The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE:.:

On the Motion of Lord SANDON a, message was sent
tqcthe Lords, riqu
in esting that Lords Melbourne Nor-
atql'and Abstdeen might `be 'allowed to give evidence
l*foin.fliePost,office2Committee of the House of Coin,
mons.

- • SUGAR DITTIES. •
Mr. F. BARING said he wished :to put a ques-
tion:to.- the. Right Honourable the President of the
Board of Trade which he had mentioned on a former.oc-
-nitslon. It was whether the • sugar of the Danish colo-
nies was to come in tinder the: lower duty in' the Sugar
'Bill.— : • . ~
Mr. GLADSTONE said - there were established. and
settled rules to, govern 'our commercial intercourse with
Denmark; and those would be abided 'by. He did not
see any case in Which it was at all necessary to ask Life
opinion of the law of officers the Crown. - -
-.. • . . . ALGIERS....
Mr. SHFAL said he wished, to put-three questions to'
the Right Hon. Gentleman at .the.head .of her Majesty's
Government. "The. first question was, whether Lord.
Aberdeen •had received - any answer from the French
Government to bii 'dispatch of the 28th of January,
1.842, aria if so would there be any objection to.
lay thit upon-the table of the House; the second was;
,bad the British Government alsplied'foi an exequatur for
our Consul at Algiers ;. e,nd the third .was, had England
done anything. to' allow France to entertain the opinion
that she-was entitled to the possession of Algiers? • .
Sir R. PEEL thought it . would be much better to
leave the matter entirely between the Executive ' G 0...,
vernments ' of the two countries. No answer
had as yet been received to the - communica-
tion which had been forwarded by the Earl of
,A4grde.en,to.the Minister, in, France.' With respect to-
the question regarding the Conlin-I.:Generale in Africk
be. could only say that he had acted under the same in-
structions . which had. been forwurded to him during
the tenure of office of .the, Government with which the
Right llbn..Gentleman was himself connected..
:- -Sir CHARLES NAPIER, after alluding to the naval
itrengtli 'in -the 'Mediterranean and, at home, said
he wished 'to 'put 'three questions to: the Right
Ilorionrahle* Baronet. He wished to know, in . the
first plai;e, Whether it was true, as had been stated in
§pine,ot,),,he•Snanish paper.i.; that Spain had consented lo
allow France Co send troops into MOroeeothrotigh Ceuta?
His second queation.was whether th© Einperor of Mo-
rocco bad refused . all mediation ok, the part of this
country? And lastly, he wished to ask whether it was the
intention of her_ yajesty's Government. to increase the
naval force of the country?
Sir- ROBERT -PEEL said that there never was a
period at which, this country could make , a
greater 'naval. denionstration within a- short space
of time than at the preaent moment. ' With• respect to.
I the- second question of the Lion. and Gallant Officer, as
,to the permission by the gpaniah Gov,arnment-to France
Ito. allow troops to pasa through Ceuta to Morocco,
he could only say that he had never heard of
such an arrangement -having been ,entered intd.
Tlin nExt question of the Hon. and Gallant Member
was whether • all mediation on the part of this country
had been refused- by:tile Emperor of Morocco, and in
answer to that question,' ho (Ffir R. Peel) had to state
that the British Consul-General at Algiers was now
rwitli Lae ~, Emperor . of '.Morocco,. acting under --i-fie
instructions of her Majesty's Governmenkoudjherefore
' it could not be said that the Emperor of Morocco had re-
I fused 4 mediation. In answer to the last question of the

7, ;

tee who were themselves railway directors. This was con-
sidered
by many Hon. Members as an undue leaning towards
railway companies, and the consequence was, that two of those
gentlemen were withdrawn. The list of that Committee in-
cluded gentlemen who were known to be conversant with rail-
way matters. He would, first of all, address himself to the
charge which had been brought against this Committee of
partiality. He could not conceivel how the gentlemen who
had framed the petitions which had been presented against this
Bill could descend to the assertion than the evidence which
had been taken was ex parte evidence. They would deprive
words of all meaning if they were to sanction such words as
these to be applied to this Bill. Why, the witnesses exa-
mined were persons themselves connected with railways.
Twelve witnesses were examined, and two of them were per-
spns connected with the Board of Trade. The whole of the
other witnesses were railway directors. There was Mr. Glynn,
the Chairman of the Birmingham Railway ; Mr. Hudson, the
Chairman of half-a-dozen railways in the north ; Mr. Bann-
dale, one of the largest railway proprietors in the kingdom ;
Mr. Swift, the Agent of the Grand Junction Railway ; Mr.
Saunders, the Secretary to the Great Western Company.;
Captain Lewes; the Hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Card-
well) ; Mr. Wilkinson, Chairman of the London and Croydon
Railway; Mr. Rowland Hill, who was known in connection
with another question, and Mr. Harding, the Secretary to the
Glasgow and Greenock Railway. These were called ex parte
witnesses. How, he would ask, could such words be applied
to such a subject? His Hon. Friend the Member for Read-
ing, in the Committee, said, that railway companies ought to be
allowed to call witnesses. Why his Hon. Friend himself was
on the Committee as the representative of railway companies.
Mr. C. RUSSELL intimated dissent.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not say that his Hon. Friend had
been chosen by the railway companies, but he was an active
supporter of the views of those who entertained opinions of
non-intervention with respect to railways. Why did
not his Honourable Friend the Member for Reading
in Committee, complain • of the Ns parte evidence ?
In entering into tne consideration of the subject which was
submitted to them, of course one of the first questions upon
which they deliberated was the question of accommodation
for third class pasengers. The Committee felt that on this
question they were justified in introducing a clause into the Bill,
which to a certain extent might be called interference. It
would be recollected, that those parties whose avocations led
them to different parts of the country, who were compelled to
travel in third class carriages, were persons ill calculated to
bear exposure to the weather, and a clause to protect them
had been framed and introduced into the Bill.—(Hear, hear. )
There were two clauses in the Bill relating to the conveyance
of the military and the mails. There were three clauses re-
lating to the prosecution of railway companies who exceeded
the powers which had been conferred upon them by Parlia-
ment, and there were two elauses relating to loan notes. The
remaining portions of the Bill were relating to the general sub-
ject of railway reform. They were about now to discuss the
great question of option on the part of the Government with
respect to the general management of railways. And now he
had to complain of the gross misstatements which had been in-
dulged in with respect to this Bill. Those statements were,
that this Bill had been brought forward to enable the Execu-
tive to purchase or revise future railways, upon certain terms, if
they thought fit to do so. Now this was a perversion of the
real objects of the Bill. The Bill gave the Government cer-
tain powers with respect to future railways, but the policy of
using these powers was entirely vested in the Parliament itself.
The express object of the Bill was to place the whole matter at
the discretion of Parliament. The ground taken by the Com-
mittee was this, that even if it were politic to
purchase or revise, were they now in a condition, with
reference to existing railways, to entertain the question ?
The two questions they had to consider was, the policy of the
step, and whether the maintenance of public faith would
permit them to make the purchases or revisions. The Com-
mittee had scrupulously adhered to the maintenance of public
faith, and had adopted no measures which might be deemed
unwarrantable with respect to existing railways. With re-
gard to future railways they had reserved certain powers, and
having done so, they reserved the question of policy with
respect to carrying those powers out for the deliberation of
Parliament. There were some gentlemen who recommended
the purchase of all railways by the State. The Committee
were not prepared to adopt this recommendation and opinion.
He (Mr. Gladstone) would certainly oppose such a proposition.
He did not think that in the present state of the railway
system, there were grounds sufficient to warrant the adoption
of such a measure. This Bill left the question of policy en-
tirely open. To purchase any railway, the Government
would have to come to Parliament for the means, and then
the question of the expediency of the plan would be fully en-
tered into. It was not too much to expect, that in a very
few years as much as 15,000,0001. sterling annually would be,
spent by the people of this country in the shape of fares to
railway companies; and therefore it was important that the
Government should have the powers which this Bill
conferred, if by that means a saving to the public
could be effected. Under the present system of railways
the experiment which the Government proposed never could
be made. They might have it tried between London and
Greenwichj or between Glasgow and Greenock, but not on a
large and general scale in the country. Now he did say, for
those reasons, that it was politic and wise in them as states-
men, to retain in their hands a power to be used at an after
period for the good of the public, if they found it politic to do
so ; 'or not to be used if circumstances did not require it. He
had a most strong objection to any measure that might incline
the scale either one way or another; but that before them only
called on Parliament to maintain its own free agency. It was
perfectly impossible for the Executive to alter or revise, with-
out first resorting to Parliament. It had been said that it was
the object of the Government to keep that a close question.
He denied that such was the desire of the Government. They
rather wished to open a question that was now closed, and to
put Parliament in such a condition that they might decide upon
and settle it. It might be wise to try the working of this mea-
sure, or it might not ; he was not going to say how Parliament
ought ultimately to to proceed; but, in the meantime, Parlia-
ment only enacted that, at some future time, it might be law-
ful for Government to purchase railways. But the opponents
,aohis measure may say, " Tell us, first, when you mean to pur-
chitsekihem,..ind on what terms." It would be impossible for
Government to make.. any 'reservation in that case, and they
had 'thought they were bound to reserve's certain power, in order
to show those who might be afterwards disposed to invest capital
in improvements calculated to do much good to the country,
what would be the terms on which Government should take

those railways under - their own protection. It was a very
singular matter, and the question was an amusing one. How
happened it.,thatthis- Bill, which affected only the prospective
ritilwaya;bad•been. unopposed'by those having Bills at present
.before Parliautant,?.-,41-lear, hear.) How came it, he asked,
that-the-opposition arose altogether from the old companies, and
whose rights the Government- had paid every attention to ?
He Wanted Muckto know on what possible grounds of reasoning
they foinit:Wilitir opposition to the measure ? One reason
he believed-ahey alleged• was- this, that they would
ultiniktely• • •be driven • • under the operation of the
Bill. : The Very"langutige' 'used was, that Government
would;' force them into it, however ruinous and oppressive
.they might..find. it. But.: how could Government force them
into 401.1 .had •already shown :that Government
coUld-tid'ilistiring•towarris - forcing them into it; and could it
tielilive:duit,tVywould be drti.,7ll into any such ruinous and op-
- pressivst touvie Surely .they. mistrusted themielves too much.
(Laughter.-) .They -might surely have exhibited a little
-rnore-confiriencela-,(Laughter. ) • This he would say, that if
.any.:Courae cpiild tend to weaken those companies, it was the
- course' they xzeie,, then.parsuing.
,He, was addressing a ma-
jority•ei railway.proprietors -in that -House.--k Hear, hear, and
lang.hVril),,,Aferwas himself a railway proprietor ; his family
were most; egensively connected with railway companies ;
and.: Ili- repeated that. nothing could 'weaken rail-
way • companies like.-- -an undue use .of . their present
' great -power:—( Hear, hear.) Had Parliament •shown any
wish-Or inclination to oppress and thwart public companies ?
Had it evinced a disposition to second the clamour raised out
of doors against the management of railway companies? Yet
those'railway companies whose power Was so strong, stronger
perhaps than any other in commanding the votes of Members
—(Cries .of " No, no"),-he imputed no' motives to Hon.
Members, but it seemed odd, with respect to their oppositionto
this Bill, how; if they had no confidence in a future Parliament,
they could place any confidence in the present one. They
objected that Government might at a future period buy up
some poor railway, and so make use of its resources to injure a
rich one'. His answer to that was, that Government could
not do that without first coming to Parliament for , the
means ; and he thought they would be able to combat
then and to defeat the unworthy Government, which would
enter the' commercial lists with a stronger purse for the pur-
pose 'of ruining, other parties. If Government were inclined
to pursue tints unworthy policy then, what was to prevent them
fromto
this, that Parliament would listen
He thought those were the two'
no d9iusng `such proposition. now
objections on which this Bill had been opposed, first, that
GovernMent might buy, and secondly, that sufficient time had
not been given to the House and to the country to consider its
provisions. • With respect to the first, he had already stated
his opinion upon it, and with regard to the ascend he
' would briely say a few words upon it. And first, he at
once admitted that if the House were called on to affirm
the, policy of the Government purchasing railways, this
objection would be a strong one ; but that objection did not
apply to a measure of definite legislation. That Bill ought
to have been denominated a Bill for reserving the discretion of
Parliament—he repeated reserving its discretion, and he had
no hesitation in saying that, if those notes of the Committee
hail been lost, he would not have scrupled to recommend the
Bill to the consideration of Parliament. But he asked,
how stood the objection with respect to the ques-
tion of time ? On the 30th of March, the Com-
mittee recommended, and on the 3d of April the report
was on the table of the House. More than three months had,
therefore„elapsed since the recommendation had been intro-
duced to the notice °Members. Why they (the Government)
were the persons who were taken by surprise in the matter.
The report and the Bill were published on the 3d of April, and,
'therefore, when Hon. Gentlemen spoke of being taken by
surprise, he imagined that himself and his colleagues had the
most right to-complain. They might say, probably, that no
one thought of the report ; but he said that fewer
document* ,had been the object of greater attention
either in that HottSe or 'throughout the country. It was ad-
'varied to, and printed in all the London newspapers, and in the
majority of the Irish press. The principal railway newspapers.
. had also referred,
and extracted from it, and they had praised
the.moderation andcautious tone of the report, and all that was
done three months ago; and nothing then but the utmost con-
cord was expressed for the measure; and until other matters
came 'on, to which he would not then advert, that report main-
,tained its interest with the public. He complained that they
(the Government) were misrepresented, and that; too, in the
petition from the DireCtors of the Lpndon and Birmingham
Railway. They-- stated that the report was not laid
on, , the , table of the House till, ,the__ 24th of _May,
and that most voluminous pipers were not pro-
duced till a fortnight. afterwards. He complained of this as
a misrepresentation. What were the facts ? The' Bill was
founded tipw the report ' which bad been laid- before the
arise on the 3d of April. The lion. Gentleman then read
the answers given to the Committee by the Chairman of the
Lon4en, and ,Birmingharn. Railway, in which that gentleman
expressed his, opinion that the present Bill should be intro-
duced without delay. He deprecated the consequences of. de-
lay. Dy the beginning of next session, they would have one
or two hundred Railway 'Bills before the House, and it
would -,,be July before they
reading of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The opposition to this
could get at the second
Bill was ecTlPoaed• of different elements, but 'he
apprehended that the real'OppOsition was that set. op foot by
parliamentary agents and solicitors. It had been stated, that
the competition between rival lines of railway would preserve
the interests of the public without the necessity for this mea-
sure. They would perhaps allow him to introduce something
by way of episode. The. London and Birmingham and the
_Grand Junction, Railways quarrelled some time ago, and the
rival companies proposed new lines of railway for the
purpose of opposing others, and so towering the rates of transit
ta the public. Like lovers' quarrels' however, they became
friends again, and the publie were' no longer thought of, and so
it would be, if this measure was not carried, in future and similar
cases. lie (Mr. Gladstone) seeing the way in which theopposition
to this Bill was going on, had written to the parties whose
petition had, a !Light or two ago, been presented, to know if
. they were authorised by the different railway companies to do
so. The fact.wasthatahe movement against the Hill was on-.
ginated and solely carried on by those who lived and thrived
upon the abominably lavish expenses which attended every
Railway Bill ,on its transit through the House. It was
those parties who thronged the lobby, perseqiting Members
for their votes—the agents for the Bills—the risen who iiie.a.ori
making expenses out of them—these were the realparties who,
for their QWIII9IIISh and sordid interests, NW got up the oppo.

THE SUN, LONDON,. TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1844.