The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said he would take that
opportunity of explaining the alterations which had been
made in the Bill. lie did not think that the public in-
terest would be prejudiced by the abandonment of the
clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The Hon.
Member for Lincoln appeared to imagine that in the Bill
as it originally stood the option of revision and purchase
was made applicable to existing railway companies.
He could assure his Hon. Friend that such was
not the case. That part of the Bill remained
exactly the same. His Hon. and Gallant Friend came
forward with great sympathy for the poor, and took
objection to this Bill on that ground. Now the Bill in
this respect remained unaltered; and therefore if his
Hon. and Gallant Friend was satisfied with the original
Bill, he must also be satisfied with the present one.
There was one material relaxation in the term of the
option of revision or purchase—that was, that the right
of purchase should not accrue until after twenty-one
years, instead of fifteen years, after the passing of the
Act of incorporation, as originally intended. This he
thought was a very material alteration. Another change
in the Bill was, that the right of revision being
once exercised should not be again exercised within the
further term of twenty•one years. The Bill in its pre •
sent state provided that when a railway should be pur-
chased, it should be taken at the value at which it might
be estimated at the time of the purchase. He thought
this was an improvement in the Bill. Then, again, it
was provided that if the railway, at the expiration of
twenty-one years, should be making more than ten per
cent., the transfer should be effected by the pay-
ment of twenty-five years' purchase. The Bill also
provided that in the case of a branch liable to the clauses
creating the option of purchase, joining a main line that
was not liable, if the Legislature should think fit to ex-
ercise that option with respect to the branch line, it
should be in the power of the company holding the
main line to demand of the Government to take the
main line also on the same terms. He thought this was
a just provision. It was not the object of the Bill to pre-
judge the question of expediency at all; that question would
be left open for the future consideration of Parliament.
He could not agree with the Hon. Member for Inverness
(Mr. Morrison) in thinking it expedient that a maximum
charge on railways should be established by Govern-
ment of id., 2d., and 3d. per mile for the three kinds of
passengers. He felt that the announcement of such an
enactment on the part of Parliament would toll the knell
of speculation in this country. The Hon. Gentleman re-
marked that the cost of construction was now greatly re-
duced, but he must also remember that the great channels
of communication had already been constructed. He did
not think that there was any other point upon which it
was necessary to offer any explanation.
Mr. WARD expressed his satisfaction with the pre-
sent Bill. He felt that the objectionable parts of
the old Bill had been withdrawn, and he expressed his
satisfaction with the course which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had taken. He believed that the Bill would be
as satisfactory to railway proprietors as it would be
conducive to the interests of the public.
Mr. GLADSTONE took that opportunity of ex-
plaining that on a former occasion, in alluding to the
petition of the Birmingham Railway Company, he
had not intended to say anything disrespectful
to the solicitor to that company. He had also alluded

to a circular as having been written by Mr. Burke. He
had afterwards found that that circular was not written
by Mr. Burke. _ _

Mr. lIAWES would offer no further opposition to the
Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman having modified the
Bill in the manner ha had done, showed a determination
on his part to consider the interests of the public.
Colonel SIBTHORP maintained that this clause did
not look to the interest of all parties, nor did it apply
the stringent clauses to all railways.
Mr. BERNAL, in consequence of the alterations in
the Bill, would not take any further pact with respect to
it. The objections he had taken to parts of the Bill still
remained.

Mr. V. SMITH, in consequence of the alterations
that had been made in the Bill by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, would give the measure no further opposition.
lie thought the clause of option ofpurchase onthe partof
the Government ought to be retained for the purpose of
keeping the rail Ways under check. He also thought that
something ought to be done with respect to the comfort of
the poorer classes who might travel by railroad.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the Bill, although
he thought more advantages might be given to the public
than was proposed by the present meaasure.
Clauses 1 and 2 were then agreed to.
Clause 3, after a few observations from Mr. GLAD-
STONE and. Mr. VERNON SMITH, was agreed to.
Clause 4 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
Clause 5 was agreed to without alteration.
On clause 6 being proposed,

Mr. THORNELY ob*Servcd that the clause only en-
acted that third-class trains should be run on week days.
Now he had no wish to interfere with railways which
refused to run any trains on Sundays ; but he thought
that in cases in which railway companies ran first and
second-class trains on Sundays they ought also to be
compelled to run third-class trains.
Mr. GLADSTONE could not consent to any altera-
tion in the Bill, which had been drawn up in strict ac-
cordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
The question had been argued in Committee, and he,
for one, would be no party to compel companies to run
particular trains on Sundays. He was aware of the dif-
ficulty of enforcing the observance of the Lord's day by
legislation, but he would never hold out a bonus to a
violation of the Lord's day. He was aware that railroad
companies were compelled to carry the mails on the
Lord's day, but that was a case of necessity. But
the Government would be setting a bad example
to the people if, without necessity, they were, by
compulsory legislation, to enforce the running of
trains on the Lord's day. The respectable work-
ing man, who wished to change his place of abode,
would rather give up a working day, and the wages of a
working man, than travel on the Lord's day. The ob-
servance of the Lord's day was a great support to reli-
gion in this country, and it was the chief support to re-
ligion in Scotland.

—Mr. WARBURTON observed that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton had not expressed any
desire to compel railway companies to run third-class
trains on Sunday, but if railway companies ran first and
second-class trains on Sundays, they ought to be
placed under the same restrictions with regard to
third-class trains as they were on working
days. The old Acts of Farliament always made
an exception as to the observance of Sunday in
cases of necessity. Now, a poor man might have a re-
lation at the point of death on a Sunday as well as a
rich man, but it seemed, according to the idea of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that the poor man ought not to
be permitted to travel to see his relations unless he could
go in a first-class train. He thought that wherever
railroad companies ran first and second-class trains on a
Sunday, they should be compelled to run third-class also.
Mr. THORNELY said that where railroads were now
closed on a Sunday he had no wish to compel them to
run trains. But that was no reason why the poor man
should be compelled to remain at home, or pay first or
second-class fare. He proposed to insert in the clause
the words " On any day on which passengers are con-
veyed."
Mr. V. SMITH said the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton was perfectly reasonable.
It only amounted to this, that when trains did run
cheap train should be run also ; so that what was done
for the rich man might be done for the poor.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment, on
the ground that they ought not to make distinctions be-
tween the rich and the poor. He, however, suggested
that the clause should be postponed.

Mr. GLADSTONE would move that the Chairman
do report progress, as it was now (pointing to the clock)
the hour for proceeding with the regular public business.
—(Cries of " No, no," and " Divide.")

Mr. SHEIL said the meaning of the clause as it stood
was, that Dives might travel on the Sunday, but Lazarus
might not.—(Laughter and cheers.)

The amendment was read from the chair amid loud
cries of " Divide."

Mr. DENNISON hoped that the Government would
give way on this point. An immense number of the
working classes did travel on the Sunday, and while it
would be a great boon to compel the running of a cheap
train with the others, it would be a great injury to de-
prive them of it.
Mr. COLLETT was understood to support the
amendment.

Mr. HODGSON suggested a difficulty in detail, the
mail trains being compelled to run at a speed of not less
than 27 miles an hour, while the cheap trains ran at
12, and there would be a difficulty in compelling a third-
class train to be attached to the quicker one.
After a few observations from Mr. ENTWISLE. and Sir
W. GUEST, the House divided, when there appeared--
For the original motion 4l
For Mr. Thornley's amendment 73
Majority against Ministers —32
On clause 6 being read,
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the limitation of
speed to twelve miles an hour. He did not see why the
third-class trains should not travel at the same rate as
the first and second. He would divide the Committee on
the question of toll. He would move that the maxi-
mum be one halfpenny instead of a penny per mile for
third-class passengers.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, the motion having been, negatived
without a division.

On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill
being put,
Colonel SIBTHORP said he would divide, but the
motion was negatived without a division.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses up to 23 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 24 being proposed,
Col. SIBTIIORP complained of the manner in which
this Bill was hurried forward. How was it possible that
they could give sufficient consideration to twenty-eight
clauses which were only delivered to members on Saturday.
It was not giving them a fair opportunity for discussing a
Bill of this importance, which, moreover, was a new Bill,
to begin it at half-past two, and run it through Commit-
tee by half-past five o'clock. They had no end of dis-
cussions on the Fine Arts. They did not care twopence
for the poor people, and however much he might respect
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of
Trade, he must say it was not a proper mode of legisla-
lation to run this Bill through at such a railroad pace.
He protested against it, and if he lived to enter the
House another session, he would see if Hon. Members
would not support him in urging Ministers to bring for-
ward important measures at the beginning of the session.
Mr. HUME withdrew the clauses of which he had
given notice.
Sir T. FREMANTLE move a clause for regulating
the conveyance of the military by railway.
Lord INGESTRE expressed a hope that in all future
railway Bills a clause would be introduced enacting that
all locomotives should have six wheels.

Mr. EWART postponed his clause for the public
examination of candidates for situations on railways.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman brought
up the report.
Messengers from the Lords appeared at the bar, and
brought up several Bills.