The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 12,

yid
/ at four per cent. for the constructs )
te,t4eir railways, whilst the return was only
t rind a half. How was the difference made up ?
ltdoeet ,
e ealY by public taxaton.—(Hear, hear.) On
eat .epse grounds he objected tot this all, and he believed
lost" it were passed, the result would be a competition
unfair, most intolerable, most ruinous to the rail-
johtionest unjust to all classes, and most productive of
nF and mischief. He could not consent to give any
the 44eept one of direct negative to the motion before
hl —{Cheers:)
sear eer
ALLACE said he had been one of the first to
It Plain in that House of the monopoly of railways, and
th,-.Jection to the system was now rather increased
aeel iminished. It had bee stated hat the pubic toott
ult derest in hat It but het held in hisl k hand a
th 'Len which showed that that was nut the case. It was
t,:dPeetition of a number of merchants, manufacturers, and
gearen in Birmingham complaining that a most
teeeing monopoly had been established by railway
ithriaiaies, and that they had interfered most materially
tun the free sending of goods to different parts of the
ea-iterY• He believed there were god grounds fur
the p more extensive changes than those proposed in
Times'L ''
Having read that extract from the Railway
Gal he would read an extract from that most influen-
ePaper, the Times itself. (The extract contained a
0:! Plaint of the treatment which travellers by the third-
re'eZ trains experienced at the hands of the railway di •
4,44.) From the first time that these companies had
the established they had constantly ground the face of
etti!eer• They had systematically contrived their ar-
Qeelents to compel people to take the first or second
carriages instead of the third.
esenelicseie MEMBER then moved that the House be
lotitir, and the gallery was cleared, but there were
011 counting to be a sufficient number present to
It° a house. On our re-admission we found
ski' WALLACE going through a statement of the
"us rates of charges per mile upon the several rail-
er,: _
e3;il"apt Great Britain and Ireland, but it was impossible
The anything of his statement taken up at the close.
oe,f""eking classes could travel at an expense of only
IN:rlhing a mile between the town which he repre-
Nee and Glasgow, whereas between those great em-
tee 411's of manufactures, Birmingham and Manchester,
`hat;', al.ge woes 2d. per mile. He advocated an entire
io 'cur
OF the system, which was at present constructed
to 'eur of the few and against the many. Ile should,
ealZore, give the Bill his best support. He was de-
Y in favour of competing lines ; and he could not
linage any reason why there should not be competing
tle every direction. The railways from London to
1e,0,001 paid 12 per cent. Why should there not be
keine; with 6 per cent as a sufficient remuneration?
IN.' with regard to the conduct which the Post-office
teereqerienced from the railway companies, he thought
send must be a very strong impression on the public
she, . (hear, hear.) He could give many instances
tee. QM the necessity of some decided restraint upon
"le Droved to be absolutely necessary. Whilst
ion this this subject,' he might be permitted to say that
ad been stated the Scottish people were willing not to
Se aye
,mail-trains on a Sunday, in order to avoid the de-
ab:ation of the Sabbath. This was all nonsense—all
et,,ehttely untrue. A few persons, calling themselves
Useple of Scotland, said his countrymen were against
Andrewng ; but these were only such persons as
feet Agnew, who knew nothing at all of the real
beesags of the people. To revert, however, to the Bill
tes:re the House, he had only one objection to it, and
lamb Was that it did not go, far enough.—(Hear, and
farteter.) No, he repeated, it did not by any means go
eeeeneugh. Still, so far as it did go, it was a most excel-
to teQ
to asteee, calculated to do a great deal of good, and
teemert "ory high credit upon the Government. He
ecolt',Zitinisters would not heed anything the directors
ten. " ue, but go on firmly with their measure, which
eairily should have his very best support.
1 ar' 1) ,c • BULLER said he could not help remarking
tepee
fight
animadversions which had been indulged in by
,e"'ght Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board
e'retle, as to the motives of those gentlemen who
%la
bal:(4Bed this Bill, and the self-laudation with which he
leeealx)ken of the conduct of the Government. That
tert Ron. Gentleman really seemed to suppose that
tue
te ePPesition to this Bill had been got up from the
estit and most interested motives, and that every dis-
tetdn it from th views of the Government was influ-
eteen his opinions and actions by those Parliamentary
qts whom he had taken upon himself to denounce in
tem strong and unmeasured terms as the most active
eta formidable opponents of the Bill. He (Mr. Buller)
Catatt.eenfess he had heard so much of this self-laudation
was quite sick of it, becauge his experience told
pee that when Government did array great masses of the
tetti'Lle against them, it was sometimes done quite as
boec4hy their own folly, as at other times by their own
teels,tY and public virtue. And he thought, when he
of e."ected the course pursued during the long period
Des'e.e years by those now in power, but then in op-
tti 'eon—
when he recollected that for all that period
eY, had organised into a conspiracy against the public
the; all the private interests of the nation, it was, to say
et theaat of it, somewhat presumptuous in any Member
bet; e Present Government to indulge in the self appro-
hea:,,(l' and cant of which they had for the last few days
ettoF„ se much.—(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he
fee July acknowledged he did not participate in those
ette4ngs of animosity, distrust, and suspicion, which were
thi inpted to be raised against the railway interest of
s country.—(Hear hear.) He must own that when-
yrer he had to travel, by railway he travelled in a most
core ,
foltable and commodious carriage, at three times the
syneed he formerly could, and generally for the same rate
of fare as on the top of a coach. He could not then but
t"'lnk them a great good, and he thought it but fair in
tay one not to look too harshly upon any imperfections,
new
it was not to be wondered at should exist in su
system.—(Hear, hear.) The general argument
13,11 which he intended to found a few observations, was
tibia—that they should not rashly interfere with the
reeresent system of railways, for by them the public had
itutained the greatest increase of power and comfort that
ayl taken place in our time. And before they started their
Vrt:" Of interference, he thought it but right that the
toectsre and the public should have the opportunity of
was oa,ntee; that which they proposed, with that which
btutbhte, w n existence.—(Hear, hear.) There was no
evils in the management of the present system,
"as asked them to satisfy his mind that there were no
tee elu„ the plan which they proposed to substitute ? If
of were so great as stated in the present system
tettiLtwaYs, it behoved that House to give a very at-
tn. "1" consideration to the subject before they deter-
ft:led what alteration should be made in it. He con-
sed) however, that his great objection to the present
14":"ding was, that they should be called upon to legis-
th: on such a subject in so short a period of
tt.,o..ie• Were they, on the first intimation of evil
o
adopt any plan or remedy which the Government, al
_ at late period of the session, might choose to point
Ztt.lt to them ? Were they to be called on in the month
eejely, for the first time, to pass a Bill, founded on
Ite'e,, reports, which he, for one, candidly confessed he
1)"," „ever read ? (Ironical cheers from the Treasury
tc-el'es.) He did not think it necessary to plead guilty
hi° aeY dereliction of duty for not having read these vo-
e-anrs, for the House had been most fully engaged on
ennus subjects of the highest importance, and there
ee-e'rheen quite sufficient to fully occupy the mind of
teeenen. Member. And it, moreover, had never en-
-41,1( Into his mind to conceive that any Government, at
11,;,,' period of the session, would call upon the
I ,-,"50 to legislate upon a subject at once so
el;Ts and so important.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then,
1s Bill, first of all, went to interfere with
yzatn property in such a way as never was before heard
le that House—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—in a
R4l',
tee,
-. contrary to all our habits, all our institutions,
' the spirit of British enterprise ; for this Bill directly
t',ellesed to give to the Government the power of taking
l
1,0 railways into their own hands. But the Right Hon.
resident of the Board of Trade said they could not act
Jeri the clause which gave this power. Then why was
zi,"• an inoperative clause left in the Bill ? Clauses one,
-' Pe, eight, and others he could turn to, all gave or
C,"rtned the power of purchase, and the sixteenth clause
,°‘ only says railways may be purchased, but actually
1,11/lets in whom they are to be vested when they are pur-
ee-ea'3ed--(Hear, hear.) Then there was the 38th clause,
'r: exceedingly stringent one, by which Government was
'Choa control over all existing railways, as well as
e hereafter to be made ; therefore the public were
quitethe right in the interpretation which they had put upon
re-"e Clauses of the Bill. It would not alarm the public so
Purchasing
if the only power the Government had was that of
elrehasing the railway. But the Government was ern-
e"wered by the 38th clause to make contracts with ex •
4tin" railways.
'fr. W. B. GLADSTONE observed that that was
'let so.
isit C. BULLER said that if that was not so, he did
th know the meaning of the clause. If any railway
know
tee-"Pany wanted to increase its powers, they had not to
6'4'le before Parliament, but before the Lords of the
altinittee, and so, in fact, to come before the Board of
Trade- It was on this ground that he objected to this
measure.
It seemed to him extraordinary that at the
resent day parties should get up in the House of Com-
Zsi.ef Great Britain and defend private enterprise,
Itc't had made this country the greatest in the world.
to '!PPeared to be the wish of the Board of Trade
Interfere as much as possible with the pri-
1114e enterprises of her Majesty's subjects. He
did
not know where this interference was to end ;
übably by and be they would have an assistant corn-
ssioner to cut their meat for them, bccause the Go-
Tr:lntent could do everything better than any one else.
t them look at the turnpike roads of this country.
heY had been made without the assistance of the Go-
trnment. The roads in France had been made under
e superintendence of the Government, and he would
England
it to those who had travelled in France and in
;:i,44, gland to say which were the best.—(Hear, hear.)
lighting of the towns in England had been accom-
plished by private individuals, and where, he would
anag• Where were there towns better lighted than in this
country? Even the buoying and lighting of the coasts
of this country was not left to the Government, but to
li_a than
the Trinity Hofouse, and where was a coast better lighted
Great Britain? The great Bedford
n'evel, that was the work of private individuals,
eiCr were all the colonies of this country planted ?
Y, by private companies, and not by the Govern-
se,eet. Such being the case, why should they put them-
tLiv s into the leading-strings of the Government, and
Ile_row aside those great principles by which the great-
ess of this country had been accomplished ? As to emi-
gi.ation he did not think that the Noble Lord's plan had
_effected so much as the perseverance of private indi-
viduals. It was absurd to attempt tdeput railroads under
the surveillance of postmasters-general. Look at the
inefficiency that had been shown by such officers—an
etafficiency that be would venture to say would never
taken place under the control of private indi-
i !deals. Then, again, there was the Admiralty, a por-
tion of the Government, he would venture to say, that
had been more backward than any other in adopting im-
provements. Would they have got rid of the
prejudice against steamers it they had been left
to the Lords of the Admiralty ? Look at the Halifax

packets. They were called coffins, and properly so, be-
cause they almost invariably sent their eret4e to ail un-
timely grave. Look tit flab length of time that they
took to cross the Atlantic, and yet it had been asserted
that it was impossible to effect a quicker passage than
they did until the establishment of the' Great Western
steam-ship, which proved the contrary. London
steamers, too, that were the property of private indivi-
duals, would carry parties from London to Boulogne for
far less than a Government packet would take parties
from Dover to Calais. He thought the public -right in
supposing that private enterprise was the best calculated
to excite activity, and to ensure the public interest. They
were equally right in supposing that whenever they put
great branches of trade into the, hands of a Government,
there was apt to be great apathy upon the subject, and a
considerable portion of political jobbing. Ile objected
to this system of centralisation, because it was incon-
sistent with the national character, and made men act as
slaves instead of free men. But then it was said that
the provisions of part of the Bill were for the
benefit of the poor of the country. That might
be so, but he must confess that he certainly was
not prepared for any Government providing for the
poor, in tho manner laid down in the Bill. The Bill,
instead of providing for the poor man at the expense of
the Government, did it at the expense of the railway
company. Now, in his opinion, such a system was not
worth the legislation of that House. He could under-
stand how this clause was to work, although the distinc-
tions between rich and poor were to be drawn. Fur
what had been the result ? Why, where the third-
class carriages had been made comfortable, gentlemen
had gone into them. The fact was, they could not make
a di•tinction between the rich and poor man. He should
like to ask a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, and in
doing so, he hoped he should not be considered in-
vidious—but he wished to know who was Jack Cade
now?—(Laughter.) He thought that this clause came
with a very bad grace from a Government who had
charged them with being Jack Cedes, because they
wished to lighten the hours of labour in factories. If 1
he understood rightly, Jack Cade tried to regulate the i
price of commodities. But here the Government exis
wanted the railroad :proprietors to pay the expenses of
convenience to the poor. When they on his side 'of
the House came forward to decrease the hours of la-
bour, they were met by the name of Jack Cade by a
Government who were endeavouring to interfere with
private property in the unexampled manner propose]
by this BilL He thought there was one thing that ren-
dered the present time the must unfit to introduce such a
measure, anti that was because the whole plan of rail-
ways was likely to be greatly improved. •Let them look
at the proposition for atmospheric railways. Why, if that
could be brought into operation, there was not a single
turnpike road upon which they might not have a railway.
The Bill seemed to him to prevent the improvement of
existing railroads as much as it did new ones. He
trusted he had not occupied too much of the time of the
House in bringing before it arguments, which he did not
pretend to say ought to have such weight with the
House as to induce it to decide on such a subject as
this. But he had presented considerations which had
sufficient weight in his own mind to induce him to say
that this House ought to pause on such a question be-
fore it adopted the measure irrevocably at the present
period of the session. He believed that the evils of
monopoly with regard to the railways, that were so
much talked of, were exceedingly hypothetical.
They were looking rather at what the rail-
roads were four or five years ago, when it
was considered impossible that so many competing
lines could come into play. But it was the general
statement that the country was now becoming covered
with a " net-work" of railroad, which would always
secure a large amount of competition. This competi-
tion would be the real safeguard to the public, and they
ought not to deprive the public of that safeguard till
they were perfectly sure, on the best information and
fullest discussion of the subject, that they had hit upon
some plan which would give the public a better security
than it now possessed, both for good management, secu-
rity, and cheapness. He perfectly admitted that rail-
ways required control and regulation—he perfectly ad-
mitted that. The law did control all private enterprise;
he had never heard that trade was to be exempted from
the operation of the law. Let them adopt regulations,
then, for these establishments, but let them apply those
restrictions by legislation, and not by the wholesale plan
of transferring the whole of the railways over to
the will of the Government. Surely a subject
of this magnitude required the meditation of one
recess, and the discussion of at least one session.
Let them have a Bill, making all the restrictions neces-
sary, and to such a Bill he would give his support. But
let them not pass, in such a hurry, a measure like this,
which handed over the control of all the railways to the
Executive Government.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he concurred in most of the
observations that had fallen from the Hon. Member for
Liskeard. He had passed a glowing eulogium on pri-
vate energy and enterprise, and none would more
readily concur in the justice of that eulogium than
himself. But the House was not called on to say
that all private enterprise in this respect was to be sub-
mitted to the Government ; the measure only claimed a
reservation of the power to control these lines at a future
time. The Bill only reserved to the Government a dis-
cretionary power. He should vote for the Bill on the
simple understanding that they were not about to inter-
fere with enterprise. He would admit that they had
not the elements of the question before them ; if he
thought that the Bill implied one-tenth part of what had
been attributed to it, he would oppose it. But he be-
lieved those statements were totally founded on
misconstructions. Among those assumptions wero
some very extraordinary ones. Honourable Gentlemen
seemed to suppose that the whole management of the
railroads was to be undertaken by the Government.
This was not the case; though it was not impossible that
the Government might hereafter adopt a plan somewhat
resembling that pursued in France, of purchasing the
land for the line, and allowing private capital to carry
out the work. He did pot pronounce any opinion on
this plan, but he thought it not unjust; for Parliament
at the present period of railway history should have
some degree of control. He had a strong sense of the
benefits which the railway companies had conferred on
the country. Considering the vast amount of their
business, there was but little cause for complaint ; very
great accommodation was afforded to the pub-
lic. But still it could not be forgotten that they
had arrived at a pint at which the greater part of all
the necessary lines of communication were constructed,
and twenty or thirty years hence they might have to
interfere at great disadvantage. He confessed that, at
first, he looked at the Bill with some apprehension—
(Hear, hear)—and he still objected to some of the
clauses ; but that was no reason why the Bill
should be prevented from going to the second
reading. He had great doubts as to the policy
of the guarantee, as calculated to remove all motives for
the good management of a line. The second clause was
also a point for consideration. But these difficulties
must be met now or at some future time, or they must
sit down quietly with their hands folded, and submit to
all the consequences, however inconvenient to the public.
Mr. GISBORNE commenced by saying that he never
heard a speech which had so completely exhausted the
subject as the speech which he had just heard. He
must say he was struck at the singular contrast which
existed between the Right Hon. Gentleman and the
Hon. Gentleman opposite. The speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, one of great
talent; but it was a slashing speech, full of attacks
upon every person, and imputing motives, so that one
might have thought that the speech came from the
Colonial-office, though the measure came from the Board
of Trade. He did not think the Right Hon. Gentleman
was justified in saying that they endeavoured to
stifle all discussion, and not to allow the Right
Hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill. The present
Government seemed to him to be very desirous of
casting imputations on their opponents. So on the
Bank Charter Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government had said that he was a friend to
non-convertibility, because be opposed that Bill. But it
was always the case with those who manufactured quack
medicines to be very angry if they were not taken. Now
what was the history of this Bill ? When the Right
Hon. Gentleman went into Committee, he thought he
was pregnant with a great scheme ; and when he came
out he was no doubt disconcerted at his little abortion.
The Right Hon. Gentleman produced his hypothetical
outline, but it was sadly cut down, and he was obliged
to abandon it. The present Bill was supported by the
late and the present President of the Board of Trade,
but it was not a little curious, that while one considered
the power of purchase as the main provision of the Bill,
the other thought that the revision clause was the im-
portant part of it. Now, he would try the Bill by a not
unfair test. He would suppose a President of the Board of
Trade living some years ago possessing, if that were
possible the united wisdom of both, and that the provi-
sions of that Bill were to come into operation now, how
would it apply to the London and Birmingham Railway?
With regard to the 10 per cent. clause, the London and
Birmingham Railway Company would be too wary to
divide a clear annual profit, amounting to more than
91. 19s. In point of fact, the 10 per cent. clause was in
operation at this moment. They thought it enough to
have a dividend of 10 per cent., and they refused the less
palatable traffic, such as coals and minerals. They
would not dirty their hands with coal.— (Laughter and
cheers.) They even laid a prohibition on the coals which
were brought on the Midland Counties Railway, which
could be brought, as he was prepared to prove, at three
farthings per ton per mile. They could not deal with
railways under the provision clause. Then it was said
that they would purchase railways. Did any man in the
kingdom, who was left at large, believe in the practica-
bility of buying up those railways? There were 40 miles
of railroad at Exeter, and 60 at York, and the manage-
ment of these was to be in a board here. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade,
called something a farce. He would use an equally ex-
pressive word, and say that the right of purchase was all
gammon.—(Laughter.) Everybody knew it could not be
acted upon. Evidence was given before the Committee
as to the extent of the power of revision which the Go-
vernment should possess, and no part of the
hypothetical outline was so completely smashed as this
power of revision. It was shown that the Government
could not act on it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
misrepresented him (Mr. Gisborne) when he said that
he was giving the Government a more extensive power.
What he said was, and ho still retained the same opi-
nion, that there was net medium between allowing the
largest competition and the Government taking all rail-
ways into their hands. Under the present system they
had the power of making improvements, not only of a
mechanical kind, but Lin the way of economical
managements, which would not take place if
railways were in the hands of the Government. He was
even afraid that, under the Government, they would fall
behind other countries with respect to their manage-
ment. He regretted to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman
say that competition was no proteceion to the public in
the case of railways. He thought the Right Hon. Gen-
tie= should have abstained from expressing such an

qplon; unless he were probidtd with sdniething else to
.atk on. It had been said that competing lines would
be no advantage to the public, because they would be
purchased up by existing lines ; but that was taking a
one-sided view of the case. Would not existing lines
consider it better to humour the public, and to treat
them in such a manner as to afford no occasion for com-
peting lines ? If even competing lines were purchased
that could only be effected by the sacrifice of profit, and
it would be a warning to others. Some evidence was
adduced to show that competition would be of no advan-
tage to the public, and the Midland Counties Railway
was adduced as an instance. When that line and the
Derby and Birmingham line were competing, the fares
were greatly reduced, and the public was a gainer ;
and when they were united the fares were not
raised higher than before ; so that the public
had gained something, and lost nothing. There
was one solitary case, that of the Manchester and
Leeds and the Chester and Crewe Railway, and that
was the only case in which it had been shown that com-
petition had been of no benefit. But even in that case
the fares had not been raised above what they had bsen
originally. If they did nothing else to regulate railways
he besought them not to do anything to diminish the
value of competition. One of the warmest supporters of
the measure was the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lin-
coln. He confessed that ho hated railways, and thought
this measure would snub them, and keep them in
order. Another Honourable Member supported the
measure because he thought the Railway Com
panics were overbearing, and he was glad to keep
them down. What would this Bill do ? With the
existing companies it would do nothing with the
railways that were to be formed it would not deal for
fifteen years Their great nephews and great grand-
children might benefit by the Bill, but for the present it
would be totally inoperative. It was said it would be a
great benefit to the lower orders, because they would be
carried at a diminished rate of charge. Now all that
the Bill required was, that a train should start once in
the day, carrying persons for a sum not exceeding Id.
per mile, at a rate of at least twelve miles an hour.
in covered carriages. Now, the rate at which all the
1.. g, railway companies carried persons at present
was Id. and 15-100ths of ld. a mile, and the average was
only brought up to that rate because some of the com-
panies Charged very high for their third-class passengers.
A great many of them carried their passengers at less
than Id. a mile. The South-Eastern ( the Dover) line
carried third-class passengers at the rate of id. a mile.
The Newcastle and Shields at the rate of Id. per mile.
The Edinburgh and Glasgow at the rate of Id. per mile.
The Midland Counties ran third-class trains twice a
day at the rate of 'id. a mile. He took these statements
from the speech of the Hon. Member for Greenock, who
had made a speech on one side of the question and in-
tended to vote on the other. All the advantage they
would get by this measure was, that they would secure
covered carriages for third-class passengers; and he
asked the House whether it was worth while to sanction
the objectionable principles of this Bill for this small ad-
vantage? There were four or five railways in which
there were no third-class carriages, and so far as they
were concerned of course the Bill would be an advantage.

He thought that if any measure were required for the
regulation of railways this was a small and inefficient
measure for that purpose. He asked those who wished
for a measure for regulating railways if they would
accept such a half measure as this? Though small, it
was the first-born, and might inherit to the detriment of
its betters, if it were not smothered in its birth.
Sir ROBERT PEEL regretted to see that such ad.
vantage bad been taken of the good nature of the lion.
Gentleman—(A. laugh)—and when he saw all the
railway proprietors, and persons connected with rail-
ways, supporting this motion, and showing themselves
so ready to avail themselves of it, he could not help
feeling that advantage had been taken of the ingenuous-
ness of the Hon. Gentleman.—(A laugh.) He feared
that ingenuousness had been abused—that that modesty
had been taken advantage of.—(A laugh.) The Hon.
Gentleman was most ingenuous—
" Ingenui vultus puer, ingenuique pudoris."
The railway companies gladly availed themselves of
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Gentleman
said that her Majesty's Government were in the habit
of attacking these railway companies, and so sensitive
had the Hon. Gentleman becoma, that he had absolutely
attacked him (Sir Robert Peel) for having been guilty
of personality, because, in the debate on the Bank
Charter Bill, he had said that certain Members had ab-
solutely had an eye to non:convertibility.—(A. laugh.)
Now, if that could be considered a gross per-
sonal reflection, he certainly must say that he had
never charged the Hon. Gentleman with having. an
eye to non-convertibility.—(Laughter.) He had certainly
said that the argument tended to non-convertibility ;
but he certainly could not understand why, night after
night, the reflection was cast upon the Government that
they had been guilty of a gross violation of Parliament-
ary decorum, because he had charged the Hon. Gentle-
man and the Hon. Member for Lambeth with having, in
their argument on the Bank Charter Bill, had an eye to
non-covertibility.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HAWES—I never charged you with a breach of
Parliamentary decorum.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had not heard the Hon. Member
for Lambeth complain that he had exceeded the bounds
of Parliamentary decorum. The Hon. Gentleman who
had last spoken had grievously complained that his Right
Hon. Friend had made a brilliant speech. The Board of
Trade, according to the Hon. Gentleman, ought to deal
in arithmetic and statistics, and had nothing to do
with brilliancy and rhetoric. Now, really it was too
bad of the Hon. Gentleman to make this complaint of
his Right Hon. Friend, when thellion. Gentleman him-
self had taken the opportunity of making a most brilliant
and a witty speech on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He
should be very sorry if, in giving his vote for this Bill,
he should be considered as intending to cast the slightest
reflection on the manner in which the existing railroad
companies had been formed and were conducted.
He thought it, under the circumstances, a proud thing for
this country that the existing railroads had been
completed by private interest and private capital.
And so far as the present superintendence of railways
went, those who had the conducting of that superinten-
dence were entitled to the greatest credit for the uniform
civility which was exhibited by the companies towards
the public, through all their subordinate agents, who,
without any view to a personal or pecuniary gain,
were equally attentive and kind to all cases,
whether rich or poor, and that to a degree
which did not exist in any other department of the public
service. He hoped that this attention to the wants of
individuals, without seeking for any personal or pecu-
niary advantage, would still be continued. It was im-
possible to over-rate the benefits which had been con-
ferred on the public by these regulations. Therefore in
voting for this Bill he begged to be considered as wish-
ing to speak of the railway companies with the greatest
respect. The question was, if they were not arrived at a
period of railway legislation when it was absolutely
necessary Parliament should take some cognizance of
the subject. The Hon. Member objected that they did
not go far enough, but the objection, until the Hon.
Gentleman had spoken, had been that the Bill went toa
far, and that it was monstrous to introduce at so late a
period of the session a Bill so calculated to excite
anxiety in all parties connected with railroads through-
out the country.
,Mr. GISBORNE did not wish them to interfere at all.
Sir R. PEEL—Perhaps so ; but if they interfered, he
said they did not go far enoug. Nov suppose they had
proposed to go much further, although they might have
the support of the Hon. Gentleman's vote—
Mr. GISBORNE—No, no.
Sir R. PEEL—They would have then to encounter,
without securing the Hon. Gentleman's vote, a much
greater weight of opposition than they had at present.
l'he Hon. Gentleman proposed to abandon all legisla-
tion, and to leave everything to competition. Now what
chance would they have of establishing a competing line
to the Manchester and Liverpool line? An attempt had
been made to establish the Trent Railway, and he hoped
that Bill would now pass. It was introduced now under
the auspices of two companies, who, during two ses-
sions, had opposed `it, and the attempt to establish
this line of forty miles in extent had cost 166,0001. So
difficult was it to overcome the union of railway inte-
rests in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for
Durham had complained that he had called the railway
companies monopolies. Now, with regard to the London
and Birmingham Railway, that certainly was a mono-
poly as against posting—it was a monopoly as against
stage-coaches—and it was a decided monopoly as tar as
railways were concerned. Now, considering the power of
railway proprietors in that House, competition was not
sufficient to control these monopolies ; and when they
considered that within the course of the present
and the next session of Parliament, application
would probably be made to complete one thousand
additional lines of railway. He thought the
time had come for legislation on the subject.
Under these circumstances he thought it advantageous
for the public interests that Parliament should take
some precaution, and he should, therefore, give his vote
for the Bill of his Hon. Friend. He was not prepared
to advise the immediate purchase of those
railroads. He did not wish that any department
of the Government should be converted into
a railway directory. That was not the object of the Bill,
but the object of it was to prevent the public from being
subjected to imposition. It was known that a great
number of new railways were projected, and about to
receive the sanction of the Legislature. In each of those
new and very extensive powers were given in taking
land, &c., and what the Government wished to do was to
give notice to these parties, that after the lapse of a cer-
tain time it would be competent for Parliament to deal
with them. The Bill proposed, that after the lapse of
fifteen years it would be competent for Parliament to
consider the powers now about to be conferred, and to
make other alterations which would be required for the
public interests. They dealt with railroads on the same
principle as they dealt with the Bank of England. The
Legislature conferred on that Bank a qualified mono-
poly; not permanent, however, but it was reserved for
Parliament, after a lapse of twenty years, to make what
new terms it pleased.—(Hear, hear.) He took the same
course with respect to the East India Company. The
Government in these cases did not give a permanent
tenure of authority—there was a limit in respect to
duration, and there was a power reserved for Parliament to
reconsider the provisions of such matters. The real question
was, would they permit a certain number of new esta-
blishments to become permanent and unqualified mono-
polies, or give Parliament the privilege of reconsidering
these powers? If the Government was to say that the
Bill should only last for 15 years, it would extinguish all
speculation. To reserve to Parliament the power of
reconsidering all contracts would have the same effect.
No such violent remedy was needed, but a power was
required, which the Bill provided—that with the sanc-
tion of Parliament, the power of purchasing these esta-
blishments, taking, as the amount of purchase, 25 years'
in point cf time, and three years' average of tir divi-
sible profits. In case the profits exceeded 10 per cent.,
the Bill claimed a power of interference on the part of
the public, and would have a right to demand a reduc-
tion of fares: If the principle of legislative interfer-

ence was at all admitted, he could not conceive a
more liberal or equitable nianner t3f provid:pg
for it.—(Hear, hear.) The Government claimed the
power of revision under the Bill. He would not then
enter into the details, and would only consider the ge-
neral principles of the measure. The Hon. Member for
Newcastle, and other Hon. Members, had spoken a good
deal about railway companies being taken by surprise.
They said the Bill was not brought in until a late period
of the session, and that railway proprietors were taken
by surprise. But the report of the Committee, which
appeared in the April of this year, distinctly stated that
the present would be a favourable time for legislation.
After quoting the different reports of the Railway Coin-
mittee from April down to a late period, the Right Hon.
Baronet proceeded to say that he should deprecate
strongly the frequent exercise of this power on the part
of the Legislature, and a regard to the public interests
could alone justify its application. The Bill took pre-
cautions on the subject of conveyance. He would not
take to himself any especial credit for guarding the inte-
rests of the humbler classes, but he thought Parlia-
ment should have regard to providing a cheap
and safe mode of conveyance for them. Foreign
countries had given the subject much attention.
He held in his hand a report of the French Chamber,
which showed that the legislators of France did not think
it out of their province to make provision for the com-
forts of the humbler classes. The Committee of the
French Chamber said they had more than once pro-
tested against the use of open carriages. It appeared
to them that the interests of humanity enjoined them
not to condemn the humbler classes of society to incon-
venience and danger. The mode of transit in open car-
riages not only exposed the passengers to the air, but
also to the risk of fire from the particles thrown out by
the engine. The writer insisted that the third-class
trains should always be established at fares not exceed-
ing three farthings per • mile, and considered that the
second class carriages should have windows, and the
third-class curtains.—(liear, hear.) Now, in sanction-
ing railroads by which all other modes of conveyance
were destroyed, he thought it was acting but right
that the Legislature should provide " securities" for the
comfort and convenience of the humbler classes.--(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman opposite took a very high
tone on the subject of railways. He seemed to think
that they had an unlimited right to deal with the
public as they thought fit. Be it so as to exist-
ing railways ; be it that the London and Birmingham
company had a right to say, in rather aristocratic lan-
guage, " We will not soil our carriages by the convey-
ance of coal." Still the question was whether, when
they were going to give powers to new companies, they
should not take some moderate and rational precautions
against their abuse.—(Hear, hear.) If he thought that
the effect of this Bill would be to destroy that private
enterprise in which railways had originated, he would
not consent to its being passed into a law. But he did
not believe that the precautions which his Right Hon.
Friend proposed to establish would have the effect either
of preventing or impeding the application of private
capital. Since the first report was published, publicly
announcing that some precautions ought to be taken,
he had had the satisfaction of seeing that thirty
new railroad schemes bad been proposed, entailing an
expenditure of not less than 24,220,000/.—(Hear, hear.)
He hoped that railways would be conducted by competi-
tion, and the application of private capital.—(bear,
hear.) He hoped most sincerely that the necessity
would never arise for the Government undertaking the
management of railways. Whether a case might ever
arise in which it would be desirable for the Government
either to construct some short line of railway, in order
to ascertain the expense, or to establish the example of
a mode of management, he pronounced no opinion.
But he shonld deprecate the transfer of patronage. He
trusted the Government would never be converted into
the directors of a railway.—(Hear, hear.) At the same
time, he hoped they would have that degree of control
which was necessary, both as a security for the
public, and to prevent abuse.—(Hear, hear.) He
trusted that Parliament would give them that
dormant power of a purchase—that dormant power of
interference which would operate as a tacit and effec-
tual check upon extravagant demands by these com-
panies. Upon these grounds, retaining his respect for
these companies, and knowing that they were under the
deepest obligations to them—deprecating any measure
which would prevent a similar application of capital, yet
thinking it right that they should make security for the
public against exaction and against abuse, he should
give his cordial support to the measure proposed by the
Right lion. Gentleman.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WARD rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide."
The Hon. Member said he thought the case stated by
the Right Hon . Baronet was one to which no future
railway company could possibly object.—(Hear, from
tie Ministerial benches.) If nothing were intended but
a notice to railway companies, that after a certain num-
ber of years their tolls were to be subject to a revision,
there was no company about to apply to Parliament
which could object to such a proceeding.—(Hear, hear.)
Undoubtedly, with respect to the conveyance of letters,
the Government had a right to require from the railway
companies whatever was necessary. The same remarks
might be made in reference to the conveyance of troops
at the lowest possible charge.—(Hear, hear.) The
clause with regard to third-class carriages was abso-
lutely unexceptionable. His objection to it in the first
instance arose from the understanding that third-class
carriages were required to accompany every train. What
he complained of with regard to this Bill was, that it
was not what it professed to be, and that powers were
taken by it which had excited the deepest alarm amongst
all p Tsons connected with railways. If the Govern-
ment did not mean to use their formidable powers, why
did they propose to take them ? The whole Bill, from
the 7th clause to the 24th, was a complete system of
Government interposition. He objected most strongly
to the powers conferred. He believed that the measure
had been-brought forward without sufficient considera-
tion ; but if a notice of future regulations was all that
was required by the Government, and if it were in that
light that the Bill was to be received, he would put it to
those gentlemen who had hitherto concurred with him,
whether it was advisable to go to a division.
Mr. GLADSTONE entirely concurred in the sug-
gestions of his Hon. Friend. The Bill was based upon
the report presented to the House some time ago.
Mr. HAWES (who spoke amidst loud cries of " Di-
vide,") said that the effect of the Bill would be to
,place
all railways under the direct control of the Government.
On the line of communication with Ireland that certainly
would be the result. If the clauses which gave the Go-
vernment such control were thrown out he would not ob-
ject to the Bill. He could not sit down without defend-
ing the character of the professional gentlemen who had
opposed the Bill. He sat down amidst loud cries of
" Divide."
Mr. MUNTZ said, that in opposing this Bill he had
no personal motive, except that he derived great
advantage and convenience from the railways, and
he wished to see them extended all over the king-
dom. There was another consideration, that al-
though the Right Honourable Baronet and his
colleagues might look at this "as a dormant power,"
who was to guarantee that some future Government
would not look at it in a different light? That which
was a " dormant power" might, in future times, and in
other hands
H, become a very active and a very danger-
ous one. e was most anxious that the railway system
should be fully developed throughout the country, because
he considered it fraught with innumerable blessings.
For this reason he should give his decided opposition to
the Bill before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said it was a rare thing indeed
for him to be seen giving a vote in favour of a measure
brought in by the Government. But looking on this
Bill as especially formed to benefit and assist the poor
working-man, he felt it his duty to rise in the House
and thus briefly to thank the Government for bringing
it in.---(Cheers.) He had the greatest pleasure in sup-
porting the Bill with his vote.--(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading . 186
Against it
Majority —BB
On our admission into the gallery we found
Mr. WALLACE on his legs, asking the Hon. Mem-
ber for Reading (Mr. Russell) whether he had not a
direct and separate interest in the Bill?—(Cries of " He
is not in the House.") Yes, be is.—(Cries of " Show
him up.") So I will.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—There are strangers in the
House.
The SPEAKER—Strangers must withdraw.
The gallery was then cleared.
The gallery was soon afterwards re-opened. We un-
derstood that while the doors were closed,
Mr. WALLACE made an objection to the vote of
Mr, on the ground that he was
n tr.
r Ce
Re
sss eult
plh
pebo er
subject.it being
dg
bt
Hee wt
ad us
i n
ayk el;
r,
. COLLETT, and a short
discussion ensued, but the Hon. Member for Greenock
subsequently withdrew the motion he had made.
Mr. HAWES then asked if it was the intention of the
Government to modify the Bill at all, or to go into Com-
mittee with it as it was?
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was not only ready but
desirous to consider any modification that would bring
the Bill into conformity with the speech of the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
and with the third report of the Committee.
Sir R. PEEL said, that in his speech he was rather
referring, to the report than to the technical terms of the
Bill. Ile thought the power to purchase ought to be re-
served to the Government and Parliament conjointly,
not to be exercised indiscriminately, but as a check upon
the railways.
After some further discussion, the Bill was read a se-
cond time, and ordered to be committed on Saturday

next.
The Report on the Law Courts (Ireland) compensa-
tion Bill was brought up and received.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS (SOUTH WALES).
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill,
Mr. MORRIS was understood to oppose the measure.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he intended only that the Bill
should be read a second time that night, and he pro-
posed going into Committee upon it on Monday
se'nnight. He would be glad to consult the Hon. Gen-
tleman and other Members connected with South Wales,
on the Bill.
The Bill was thenMo r
dayead
se'n a second time, and ordered to
be committed on nnight
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The report on the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill was
brought up and received.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
postponed till a Quarter past Four o'clock this day.
LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Law Courts (Ireland) Bill passed through Com-
mittee.
The House then resumed, the report was received,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-mor-
row (this day).
BUTTER AND CHEESE BILL.
The Butter and Cheese Bill then passed through Com-
mittee.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE

BILL.

On the order of the day for bringing up the report on
the Actions for (laming Discontinu Ince Bill being read,
Mr. CHRISTIE said he would take that, opportu-
nity of answering an attack which had been made by
the Noble Lord the Member for Lyme on an individual
who was not present to defend 'himself. The Noble
Lord had made an attack of the strongest character
against two individuals of the name of Russell, one of
whom was a solicitor, and the other the plaintiff in the
actions which were now pending, and which this • Bill
was intended to discontinue. He had received a letter
from Mr. Russell, the solicitor, whose character the
Noble Lord had attacked, and he would read some ex-
tracts from it to the House. He would not read the
whole of it, because some parts of it were the reverse of
complimentary to the character of the Noble Lord.—
(Cries of " Read ! read!") The Noble Lord was at
liberty there to say what he pleased of the character of
persons out of that House, and he had generously availed
himself of that privilege last evening.—(Hear.) But if
they said anything against the character of the Noble
Lord, that could not be read in that House even by the
Noble Lord's permission, without offending against the
rules of that House. He would now read to the House
the extracts from the letter of Mr. Russell. They were
as follow :—" I could never have the assurance to meet
either Mr. Gibson or yourself, had there been one syllable
of truth in Lord George Bentinck's statements. I will
not attempt to defend my brother's conduct in
an affair which occurred some years sinee." He
had already stated that in his evidence be-
fore the Committee, " I will not attempt to
defend my brother's conduct in an affair which occurred
some years since, and through which I might have been
ruined, if I had not had the means -of entirely exculpat-
ing myself to the satisfaction of every person. I should
grieve if you or Mr. Gibson, having heard my state-
ments, should think that any degradation would attach
to you in consequence. I said that if you have the evi-
dence printed every one will be able to Judge if I am de-
serving of the character which this Lord last night
gave of me." —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
hoped they would have the evidence printed, and printed
wholly, without expunging of any portion of it.—(Hear,
hear.) He entertained no feeling of degradation from
having had interviews with Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell
had come to ask him to present a petition, and to afford
him information. Even if he had been deserving of the
character which the Noble Lord had given him, even if
he had been a common hell-keeper, and had said that in
that character he had suffered a grievance which the
House of Commons could remedy, and had asked him to
present a petition, he should have felt it his duty to do
so.—(Cheers.) But he would not have associated with
a hell-keeper further—(Cheers)—he would not have
betted with him.—(Cheers.) He would not have commis-
sioned him to bet for him.—(Reiterated cheering.) He
would not belong to a club of which be was a member.
—(Continued cheering.) He had declared his intention
of offering every factious opposition to the Bill, and
he had afterwards said he would withdraw it ; but the
reasons he had given for so doing had not been
properly stated. He protested against this Bill ; he
protested against the manner in which it had been
carried through that House ; he protested against the
refusal of the House to hear the plaintiff by counsel
against this Bill, in the rejection of which he had
the clearest, and the most direct personal interest.
If ever a man was entitled to be heard by counsel at the
bar of the House, it was this much wronged indivi-
dual, and it was most unjust that such a boon should
be refused him. He complained of the manner in which
the evidence had been taken, and of the manner in
which that evidence had been used. When that evi-
dence should be formally communicated to the House, a
question, he thought might arise, as to whether that evi-
dence would not give a proper occasion for a motion rela-
tive to interference with the privileges of the House. The
Bill seriously affected the interests of individuals. A
petition had been presented, praying that counsel might
be heard against the Bill, but the prayer of the petition
had been refused ; and when the petition was presented,
the Committee in another place, who suspended its sit-
tings for some time, had summoned the solicitor before
them. A searching investigation was instituted. When
the day arrived for hearing counsel the evidence was dis-
seminated. and the character of the petition was made a
reason for refusing to hear it by counsel at the bar of
the House. The Chairman of the Committee, whoever
he might be—even the Duke of Richmond conspired
with Government for promoting the Bill, and abused his
position as Chairman of the Committee in another place,
and was guilty of an infringement in communicating
that evidence. He would leave the public to judge of
the circumstances in which the evidence was used ; and
he thought the opinion of the public had not been
favourable to the promoters of this Bill.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
plained what he said on the previous night. His reason
for opposing the hearing of the petition by counsel at
the bar of the House was, because, after diligent search
of precedents, he could not find one in which an indivi-
dual was permitted to appear at the bar of that House
himself, or by counsel. when legislative interference was
merely of a suspensionary character.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON considered that he had not been
fairly reported in the Morning Papers as to what he
said on the previous night, and he therefore wished to
make a further statement. The Hon. Member, who
spoke with considerable excitement of manner, said—
If the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) or any one else,
makes a charge against me that I associated with per-
sons of improper character, or with persons guilty of
any crime, I assert in this House that that charge is
false and scandalous, and I defy the Noble Lord or any
body else to prove it, or to show that there is any founda-
tion whatever for it. The
,solicitor my Honourable
Friend alluded to called at his (Mr. M. Gibson's)
house—he came to him in a public capacity.
He had felt that ho was entitled to listen to his commu-
nication and make what use of it he pleased. That he
had done, and that he would do again ; and he pro-
tested, in the face of that House, against being charged,
either directly or indirectly, with having associated, in
the popular sense, with persons of improper character,
and who had committed crimes.
Lord PALMERSTON said that having had an op-
portunity of forming an opinion on the Committee, he
felt justified in saying that he thought his Hon. Friends
were perfectly justified in the course they had pursued
with regard to Mr. Thomas Russell. It appeared to him
that a Member of Parliament had, in the performance of
his duty, a perfect right to receive information
which might be tendered to him whilst pursuing an
investigation, and he thought, in fact, that he would not
be justified in refusing it. With regard to the point
raised by his Hon. and Learned Friend, he could entirely
bear out the statement of the Right lion. Gentleman,
that the decision of the House yesterday turned, not on
any judgment formed respecting the character of Mr.
Russell, but on the ground that his case was not parallel
to that of Mr. Wright, and that he was not a bona fide
prosecutor. But, as far as any reflections on character
were concerned, he must submit to the House that yes-
terday evening was not the first time that doubts had
been thrown out on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK said he objected to the Bill on the
ground that it not only protected persons from actions
for past betting, but that it protected persons who
should subsequently bet on horse-racing. They were
going to legalise betting, or at least to exempt from all
penal consequences those who took part in it. And
looking at the matter in the light thrown upon it by the
recent trial, he thought such a step must be deeply in
jurious to the country. He proposed to amend the Bill
in the following manner:—ln the preamble he proposed
to omit the words, " And that no other proceedings of
a like nature should be commenced or proceeded with."
He also proposed to omit the first clause, in reference
to the period from which the Act was to
operate, and that it should continue in force till
the end of the next session of Parliament.
He called upon the House to go no further than to give
protection to those bets which had been made before
the Ist of June last. He was no enemy to horse racing,
and it was not his wish to interfere with the fair sports
of the turf'. But he would give no protection to those
who made the turf a system of fraud. He would con-
clude by moving the amendment of which he had given
notice.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he could not go at
the railroad pace of his Noble Friend. But he hoped
that by the next session of Parliament Government
would be prepared with a satisfactory measure.
It was the opinion of the Committee that it was incon-
sistent with the spirit of modern legislation to interfere
with the private pursuits, private business, or private
pleasures of individuals. Butwhat was his Noble Friend's
amount to which betting was to be allowed to go? He
was for a restriction upon heavy betting on the turf, what
then would be his minimum ? Or were they to have a
graduated, a sliding scale of turf betting ?—(Hear, and
a laugh.) But look to what his Noble Friend's doc-
trine would lead to in practice. It would end in
this—that what was done in secret should be
winked at, and that the thunders of the law should be
hurled only at those who betted openly.—(Hear, hear.)
And, to add to this piece of hypocrisy, they would have
other evils and inconveniences; for to work the principle
to itsi legitimate end, they must enact a sort of sump-
tuary law, forbidding any one to give more than a
certain price for a horse, or anything he might desire
to purchase.—(Hear, hear.) For these and other
reasons, he would not, at this late hour, recapitulate. He
must oppose the amendment of his Noble Friend, and
stand by the Bill as now arranged. That Bill was in-
tended for the protection of honest men—(Hear, hear)
against unjust and extortionate attempts, and he was
sure the House would see the justice and the wisdom of
passing it! in its present shape.—(Divide.")
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Sir J, GRAHAM, as at present advised, thought
the advice tendered by the Committee with respect to
horse-racing, was good. He would, therefore, support
the Bill.
. Lord HOWICK would not divide on the amendments,
and they were withdrawn. The Noble Lord then moved
that the first clause should be omitted. By such a Bill
as this, they threw by stealth protection over gambling
of the worst description, while they visited minor gamb-
ling with the utmost severity. lie, for one, protested
against it. He should not divide the House upon it, but
he should call upon the House either to adopt or negative
his proposition.
Lord PALMERSTON explained.
The amendment was negatived without a division,
the report was received, and the Bill ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow (this day).
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE moved for a Select
Committee, to prepare estimates of the:charge of the
disembodied militia of Great Britain and Ireland, for
the year ending the 31st day of March, 1845: —Sir
Thomas Fremantle,lViscount Howick, Viscount Palmer-
ston, Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Ellice, Sir
Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Gore Langton, Captain Bol-
dero, Colonel Peel, Mr. Pringle, Colonel Wood, Mr.
Manners Sutton, and all Colonels of Militia.—Agreed to.
DOG-STEALING.
Mr. LIDDELL moved the following as a Select Com-