The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-05 00:00:00

I way of the formation of competing lines. It was the
only why of mitigating the existing monopoly. He
thought that the further considerattion of these resolu-
tions ought to be postponed. In the infancy of railways
he had endeavoured to prevent the establishment of
these monopolies by permitting competing lines, but'
Mr. Spring Rice, the then Chancellor of the Exche-
quer; had overborne him, and persuaded the House
that it was in the power of the Minister of the
Crown at any time to prevent the establishnient
of monopoly by imposing taxes on the railways.
The railway interest, had, however, proved too
strong for the Ministry. He wished in every in-
stance in which capital sufficient could be subscribed
to see a competing line of railway established. He
could not see why railways should be defended
against competition any more than turnpike-roads.
He should vote for the amendment, and if the Hon.
Member would not press it to a division, he (Mr.
Wallace) would take the sense of the House on the
subject.
Sir JOHN HANMER said that considerable in-
terest had been excited among the proprietors of
steam-packets in consequence of a report that it was
the intention of several Railway Companies to devote
their surplus capital to the establishment of steam-
packets in connexion with their several lines. He
was aware that that subject was fitter for the con-
sideration of the Committee than of the House, but
if such a course of proceeding were permitted, it
would tend to aggravate the evil of the existing
monopoly.
Mr. ESTCOURT would support the resolution,
because a similar resolution had been agreed to by
the Committee of Selection, and as a Member of that
Committee he felt bound to support it. At the same
time he could not but admit that the adoption of that
resolution was an abandonment of the principle upon
which they had hitherto acted.
Mr. JAMES STUART WORTLEY wished it to
be understood, if they were to come to-a vote upon
the resolutions at once, his vote would be given on
the grounds laid down by tlie Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Gladstone) in the opening of his speech,
and not on the grounds laid down by the Hon. Gen-
tleman, the Member for Newcastle. It was some-
what startling to him (Mr. J. S. Wortley) to hear
that Hon.. Gentlemen maintain that all local influence
and local action should be excluded from these
Committees. It was impossible for any one
who had watched for a few years past the
progress of private Bills in that House, not to say
that the influence of parties locally interested bad
been materially diminished. Such a portion as now
remained could hardly be looked upon as other than
legitimate. In giving his vote in favour of the reso-
lutions it must be understood that he did so merely as
an experiment.
Lord SANDON said he totally differed from
those Honourable Members who desired the exclu-
sion of all local influence and local mediation in the
course of private Bills through that House. He was
not prepared to give his support to any such proposi-
tion. They must consult the local interests of
their constituents either in that House, or in
the Committees to which private Bills were re-
ferred. If they were precluded from considering
and attending to those interests in Committee, it was
only in that House they could endetivour to do so,
and this, he thought, ought, if possible, to be avoided.
It would not be worthy of so large and important an
assembly to do so—it was not the best place for it,
nor the best way to effect that which they might feel
it their duty to their constituents to attempt. It would
be better that such business should' be done quietly
in Committee, than scrambled for in that House.
The question was, would they be able to find a suffi-
cient number of independent Members who, having
no local interest or connexion with the Bill, would
give sufficient attention and time to its consideration ?
So long as they confined themselves to five or ten
Committees, they might be successful, but what
would they do if they had forty or fifty Committees ?
He did not think that an experiment with five or ten
Committees would be sufficient. For these reasons
he would give rather a reluctant consent to the mo-
tion before the House.
Mr. GREENE said, the great and practical ob-
jection to the old system was, that the interested
parties were in reality the judges with respect to
railway matters. Even the existence of suspicion
would form a sufficient ground for appointing some
other tribunal than that which was regarded as partial.
After some years' experience of private Bills in that
House, he still adhered most firmly to the opinion,
which he had long entertained, that it was desirable
to render these Committees as nearly judicial as pos-
sible ; and he believed that the present motion was a
step towards securing that object.
Dr. BOWRING was aware that, independent of
anything like political interests, there was a deal of
local influence actuating some of the decisions of
those Committees. He could say that, from observa-
tion, those Committees had not been improved, so
far either as local or the public interests were con-
cerned. He agreed with the Hon. Member for
Lancashire, that by doing away with any imputation
that could be attached to a member of the Committee,
of being actuated by motives arising from local in-
terests, it would tend most materially to elevate the
character of that Committee. The measure would

tend to give the Committee a judicial character, and
also to enforce the attendance of the Members and
the more efficient discharge of their duties.
Mr. STRUTT -Said, he believed the feeling of the
House was, that, in many cases injustice had been
done in consequence of the influence of local interests.
Such was his opinion, because he had frequently
observed that a particular question had been carried
by a majority of the Committee, although all those
who were quite unconnected with local interests
dissented from the resolutions of the Committee.
By the fact of those tribunals being known
to be impartial, all appeals against their de-
cisions would be lessened. As a Member on the
Committee of Selection he must say, in answer to the
Hon. Members for Taunton and Oxford, that he found
no difficulty in getting the attendance of Members.
Although many Honourable Members had ob-
jected to this resolution, yet they had not themselves
proposed any one in substitution of them. He per-
fectly agreedin the principle of this resolution.
Mr. DENISTOUN expressed his opinion that his
constituents would be much better satisfied with a
public Committee.
After a few words from Mr. JAMES,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the resolutions
Against them
Majority for the resolutions —l97

The resolutions were then read seriatim.

In answer to a recommendation from Mr. LA-
BOUCHERE that the House should be put in pos-
session as quickly as possible of the names of the Hon.
Members the Government proposed for the Committee,
Mr. GLADSTONE said the list should be laid on

the table of the House that evening, and he would
propose it to-morrow.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from
Rochdale against the Gas Bill.