The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS. June `_'o.
The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock.
LONDONDERRY AND COLERAINE RAILWAY.
The Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Bill was read a
third time. Certain agreements were agreed to, and the Bill
was passed.
CORK AND BANDON RAILWAY.

The report on the Cork and Bandon Railway was brought up.
GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN (IRELAND,

RAILWAY.
The report on the Great Southern and Western (Ireland)
Railway Bill was brought up, and the amendments were
agreed to.
BOLTON, LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, AND GRAND
JUNCTION RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.
The Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North
Union, Liverpool and Manchester, and Grand Junction Rail-
way Companies Amalgamation Bill was read a second time.
EASTERN COUNTIES UNION ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
The Eastern Counties Union Act Amendment Bill was read
a third time and passed.
NORTH WALES MINERAL RAILWAY.
The North Wales Mineral Railway Bill was read a third
time and passed.
MANCHESTER, BURY, AND ROSSENDALE
RAILWAY.
The report on the Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Rail-
way Bill was brought up.
BROAD AND NARROW GAUGES.
Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from Chipping Norton
in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Rail-
way Bill.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, signed by the mer-
chants, bankers, and manufacturers of Birmingham, on the
subject of the broad and narrow gauges. The petitioners were,
the greater number of them, not interested at all in railways
as shareholders, and they prayed the House not to pass either of
the rival Dills until a full inquiry had been instituted into the
relative merits of the broad and narrow gauges.
Sir C. DOUGLAS presented petitions from Warwick, Strat-
ford-upon-Avon,
and some other places, with a similar prayer.
Mr. SCOTT presented petitions from Oxford, Bewdley, and
various other places, with a similar prayer.
Mr. MUNTZ presented petitions from Stonrbridge and
Kidderminster with a similar prayer.
Lord INGESTRE then moved that the report on the
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be
brought up. He had looked through the evidence which had
been taken on this subject, and had considered it with very
great care, and the great bulk of the evidence seemed
to him to be in favour of the broad gauge.—( Hear, bear,
and cheers.) The matter %I as one of national interest
to the country at large, and also of local interest
to the county which he represented, and on both accounts he
considered the broad gauge was the preferable one of the two.
—( Cheers.) The House also should be cautious how they
upset the verdict of a Committee of that House.--(Hear,
hear.) He would not detain the House longer, but move at
once that the report of the Committee on the Oxford, Worces-
ter, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up.
Mr. PA KINGTON seconded the motion.
Mr. COBDEN then moved as an amendment " That a
Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, in all
future Acts for the construction of Railways, provision ought
to be made for securing one uniform gauge, and whether it
would be practicable and expedient to bring existing lines of
railway in England and lines now in course of construction,
into uniformity of gauge, and if so, to report upon the best
mode of carrying these objects into effect in the
present session of Parliament." He said this was
a question of a particular line. It involved an im-
portant principle. They could not disguise the fact, that out
of the House the proceedings of that night were looked to with
great anxiety. It was a most important question, and ought
not to be decided rashly, or without due deliberation.
This was, perhaps, the most important question that
had vet arisen in the course of railway legislation, and
of the greatest national importance. They had fallen into a
ggeat error in railway legislation in not laying down a proper
system for the regulation of railways. It was, however, a
remarkable fact, that in the early stage of railways they took
steps to secure an uniformity of gauge. In the London and
Birmingham and in the Grand Junction Railway Bills
clauses were introduced providing that the gauges should be
uniform. But when railway communication was extended into
the south of England this principle was departed from, and a
different gauge adopted. There were two questions involved in
this subject. First, the prevention of evil to the subject from
the want of uniformity in the gauge; and second, the
possibility of bringing the existing lines of railway
into one uniform system. They were all he was sure agreed on
the necessity of having only one gauge. There could be none
but what admitted that two gauges were a great evil. They
produced the greatest inconvenience to passengers and traffic,
and would interfere with the traffic going forward in all
parts of the country, unless steps were taken to avert
the evil. In the Midland counties, in Oxfordshire,
Worcester, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire there was a
war on the subject at present raging. Now, in those coun-
ties tliere was yet a vast area not supplied by railways,
and it was here that the battle was going forward, the
London and Birmingham and the Great Western Corn-
pan les contending which should occupy the vacant
space. The war would go forward, gathering strength, unless
they stepped in and settled the question. Not only in the
Midland Counties was the contest going forward, but it was
extending itself to Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Dor-
setshire, where as yet railways had made but slight progress.
Well. now they had projects for new lines in connexion with
the Great Western. There was a line from Southampton to
Salisbury, which had been nearly completed, and there
was another from Bath to Bristol. But if these lines
should be completed according to the present plan, the
inconvenience would arise of transhipment from the Salisbury
line to get on to the Bath line, and that was a monstrous ab-
surdity. In DorsetEhire it was the same way ; and he under-
stood that a line now about to be made in Wales would cause a
like inconvenience by reason of the narrow and broad gauges
coming in contact. This was a question which, if nut disposed
of now, would be attended with a great deal of labour and
trouble hereafter, and rivalry, and dispute, and discord, would
continually he the result. For this reason alone, he did think
there could not be a second opinion as to the necessity of having a
uniform gauge.—( Hear, hear.) He knew there were some Hon.
Members in that House who would go so far as to argue that
it was no inconvenience to tranship goods from one line of
carriages to another ; but surely it would not for a moment he
argued that it was no inconvenience to remove loads
of coals, or droves of cattle, from one train of carriages to
another.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that a greater annoy-
ance or inconvenience could not be conceived.—( Hear, hear. )
Well then. that fact being admitted, now let him call attention
to the fact that the narrow gauge was the first one
en which railways were constructed; and at the pre-
sent moment there were more kinds of railways
constructed upon the narrow than on the broad gauge, while
the projected lines were ten to one in favour of the narrow
gauge. On those grounds alone he did think the narrow
gauge should have the first consideration.—( Hear, hear. )
NVhat were the objections to the narrow gauge ? They were
not in a position now to delay the question between them ; and
even if there were a preponderance of utility of the broad over
the narrow gauge, they were not, he rereated, in a position to
defer the settlement of this question. But what was the ob-
jection to the narrow gauge? It had existed in this country
for fifteen years. It was general throughout America, and
there the width of the rails, instead of being as in this country,
4 feet 8 inches, was but 4 feet 6 inches. It was com-
mon in France, in Belgium, and he might say over
the Continent, with the single exception of Russia. Well
then, they had ample experience on the subject. There had
been no accident, he believed, that could be really attributed
to the narrowness of the gauges. They hail had experience
of its we, anti its spread was so extensive that they were not
now in a position to interfere with it. If, at this time, they
were attempting to conform their narrow to their broad
gauges, they would require to alter their tunnels,
their viaducts, their embankments, and, perhaps, most
difficult of all, their bridges, and that in some
cases would be altogether impossible. They might
come to this House for power to do so. But if the broad
gauge were conformatory to the narrow gauge, it
would be moat expedient. This would require no
alteration of tunnels, of viaducts, of embankments,
or of bridges; nothing would be required but an alteration of the
rails and plans. Well this, he said, was the proper time to
legislate upon the subject. lie was aware that it would be a
hard matter to interfere by a legislative enact-
ment to compel the Great Western Railway to
conform to the narrow gauge. But he contended
that the evil would be less felt at that time than
at any future period. They were now going on con-
structing railways, and they would in all probability
live to see railways wherever turnpike-roads at pre-
sent existed. The railway combined the advantages
of turnpike roads and canals ; the expense of transit was less,
and they were still going on improving the construction of
them. They did now experience the difficulties which
had attended the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway. Could there be any doubt, then, that soon they
would have railways over all parts of the country, and were
they to risk the inconvenience of these rival gauges, withont
endeavouring to find some meats of remedying this crying evil ?
—( Hear.) He was sure that looking at the subject the House
.woul say, and he agreed in the opinion, that the report of the
Committee should not be lightly set aside ; and it would
only be on a subject of such paramount importance that
he should ask the House to reverse the decision of the Corn-
mittep. This was a question which must be met soon, and he
was anxious that the House should do so on the present occa-
sion. He was sure that no Hon. Member there would reproach
the Committee for the decision to which they had come, and
he would say that the Committees as now constituted (and he
knew, for he sat on cne for a month past), approached as nearly
as regarded probity, to perfection as they possibly could do.
He did not mean to impugn the decision of the Committee. His
object was not to inquire into the reason which had moved them
to that decision, but still on the grounds of an impartial consi-
deration of the public interests, he thought that the decision
might be reviewed by the House, and their resolution
altered, without an infringement of the respect that
was due to the Committee. He was ready to
allow that their decision was, whether the House were to
blindly follow their decision, or take the evidence which had
enabled the Committee to come at their conclusions for the
guidance of the House. This was a matter of importance,
for the question was, not whether a present convenience or
inconvenience was to be satisfied, but how they were to provide
for the welfare of future generations ?
Colonel WOOD said that this was a question on which all par-
ties might amicably meet. It was neutral ground, on which they
were prepared to state their opinions; but having taken the
elements on which the Committee had founded their report,l he
hoped that he was not trtaonsgeessing his usual principle inn
adopting a plan opposed decisionri which been
Laid before the Houw. In doin this he would impress
on the Committee, that he was guilty‘ of no direspect in second-
ing the motion of the flon !ember opposite. But there
were other reasons why he hould ask for a consideration, or,
rather, a reconsideration ofs thisi motion. The five gentlemen
on this Committee had refuse, their adherence to the recom-
mendation of the Board of Trade, which was in conformity
with the side of the question he
thhad. taken. The five gentlemen
of that Committee had stated their
Trehaesosfor
narrow gauge to the broad g a ue. Committee preferringh ad taken th e
an interest in this question which s highly creditable to them.
but they nail not calculated on theinterest which it was likely
to excite in others who were Membersinconof that House. It was
true that they had considered the venanie,iice of the narrow
gauge, and an immense amount of time had been
expended in endeavouring to ascertain the rm"neY' merits
of the two gauges, but it appeared to ehrm""vtheat
Committee had come to their decision, and determinede
between the two gauges from strong ex paste reasons,
The future was,
however, so full of importance that he thought
they might well review their decision, and the consideration of
the Board of Trade was so important that it ought not to be
east aside without sufficient consideration. He thought
therefore that the House were interested in the fact
that
that report had been made and that it ought
in some degree at
least to be relied on. The
Honourable Committee had reported that the broad gauge
was preferable to the narrow gauge. The Board of Trade was
is favour of the narrow gauge. There were many reasons
which perhaps might be urged in favour of both lines. He was
quite satisfied, as far as speed and the saving of
lime was concerned, the broad gauge was prefer-
able. In the conveyance of some kinds of traffic
however, spend was not the principal object to be obtained. For

PA pi

1~~~; ~.~
~~~

instance, coals would not have a very swift transmission, and in
this instance the broad gauge would be objectionable, as the ra-
pidity of the motion would tend to chip the coa., and break it
into small pieces, and spoil it for a profitable market. Another
article of traffic that would be injured by a speedy motion was
limestone. This would not bear rapid motion. 1 here were
many points on which the narrow gauge was superior to the
broad gauge ; and again, in some instances, the broad was pre-
ferable to the narrow gauge. He entirely approved of the ap-
pointment of a Committee of inquiry.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW said that, as the Chairman of the Committee,
he was bound to say a few words in support of the report. The
Committee had paid great attention to all the evi-
dence—( Hear, hear)--and he hoped that the House
would hear what he had to say on the part of the Committee.
He thought it would have been unnecessary for them to do
so, and he thought it would have been unwise for the Com-
mittee to have volunteered an opinion upon it. And if it had
been necessary he believed that it would be extremely, if not
insuperably, difficult, because no two engineers, or professional,
or scientific men, who were examined before the Committee,
agreed in defining what was the broad and what was the narrow
gauge, and at that moment he (Mr. Shaw) was ignorant on
the subject. He knew perfectly well that the London and Bir..
mingham Railway was called the narrow gauge, and the Great
Western the broad gauge, but no two engineers and no one
professional man would give an opinion as to which
would be the best gauge, if railways were about
being established through the country for the first time.
This was a subject of great national importance, but he did
not see why one company should be made to bear a heavy
expense during the discussion of the question.—(Cheers. )
He would tell them his opinion upon the subject, and that was
that both gauges were wrong. All the engineers seemed to
have agree upon that. They all agreed that one was too
wide and the other two narrow, but they would give no opinion
as to what should be the medium width. Last year papers were
laid before the House containing the correspondence of General
Pasley on this subject. From those papers it would
appear that the opinion of General Pasley was that a gauge,
varying from five feet to five feet six, would be the bst
gauge. The Great Western gauge was seven feet ; the
London and Birminghan four feet eight inches. He would
read one sentence from General Pasley's correspondence,
to show what difficulties surrounded this subject. Now
what did General Pasley say upon the subject? Why, he says
" Mr. Miller admitted in conversation with me that it would
be of great importance if the narrow gauge were 5 feet 3 inches
instead of 4 feet ei inches, which latter has been considered
highly inconvenient not only by him but by all the locomotive
engine makers who had been consulted upon the point, except
by Messrs. George and Robert Stephenson, who first in-
troduced it." He hoped, therefore, that the House would
not consent to allow an Hon. Member to pass an amendment
which evidently had no other object in view than that of ob-
structing the progress of a private Bill.—( Cheers.) General
Pasley evidently seemed to think that the narrow gauge
was objectionable, and yet the Honourable Member,
notwithstanding that nearly all the scientific men of the
country ceneurred in that opinion, sailed upon the House
to establish the narrow gauge by breaking up the existing broad
gauge, but he had been diverted from explaining to the
House the proceedings of the Committee. They had
to deal with the existing state of things, and not
with the question of which was the best gauge, the broad or
narrow. It was not very distinctly given in evidence as to the
extent of the one or the other; but a map was produced, upon
which was marked the extent of the broad and narrow gauge
upon railways in existence, and upon railways in progress, or in
course of construction, and from this map it would appear
that there were about three thousand miles of railway on the
narrow and one thousand miles on the broad gauge. Now, he
would ask, was it likely, with this map before them, that the
Committee would enter into a speculation as to which was
the best of the two gauges to be broken up? It was contended
before the Committee that they ought not to allow the
broad gauge to drop into the narrow territory. Well,
then, on the other hand, they ought not to allow the broad gauge
to be interfered with by the narrow, so that the same objections
might be urged on both sides, but more forcible on behalf of
the broad gauge, because it had advanced nearer to the district
of the proposed railway than the narrow. Well, then, the
Board of Trade had reported that the district was in
want of railway communication, and the only question
for the Committee was, which of two lines proposed
by two great companies, who were clearly able to carry
out their projects, was the best to accommodate the district?
The differences of the respective gauges had been, he thought,
misunderstood by the Hon. Member for Stockport, and by his
Hon. Friend near him ; nor had the consequences of the inter-
ruption of " the breaks" been clearly defined. The Board of
Trade said this " break" would be better in one place—one
in another. The inconvenience of the breaks was admitted en
both sides—it was all a question of degree. The Committee,
after hearing a great deal of evidence, were impressed
with the belief that there were many new facts which had es-
caped the notice of the Board of Trade, and which, in fact,
had not been made public until their report had been
issued. The Board of Trade could not be aware of these
facts, because the experiments had not been made
until after the report of the Board of Trade was made. The
argument of the Board of Trade, in favour of the narrow
gauge on the Birmingham and London line was, that by sub-
stituting the broad gauge the line must be broken. Mr.
Esk said he had taken measures to carry the narrow guage from
Birmingham to Bristol, having determined in any event to
carry it. The Great Western Railway Company had decided upon
making two separate lines of railway, broad and narrow, between
Worcester and Wolverhampton, an important district, embracing
some of the first mines in England. This, too, was since the
report of the Board of Trade. He admitted to the fullest ex-
tent that there was a certain degree of inconvenience when-
ever the two gauges met. He had endeavoured to state to the
House, briefly but imperfectly—( Hear, hear)—he had endea-
voured to put them in possession of the principal grour de
on which the Committee rested their decision. He
h.,cl now pointed out that the question did not turn upon the
relative merits of the gauges. The interruption of " the
break" was overlooked, but they had chiefly directed their atten-
tion to more general and far more important considerations.
With respect to the route taken by either line, that was a
subject which met with the most anxious consideration of the
Committee. The Great Western Company, first in the field,
proposed to construct one direct line fifteen miles shorter than
its rivals. The London and Birmingham Company had, therefore,
besides the disadvantage of distance, the objection of circuitous
route and questionable utility to be considered. The
Great Western Company, connecting, as it would, its present
with its previous construction, would endeavour to attract,
rather than divert the traffic from the main line. It would
be its interest to work it efficiently, and thus improve
the prospects of the original railway. But it would
be the interest of the London and Birmingham Company
to conduct the line that would connect its rival with the great
manufacturing and consuming districts, with negligence or, at
least, inefficiency, its object being to draw all traffic
away from the trunk line.—( Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion of competition had not been overlooked in the
decision of the Committee; it was another and a most im •
portant objection to the line they had disavowed.--( Hear. )
Competition, he was willing to admit, was frequently invalu-
able, and the cause alike of public benefit and private conveni-
ence. Butcom petition in railroads was widely different from other
cases ; to use technical language " side by side" lines were
not calculated to enhance the interests of any part of the com-
munity.—( Hear, Lear ) The London and Birmingham and
Grand Junction Companies had in conjunction constructed
the line to Liverpool ; the former had arranged to effect
the same, independent of the Grand Junction, by a
line diverging at Rugby : and the latter would, by the decision
of the Committee, be enabled to work, independent of the Lon-
don and Birmingham, by a branch striking off at Wolver-
hampton : both Companies thus providing an independent
line to Liverpool. ( Hear, hear.) Before he sat
down he wished to inform the House on what
principles, and in what manner the proceedings of the Com-
mittee over which he presided had been conducted, believing
that in an assembly so crowded as he then addressed, there
must be many—and he said it with all respect—there
must be a great proportion who were compara-
tively, if not so holly, ignorant of the details.—( Hear. )
They had sat for twenty-five days, and they had examined
upwards of a hundred witnesses. They had heard counsel at
great length, particularly the counsel for the parties who had
been unsuccessful, because they had opened the ease. The
Committee had been most unremitting in the attention, which
it had paid to the evidence, and at the close of the case they
had separated without any member of the Committee communi-
cating to another his opinion on the subject.—( Hear, hear.)
During the night which had intervened he had
thought it his duty to put upon paper all the points of
the evidence bearing either favourably or unfavourably on
either side. He believed that the other members of the
Committee had done the same. In addition to which, during
the whole course of the investigation every member of the
Committee had taken copious notes. They met on
the following morning and read their papers to
each other, and after remaining in deliberation
two hours the Committee came to an unanimous decision in
favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line.—
( Cheers.) He was sorry to hear an Honourable Friend
of his, who had served on that Committee, say that he
differed from that Committee, because the Committee
were unanimous in coming to the decision that
the preamble of the Bill was proved. On that point there was
no difference of opinion. His Hon. Friend had differed from
other Members of the Committee in this respect : when the
time came for the consideration of the clause respecting the
gauge his Hon. Friend had proposed an amendment
to the effect that the line should be made upon the narrow
gauge. But that proposition did not touch the opinion
which the Committee expressed on the preamble.
The preamble was passed unanimously, because
the Commit tee was unanimously of opinion that
the proposed line was the best one.—(Cheers.) Neverthe-
less, he had no overweening confidence in the decision
of the Committee. He had felt from the first that great
responsibility rested upon that Committee, and he and his
colleagues had acted under a full sense of that responsi-
bility. It was with great reluctance that the Committee bad
felt themselves bound to differ from the Board of Trade, and not
until after they had given great consideration to the subject.
But it should be remembered that the opinion of the Board of
Trade was only a preliminary opinion, and that
the Board of Trade had not had the advantages of
hearing the viva voce testimony of witnesses, of
hearing their cross-examination, or the opportunity of hearing
the speeches of counsel, all of which the Committee had en-
joyed.—( Cheers and laughter.) If any member of the BoaPd
of Trade, or of her Majesty's Government, or any Gentle-
man of experience or, either side of the House, would get
up and say that he was altogether unconnected with either of
these great companies, but that on public grounds he wished
the matter to be referred to the decision of a more competent
tribunal, he, for one, would not say anything against it.
He should always be happy to have his opinion revised. Let
them take ten as the number of this Committee, instead of five,
if they pleased. Let them form a competent tribunal, and he
should be willing to submit any decision of his to their revision.
With respect to the appointment of a Select Committee, he
had no objection. But he hoped the House would not take any
step that would set aside what had already been done for pri-
vate or personal interests. He trusted they would do nothing
from such considerations, not only for the sake of the Commit-
tee they had appointed, but the credit and honour of the House.
On the part of the great public, private, and pecuniary inte-
rests, he protested against it. The duties of the Committee
had been exceedingly onerous. They had listened with the
greatest patience and attention, for five weeks, to the evidence
adduced, and it was too bad that the decision they had come to
should be put aside by a personal phantasy, which
certain great companies had raised, supported by personal and
interested friends.—( Hear.) if such a course was to be
pursued—if that House was to be made the scene of such in-
terested proceedings—if Hon. Members were to be induced
to support measures, not on public, but on private
;•,sefreunds, the sooner they transferred the decision
for :I?ehhorruersThe IZuseanaontdhetrhe
itnrtiebruensatsl.
attidhepresileerttiteyr
of
rtthhe..cLoAunßtzi—jc(ilLEoußdzetrsa
could not allow the question
to pass by without giving his opinion on thesubject, as it was
one of the greatest importance, involving as it did the cha-
racter of the House. He had heard the pre-
sent contest called the battle of the gauges, and he
i
believed the two great companies
e at issue had been canvassing
raensdp:eseotlii,ceitifnergeefosrfothr ethlaestsetthtre etnewnete esf,
tsho as to marshal their
anxious that the gambling spirit of s
e:ulqautieositii%:hielfalewas
Phad
developed itself, of which this was a manifestation, and
which was beginning to pervade the public to such an
injurious extent, should be met at the doors of that
House ? There was but one way of successfully opposing
it, and that was, by adhering strictly to the rules which