proposed in this measure of
his was certainly no greater than had been proposed in
the clauses of at least 26 Bills introduced into Parlia-
ment in the sessions of 1846 and 1847. He thought
that the time was now fairly come for Par-
liamentary interference. They had sanctioned 500
miles of railway at a cost of 15,000,0001., merely
for the purpose of connecting point to point.
The public were entirely in the power of railway com-
panies. The moment they entered a carriage the power
of free agency ceased, and the train went just when,
where, and at what'. rate the railway officials thought
fit. He did not blame the administrators of railway
affairs themselves for the existing evils, but was rather
inclined to attribute the blame to the defective rate of the
law. It was entirely en public grounds that he had been
'induced to propose the present measure, and he thought
it would conduce greatly to the public advantage. The
Hon. Gentleman alluded to several cases to show the
obstructions and impediments to which the public were
subjected on certain railways, both in respect of the time
occupied in the journey and the fares which were
charged and rated; he proposed to remedy the evils by
requiring in the first place that passenger-trains
and trucks should be stopped at junctions. He
next proposed that trucks should be pro-
vided at junctions to meet corresponding trucks
belonging to other companies. Such an arrangement he
did not think would act prejudicially to the railway in-
terest, but he was willing to reconsider this part of the
Bill if necessary. There were other propositions which
he also intended to make, one of which was, that when
a train arrived after its time at a junction, it should be
forwarded at the expense of the company, who had been
guilty of the irregularity. Another proposition was, that
minerals arriving at a junction, should be forwarded if
required, but the most important part of the Bill was the
equal rating clause, which he believed had given rise to
the opposition of the railway interest, but in reality. it
was nearly similar in terms to that which had been in-
troduced into several railway Bills. He was astonished
at that opposition, seeing that railway proprietors had
• become peculiarly sensitive owing to the great depreci-
ation which their property had lately ,undergone, but he
believed that by doing away with the obstructions and
impediments of which he complained, and affording
facilities for the conveyance of traffic from one line to
another, every railway company throughout the country
would be benefited.
Mr. GLYN said the very objects which the Hon.
Member (Mr. Ricardo) had in view would not be car-
ried out by the Bill brought in by him. He called on
the House to pause before they passed a Bill of this
kind without sufficient information bearing upon the
question. He particularly objected to the first clause,
which rendered it imperative on passenger trains to
atop at all junctions. The express trains especially
would be retarded by an arrangement of that kind.
The Bill would also seriously interfere with the system
of season tickets which had worked so benficially for the
public, and with the practice of excursion trains, to which
the railway companies had given facilities with the view
of promoting the comfort and recreation of friendly so-
•cieties and the humbler orders of the people. The Hon.
Member further canvassed the details of this Bill, to
which he was opposed, and characterised it as a piece of
crude legislation which would only throw greater diffi-
culties in the wey of an interest which was already suffi-
ciently depressed.—(Hear, hear.) He begged to move
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. B. DENISON suggested that the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Stoke should withdraw the present
Bill, and introduce one less subject to objection. He
was, however, quite cer'ain that there was an absolute
necessity of some general Parliamentary control over all
railway directors. The Railway Commissioners had been
mentioned, and he was sorry to say they were not very
popular, but for no reason that he could see, as he was
sure that they performed their duty in a most proper
manner.

Mr. AGLIONBY supported the Bill, because he
thought it was calculated to afford extended accommo-
dation to the public. Though professing every defer-
ence for the position and experience of the Hon. Member
for Kendal, he did not altogether go with him in
all his remarks. He did not think that the
Railway Commissioners had sufficient control, and he
should certainly vote for any measure which extended
their influence. Ile was sure that the public would have
the same opinion, especially if they considered the many
instances of gross mismanagement which they read of
in the papers. lie should certainly give his cordial sup-
port to the Bill, and he had not the slightest objection to
curtail the power of railway directors.
Mr. V. SMITH obj'-cted to the Bill being' withdrawn
in the hope of the matter being taken up by Government.
There was no chance of Government ever being able to
introduce a measure which should be acceptable to the
public and railway directors. The Railway Board had
never been very popular, and he was very much afraid
. that if they waited till that body took up the subject they
would have to wait till doomsday, The Hon. Memb,r
. for Kendal's speech was all very well as far as it went,
but it altogether avoided the principle of the Bill. Now,
what was tiiat principle? Why, simply that it was ex-
pedient that better accommodation should be made for
the public— not on one railway, but on all rail-
ways; and, to show that that was wanted,
they need only refer to every-day experience. In
his own neighbourhood, for instance, there was a junc-
tion of three .lines, but, from some unfortunate diffe-
rences which had arisen between the three companies, a
party going from Northampton, either north or south,
was detained at this junction two hours.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY had no connexion with any railway,
but still he could not support this Bill, because the means
proposed were not likely to accomplish the end in view.
When they considered that 5,000 miles of railway had
• bean called into existence within the last few years the
marvel was not that there had been occasional stop-
'Ages and inconveniences, but that the traffic on railways
had been worked so regularly. It was far better to
leave the matter in the hands of railway managers
tnernseives,than„by a bungling mode of legislation, give
rise to evils which would be more irksome to the public
than the delays and inconveniences which now occasion-
,. ally took place.
• Sir 11. VERNEY obs'erhveeadr.)that many of those delays
arose out of a break of gauge which years ago Parlia-
ment had refused to interfere with. He denied that
railway directors were unmindful. of the public accom-
modation. It was for their interest to give the public
the best possible accommodation, and this matter might
therefore be safely left in their 1: Hear.)
Mr. BANKES had no confidence in existing Rail-
`.way Board, and until that branch' of the
.proposed
invests
Bill public service
was remodelled he could not conserittto Govern-
menti with the extensive powers which h
to establish. Nothing but trivial questionswerereferred
to the consideration of the present Railway Board,
did not ustify the large expendituresvhwichihcit
h
.certainly j
involved, and until it was made a more uaeful and effieient
tribunal he mustyesolutely decline to increase their func-
tions.
• Mr, W WILLIAMS wished to know if the Hon. Gen-
' tleman who had charge of the Bill was prepared tointro-
'duce
mightointro
'duce a clause which should prevent any party who
he connected with a railway management from carrying
, coals and minerals over that railway with greater facilities
and advantage than wai afforded to the ordinary trades.
Mr. RICARDO was understood to reply in the affir-
, rnative.
Mr. LABOUCHERE before the division was called
wished to address a few words to the House on the sub•
. jest of this Bill. And first he would apply his observa-
tions to the remarks of the Honourable Member for
Dorset, who certainly appeared to him to have said more
in support of the Bill than against it. He denied that
the matters which came under the consideration of the
, Railway Board were of a trival character; the functions
of that body related to property of immense value, and
so lung as the House thought such a board ought to
exist, it was their duty to take care that the re-
muneration voted for its maintenance was sufficient
to ensure the services of Commissioners whose station
and peat conduct would afford a guarantee to the public
that the motives which would actuate them in the dis-
charge of their duties would be beyond suspicion.
Now, with regard to the Bill itself, it certainly was a most
important measure, and although Government
mightbe
taunted for their silence upon the subject, he could assure
the House that neither the Railway Commissioners
nor the Board of Trade had been unmindful
of the public interest. The functions of the Railway
Board necessarily made it unpopular, and the reason
that he had not undertaken to introduce a Bill of
. this nature was simply that he was afraid it would
have thrown still greater difficulties in the way of ,
that board, while he had felt that the House would
not be too ready to appreciate the disinterested
spirit which might have dictated its provisions.
Those were necessarily unpopular functions in that
House. There was never a more deserving public func-
tionary than his friend (Mr, Strut°, who had boon ono