The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-07 00:00:00

in point of fact, where the poor railway traveller used
to pay threepence be now paid sixpence, and where
sixpence, a shilling ; and having the interests of the
working class to look after, as well as that of their
employers, he felt bound to make this statement,
although it went to contradict what fell from
his Honourable Friend the Member for Renfrew-
shire, when addressing the House on this sub-
ject last night. To return, however, to the pro-
posed Committee. Amongst the names now pro-
posed by the Government, he could count not less than
five who were directors in railways, and the Right Hon.
Gentleman himself (Mr. Gladstone), who would, of
course be the Chairman of the Committee, though not a
director, frankly admitted that he was a considerable
railway shareholder. He (Mr. Wallace) in the course
he now proposed to adopt, would proceed in the fairest
possible way, for he should object at once to the first
name, that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, being allowed
to remain on the list. He meant no personal disrespect to
that Right Hon. Gentleman; far from it, but he frankly
owned he looked with gre-it suspicion at the entire com-
position of the proposed Committee. He had no other
name to propose, so little did he care who were upon it ;
his only object being that the Committee should be
so constituted as to be entitled to the confidence of
the public. He moved that the first name be omitted.
Mr. GLADSTONE would only say one word upon-
the subject. If he had found that the rule in forming
these committees was to keep out the names of parties
who might be supposed to be interested, he need not tell
the tfon. Gentleman, the Member for Greenock, that he
she,Juld have been very glad to have acted upon it, and so
evaded the duties which must necessarily have devolved
upon himself, as Chairman of this Committee. But he
found, on former occasions, that parties directly inter-
ested in railways did not, under similar circumstances,
feel justified in shrinking from the performance of those
duties on the ground of personal interests, It was a
great mistake to suppose that any uniform feeling per-
vaded the parties interested in the several railways already
formed, and those which were contemplated. In point
of fact, the interests of parties connected with the old
railways were distinctly different from those who were
now, or who might be hereafter, connected with the new
lines. Again, on those railways which were called high-
fare lines, the interests were anything but identical with
those which were known as low-fare lines. If the
House, on the present occasion, chose to adopt a new
principle, he could have no personal objection to it what-
ever. He only wished it to be understood that, in the
present instance, he had acted according to the princi-
ples which had been heretofore laid down.'
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that undoubtedly, in ap-
pointing a Committee for any interest, mercantile or
commercial, it was usual to put a certain number of
persons on it expressly interested in the sub-
ject ; and he did not see why the House
should depart from the rule in this instance.
Certainly, therefore, if the Hon. Member for Greenock
persisted in his amendment, he should vote against him,
as, from the official situation which was held by the
Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, not-
withstanding the circumstances which had been named,
he thought it most important that his services should be
retained. It was, however, quite another question whe-
ther the railway interest did not too greatly preponderate
in the Committee now nominated.—(Cheers.) In look-
ing over the names, it certainly was his (Mr. Labou-
ehere's) impression that the railway interest was repre-
sented in it to a degree which might deprive the
Committee of that weight in public opinion which it was
desirable every Committee of that House should possess.
—(Loud cheers.) That principle, however, was a totally
different one to the urgent and inconvenient rule which
the Hon. Member for Greenock desired to have intro-
duced, and, therefore, he must vote against the amend-
ment, and for the retention of the name of the Right
Hon the President of the Board of Trade.—(Hear.)

Mr. HUME said the principle was as stated by his
Hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, however diffe-
rent the practice might have been of late years. He
could speak from his own experience on this subject, for
he had himself challenged the votes of Mr. Pascoe Gren-
fell and others, as shareholders in the St. Katharine's
Docks, when the Bill authorising their erection was be-
fore the House. The Bill was brought up ; it was op-
posed ; and on a division being called, and- before it took
place, he challenged the namesreferred to as persons who,
being interested, ought not to be allowed to vote. On con-
sideration these votes were struck out.—(Hear, hear.)
The House, therefore, had acted on a former occasion
on the principle laid down by his Hon. Friend, the Mem-
ber for Greenock, and what had been advanced by the
Right lion. Member for Taunton, (Mr. Labouchere),
was not wholly correct. For his own part, he (Mr.
Ilume) considered it was too much the practice to put
interested parties on the Committees of that House.
A Committee was appointed to ascertain facts, and to
get at the real merits and the truth of the case. It was
desirable to have parties upon it who were both for
and against the object in view. A Committee so con-
stituted would always give them the best information,
and upon that the House would always decide safely
what course to pursue. He had always been of opinion,
that no individual whatever should be allowed to sit on
a Committee who had any personal interest in it what-
ever. He had tried often to carry that principle out.
He repeated, that his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Greenock, was right in his principle, though, as to
modern instances, not in his practice, and he could not
sit down without expressing his surprise at, and disap-
proval of, the great number of railway directors no-
minated on the Committee just submitted to the House.
Lord HOWICK contended, that the case of the St.
Katherine's Docks did not apply in the present instance.
There the parties challenged were directly interested
in the Bill before, the House. here a Committee was
wanted merely to-judge what general regulations were
desirable in the management of railways. The conse-
quence of acting on the principle laid down by the Hon.
Member for Greenock, would be to drive from the Com-
mittee all the information and experience which Mem-
bers of that House, being railway directors and proprie-
tors, could bring to bear upon the subject. But he
(Lord Howick) could not help thinking that as the
Committee was now constituted, the railway interest
was too strongly represented—(Cheers)—and that gen-
tlemen, holding high situations in these great under- '
takings were not the most proper instruments to effect
the object that House was supposed to have in view.—
(Loud cheers.) Why, these were probably the very
men they might want for witnesses.—(Hear, hear.) It
was bad to have one person as a witness, and the same
person afterwards to draw conclusions.—(Hear, hear.)
He hoped the names of the directors would be withdrawn.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Government could not do
otherwise than observe that the feeling of the House
was strongly opposed to the Committee as now proposed:
In his opinion every one of the names upon this Com-
mittee had been unduly chosen.—(Hear, hear.) Amongst
a great number of other names upon it he found that of
Mr. Russell, who was Chairman of the Directors of the
Great Western Railway. This he thought most un-
warrantable, because the Committee would have to enter
into negotiations with several of the railway companies.
Now he would ask who were the persons to decide upon
the manner in which those negotiations were to be car-
ried on ? The Hon. Member to whom he had just al-

luded was one of those who was most deeply interested
in the matter, and in his capacity of chairman was a
person who would be very likely to come before the
Committee as a witness, and also would be one most in-
terested in the negotiations. He could go through all
that Committee, and point out scarcely one name un-
connected with either the Government or some railroad,
while there was not one representative of any of those
large towns to which there was a continual influx of
travellers. He should conclude by entreating that some'
more fitting Members should be selected for this Com-
mittee, who would be likely to attend more to general
than individual interests.

Lord J. RUSSELL did not entirely agree with the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath in saying that no
director of a railway should be allowed to be placed on
the Committee. Ho thought that to a certain degree
the fact of having the practical remarks of those gentle-
men would be likely to have a beneficial result. With
respect to the Noble Lord the Member for Totnes, he
should say that he had been one of the members of the
Committee, and at that time he had no connexion with
any railway. He (Lord John Russell) thought that a
matter for consideration, whether, if the directors of one
railway were upon the Committee, those personS con-
nected with other lines of railroad, who did not possess
the same privilege, might have reason to complain?
Mr. GLADSTONE thought it most desirable that
some railway directors should be placed upon the Com-
mittee. He differed froth the Noble Lord that persons
•.ho were shareholders were more fit to be on the Com-
mittee than those who were directors, for many of the
shareholders were more interested in the matter than
the directors. There was Mr. Glynn, who was so ex-
tensive a holder of shares as to be qualified to act as a
director. If the Committee wanted to have the informa-
tion of experienced and practical men, who were con-
versant with the subject under investigation, he thought
they could not do better than to have a fair'proportion
of railway directors. At the same time, while he ap-
proved of having a fair proportion of directors upon the
Committee, he should state that he did not con:.

Sider the question a new one. Previous ,to
forming the Committee, the first thing he did
was to procure a list of the names which
were upon the former Committee of 1840, and he
saw there the names of many gentlemen connected with
railways, amongst whom were the Hon. Member for
eunderland, who declined to act upon this Committee,
although he was a person of great experience in those
matters. There was also the Hon. Baronet the Member
for Leicester, and the Honourable Member for
Clitheroe, who was a Director of the South Eastern
Railway, which was different from all the others, being
what is termed klow-fare railway, and it was on account
of the intimate acquaintance which that Hon. Gentle-
man had with railway matters that he selected him to be
one of the Committee. .He admitted that the subject
was one of great difficulty. According to the rules of
the House a Committee could not consist of more than
fifteen Members. Since coming into the House he had
received many communications Worn gentlemen, n-
nected with various railway schemes in different parts
of the country, complaining that their interests were not
adequately represented in the Committee. If it should
be the pleasure of the House to depart from the rule li-
miting the number of a Committee, although the prece-
dent might be objectionable, still it would tend to re •
move many of these difficulties; but if it was determined
to adhere to the number of fifteen, he,ilid not see how
they could appoint Members representing all these diffe-
rent interests on the Committee. " He did not
himself consider it a matter of importance that
three or four directors of railway companies
were included among the members of the Com-
mittee. The labours of the Committee were merely
preliminary, and if it should appear that any recom-
mendation of the Committee had been carried solely by
the votes of the railway directors it would lose a great
deal of the weight which would be otherwise attached to
it.—(Hear, hear.) There were many other gentlemen
whom be should lave been. anxious to have seen on that
Committee bad it been raetkable. There was the