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

7. :11 _TAE- SUNirl_4

opinion, anilesS he were provided With something
fall beets 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 g, that was takin 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 nb-occasion for coms
thateting couldlia only
e sbe e e
teti by the d
If competingevfieln
sacrifice of profit, werepurchasedrot, and
it would be a warning 'to, others. Some evidence was
adduced to show that competitien 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 wei.e 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 minis
petition had been of no benefit. But even in that ease
the fares had not been raised above what they had been
originally. If they did nothing else-to regnlate 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. Ile confessed that he hated railways, and thought
this measure would snub them, and keep them in
order. Another Honourable Member supported the
measure becanse he thought the Railway Com-
panies were overbearing, and he was glad to keep
them down. What would this Bill de? 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. sit was said it would bea
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
existing railway companies carried persons at present
was Id. and 15-100 tbs of Id. 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 ld. a mile., The South-Eastern ( the Dover) Hite*
carried third-class passengers at the rate of id. a mile.
-The -Newcastle and Shields at the rate of d. per mile.
The Edinburgh and Glasgow at the rate of id. per mile.
The Midland Coneties ran third-class trains twice a
day at the rate of 4d, 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 ofcourse 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 ads
-rental-St had been' taken of the good nature of the Hon.
:CVntlearati--e(A.lllaugh)---and when he saw all the
railway proprietors, and persons connected with rail-
ways, supporting this motion, and showing themielves
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 wasmost ingenuous—
. Ingenuisvultus puer, ineenuique,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 become, 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 grleyously.complained that his Right
Hon.. Friend had maieta 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 the Hon. Gentleman him-
self had taken the opportunity of making a most brilliant
and a witty speech on the -subject.--(flear, 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 absblutely
necessary Parliament should take some cognizance of
the subject. The Hon. Member objected that dry did
not go. far enough, but the objection, until the lion.
Gentleman had spoken, had been that the Bill went too
far, and that it was monstrous to introduce at soilate a
period of the session a Bill so calculated to lexcite
anxiety in alt parties connected with railroads thkough-
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 enough.l Now 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.
The 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 166,000/. So
difficult was it to bvercome the union of railway inte-
rests in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for
Durham had complained that hebad 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 far 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
rainkber of new railways -were PYRieeteds • and ahqut to
receive flip sanction of the Legislature. In each of thon.
new and very extensive power were given in tahing
Igna,, &en 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 eonlpetent, 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.
polyl 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 afftliority,--tlipre was- a 4)4 in respect tR
duration, and there was a power reserVeoforPariiatnent to
reconsider the provisions efsqch mattera..Therealquestion •
was, would they permit. a certain number of new este-
blishments to become permanent and. unqualified mono,
polies, or give Parliament the privilege.ot reeonsidering
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
reuonsiderine- all contracts would have the same effect.
rituirsiicehd,i'sviohltht e
theuiel3d(ll was needed,
t
hal'Vwtthil°thrheersalnY4:
tion of Parliament, the power of PurChastng these esta-
blishments,
taking, as the amount of purchase, 25 years'
in point of time, R 44 three years' averar of the divi-"
sible profits. 14 case the profits em eclat lo per
the Bill claimed a Omer bf iikeeribl,en4-on 'part Of -
the public, and would have a right' to deminet-a—redue-
(ion of flips! If pie principle of lefislative