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

.117,1,"

' he diameter of the piston and tha air.purnp—more than propor.
iunabiy, the effect of the increased leak tge might be overcome.

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 coal, end break it
into small pieces, and spoil it for a profitable market. Another
article cf traffic that would be injured by a speedy motion was
limestone. This would not bear rapid motion. There wet e
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
prolessional 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, hut 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 agreed upon that. They all agreed that one was too
wide and the other two narrow, hut 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 best
gauge. 'File Great Western eauge was seven feet ; the
London and Birminglian 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
" elm 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 i inches, which latter has been considered
highly inconvenient not only by hint 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 lion. ',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 concurred in that opinion, called 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 011 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
lion. 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 plane—one
in another. The inconvenience of the breaks was admitted on
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 mane 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 this 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 front
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. Ile admitted to the fullest ex-
tent that there scat 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 grounds
on which the Committee rested their decision. He
had 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
awry 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 int-
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 corn-
munity.—( Hear, hear) 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 wholly, ignorant of the details.—( Hear. )
They had sat for twenty-five days, anti 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 case. 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 favenrably 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
( 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 Committee 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 had
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 Board
of Trade, or of her Majesty's Government, or any Gentle-
man of experience on 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. Ile 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
grounds, the sooner they transferred the decision
of such questions to another tribunal the better
for the honour of the House and the interests and prosperity
of the country.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. LA 130 UCHERE said he could not allow the question
to pass by without giving his opinion on the subject, as it was
one of the greatest importance, involving as it did the cha-
racter of the House. He had heat(' the pre-
sent contest called the battle of the gauges, and he
believed the two great companies at issue had been canvassing
and, soliciting for the last three weeks, so as to marshal their
respective forces for the settlement of the question. He was
anxious that the gambling spirit of speculation which hail
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 anent)? strictly to the rules which

GIZOUP X.
C.a.M.87Z..7.13r.12.1.41.2..11) 7..X/t7C3X.N

At the sitting of the Committee this day, the intermediate traffic
evidence vas resumed.

Mr. Pollock, aceountAnt and commission agent at Lincoln, de.
posed that 20 000 tons of coals per annum were received and con-
sumed in that town. The consumption of other articles of domestic
necessity was equally great. The transit of those articles by the
proposed line would be greatly facilitated, and the expense consi-
derably leuened.
Mr. Bartholomew, land agent near Lincoln, was the next wit-
ness; his testimony was corroborative of that already given by
other land agents.
General Johnson was then examined by Mr. lirLDTaarr, to Show
the superiority of the Cambridge and Lincoln to the London and
York line. It passed through the centre of the country, and
through a far more populous district; it would, therefore, afford
greater facilities for the accommodation of the traffic of the district.
After a short cross-examination by Mr. KINGLAHE,

The Committee announced that they would pit from half-past
eleven o'clock tomorrow till three, and then adjourned.

UROUI' Z.

THE GREAT WESTERN (DuzLzrAT AND
GALWAY).

The Committee to whom this group has been referred met this
morning at twelve o'clock, in Rocm 17, the Hon. Mi. Clive in the
chair. The examination of
Mr. Leather, entneer, which was partly heard yesterday, was
then resumed by Mr. JAMES. He had no interest in giving any
ev dence against this line. His attendance was compulsory. He
had no acquaintance with the parties concerned on either side.
Mr. Vignolies, civil engineer, examined by Mr. JAMES—rho.
roughly understood the nature of the error in the line, and the
effect of it was this, with the Parliamentary restriction► it would
be impossible to construct the line It could be made, however ;
but the gradients would have to be entirely changed. Knew Mr.
Hayle and Mr. Hannington ; buqi were persons of skill and ability.
Cross.examined by Mr. MURPHY—Thought that even with these
errors he might be able to make out an estimate for the construc-
tion of the line.
Re-examined by Mr. JAMES—The line could be constructed, but
it would be a different line from that laid down on the plan and
sections deposited.
Mr. John Rastrick, civil engineer, examined by Mr. JAMES—
The evidence given yesterday with respect to the level; and sec-
tions were explained to him ; the effect of these errors would be to
make the cuttings greater, and the embankments higher. The
sections would be required to be altered from those which were
deposited, so as to construct the line.
Cross-examined by Mr. TAYLOR—The line would not be imprac-
ticable, but the estimates would have to be greatly increased. In
the case of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway, with which he had
been connected, where the cuttings and embankments were greater
than were stated in the plans, the assent of the landowners had
first to be obtained before the works were proceeded with—other.
wise these errors would have been held by the Committee to be
fatal to the Bill.
By the Commtrree—The errors were proved by comparing the
sections which had been delivered to the landholders and those de.
posited with 'he Committee on Standing Orders.
The case for the Grand Canal Company against the proposed line
here closed.
Mr. MURPHY inquired if opposing Counsel intended to call any

further evidence ? I.llegations of forgery and fraud had been most
liberally dealt out against the promoters of the line, and he had a
right to demand that these charges should be either proved or re-
tracted.

Mr. Jamas said that he did not intend to call further evidence.

He thought that he had adduced sufficient evidence on the en-
gineering errors that had been made on the deposited section of
the Comp•inv to be fatal to the further progress of the Bill.
Some discussion then tor,k place whether Mr. James should ad-
dress the Committee to or wait till after he heard the rebutting
evidence.

Mr. MURPHY said, that unless opposing counsel stated their case
now, and the grounds on which they relied, he should not allow
them to go int the general merits of the question in their address
to C e Comtpittce aiier the rebutting evidence w.s adduced, but
should conhne them exclusive!y to comments on that evidence.
Mr. JsmEs said that he would send for his colleague, Mr. Cock-
burn, who was then engaged at other Committees, and he would
consult with him as to the course they should a lopt.
Mr. COCKBURN arrived shortly afterwards, and after a short con.
sultation with Mr. James and the other counsel on the same side,
proceeded to address the Committee. He said that he had
an objection to make which he thought would be fatal to

the Bill. He referred to the difference between the real
levels and the sections which had bee❑ deposited in the
Private Bill-office. It had been proved in evidence that
there was an error in some places of 38 feet, and in other
places of twenty feet, which errors extended fur several miles
a.org the line. In the Bth Victoria. chap. 20 sect. 11, it would
be found, that the maximum variation allowed between the teal
levels and the plans and sections deposited was only five feet,
and two feet in any town nr place near which buildings
were erected, unless the consent of the proprietor be first obtained.

1 It was ouvious that some such restriction should he imposed on the
landowners, who would be subjected to have their soil cut up and
carved to any extent that might seem tight to parties who were
engaged in the construction of railways. In the case of
the Cambrridge and Lincoln line, the Bill was thrown
out for a variation of 10 feet. In the case of the South
Wales line, which was recently thrown out, the objection
which vas fatal to it was, that a part of the line was laid down
contingent on obtaining the consent of the landholders, who were not
then before the Committee. Now, in this case, if they passed
the proposed line, they would be flying in the face of that decision,
and they would pass the Bill contingent on the consent of the land-
holders, for they had Never been consulted as to the additional
cuttings which ;you'd be required. On those grounds, as also be-
cause it would tie certain to be thrown out before the
Committee of the Lords, they should at once stop all further
proceedings. Tl,e Learned Counsel concluded an able address, by
calling on the Committee not to lend the sanction of the House
of Commons to a measure which must end in nullity.
Mr. MURPHY thought the care which had been adopted by the
Learned Counsel was the most extraordinary ever pursued. In the
whole course of his address, he had gone upon the assumption that
the points to which he' referred had been proved in evinence. He
did not wait for the rebutting evidence which he (Mr. Murphy)
would bring forward, and which would completely upset the evi-
dence on which he relied.

Some discussion then took place as to whether Mr. Cockburn
should be allowed to address the Committee again on the general
merits of the question, after the rebutting evidence was gone Into.
The room was then cleared to enable the Committee to decide on
the'point.

On our readmission, the 01411101 AN announced that the op-
posing counsel should have the liberty of addressing the Committee
on the general merits after the rebutting evidence was beard, and
that Mr. Murphy should have the privilege of replying to that
speech if he thought proper.

The CHAIRMAN then told Mr. Murphy to proceed with the re-
butting case.

Mr. MURPHY said that, in consequence of the strange, and, as it
appeared to him, irregular course which the proceedings had taken,
he was not then prepared to bring forward his engineering evi-
dence to rebut the case of opposing counsel, but if the Committee
would allow him till Monday he should have all his witnesses in
attendance.

The Committee acceded to the request, and adjourned till twelve
o'clock on Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TEM 341,ITTUAMPTON 11.11 D DORCHESTER

R,AILVI.IY.

Th, Committee on this Bill met at twelve o'clock to-day, Lord
Auckland in the chair.

There were several petitions from landowners against the Bill,
amongst whom was the name of Lord Normanton.

Mr. Rowe appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. Austin for the
promoters.
The Learned COUNSEL briefly opened thecase.
Lord De Mauley was called, but the Noble Lord not having been
sworn, his examination was net proceeded with.
Mr Brown, a shipower at Poole, was then called. The witness
was favourable to the scheme which he said would be of great
auvaniage to the trade or Poole.

t•-f.t.N7.3t n...S.I:I;IITAY (S ETON TO PETER.—
no.movaa).
This Committee met at eleven o'clock, Lord Devon in the
chair.

Mr. HILDTkiD opened for the promoters.
The Bill was opposed by Lord Harborough and the Melton
Mowbray Canal Company.

THE E'i.TY AND HILTNTLAIGDON E,AILWAY.
The Committee met this day at twelve o'clock, the blaiquis of
I.lnrmanby in the chair.

Mr. AUBTIN brit fly opened the case for the promoters.
Mr. Ceowoca opposed the Bill on behrlf of the Eastern Conn-
ties Railway ( rpany, on the grounds that the scheme would com-
pete for six miles with the opponents' line.
Mr. AusriN said that an arrangement had been came to with
the opponents, by which he had been given to understand that all
opposition had ceased.

Mr. CROWDER, in reply, said that such an understanding bad
certainly been come to with respect to one portion of th.: line, but
not to the whole extent of the promote's' line.
The room was then cleared. .

THE SUN, LONDON,SATURDAY MORNING. JUNE 21, 1845.

had been laid down for the management of the private
business of the House, and by —taking great care how
they interfered with- the. ..decision of any Committee
they might appoint for the purposes of investigation.
This was not a question of broad and narrow gauges, as it was
stated to be by the Hon. Memt er for Stockport.The ques-
tion before the House was, whether they should stop the
further progress of the Bill ? And there was no
pretence for their doing so. They had heard from
the Right Hon. and Learned Member, the Chairman of the
Committee, that it was not a question of gauges but a
question of line.—(Cheers.) It was utterly impossible that
the House could form any opinion on the subject. They had
not the power of investigating the subject as the Committee
had, and they certainly ought to repose some confidence in
the Members who composed it. With regard to the argument
that the Committee had decided contrary to the report of the
Board of Trade, he did not Fee that they should pay a slavish
respect to those reports. He well knew that when he was
appointed a member upon a Railway Committee, that Com-
mittee had given the most marked attention to those reports,
but he did say, that when a Committee bad investigated the
subject brought before them, arid when they had considered
the report of the Board of Trade, surely it was no ground for
distrusting the decision of that Committee—a decision come
to after full consideration-- that they were opposed to the
opinion of the Board of Trade.—(hear.) On these grounds
it was his intention to support the further progress of the Bill ;
hot, after hearing the speech of the Right Hon. Chairman of
that Committee, he (Mr. Labouchere) was not prepared to
deny that some special circumstances connected with this Bill
required special consideration. He would also admit that they
had asserted a principle which he believed to be perfectly new
in railway legislation, namely, that the line was to be con-
structed on both principles—both the broad and the narrow
gauge. He could not himself give an opinion on the subject ;
but it was asserted by the Board of Trade that this course was
likely to be attended with public danger. But that was no
reason why they should stop this Bill, for this error it would
be an easy matter to remedy. They might introduce a claude
in the Bill on the third reading to oblige the Company to lay
down eit er the broad or the narrow gauge. He hoped
that before the conclusion of the debate some Mem-
ber of the Government would inform the House whether
they were prepared themselves to look into this question, and
to make some report to the House on the subject, or whether
they would consider a Committee the preferable mode of mak-
ing the inquiry. He certainly thought that the question
should be fully investigated by the House and the Govern-
ment. He should be exceedingly sorry that the House should
insist on an alteration in the decision of the Committee. If
they should attempt to alter the decision of the Committee,
they would at once throw a slight on the whole of their pro •
ceedings, and by a declaration that their decision was other-
wise than impartial and judicious, in dealing with the large
pecuniary interests on which they had to adjudicate, be-
cause they were in opposition to the decisions of the Beard of
Trade, they would be unsettling the confidence of the whole
country in the most important decisions. It would be be-
lieved that this could only be done by the aid of pecuniary in- 1
terests in that House. and through a system of canvass and
solicitation, and would only lead to a state of confusion, and
occasion injury to the whole community.
Mr. BERNAL was inclined to give all the respect which
was due to the decision both of the Board of Trade and the
Committee, but still he could not help saying that all the
speeches were on one side, and he felt in the situation of being
compelled to call upon the Right Hen. Boronet to state his
opinion. The Right Hon. Baronet was in possession of great
mental and physical power.—( A laugh.) He was serious ; for
it was well known that the Right Hon. Baronet possessed a
power which it was almost impossible to oppose; and he called
upon him not to give the weight of his influence against the Bill,
on account of its being opposed to the Report of the Board of
Trade. He must take it that the principle of this Committee
had been an impartial one, that it was a serious arid intelligent
tribunal. Nothing could be said against the ability, attention,
and integrity of the five Members of which it had been
composed ; and when he heard of the mistake of one
of the Honourable Gentlemen who had spoken, he
was glad to learn that the decision at which the
Committee had arrived was the unanimous approval of the
preamble. But the question was not respecting the line on
which the Bill was opposed. The ground of opposition was
the difference between the broad and narrow gauge. It was
proposed to adopt the broad gauge from Oxford to Rugby, and
from Oxford to Worcester, and it was to be considered whether
the broad or the narrow gauge should be adopted on all sub-
sequent lines. He did not, therefore, see any sufficient neces-
sity for disturbing the decision of the Committee and opposing
the progress of the Bill. He believed that even yesterday in
the City there was the wildest speculation going on as to the
question of the broad and narrow gauge.—( Here the Hon.
Member became almost inaudible, amidst loud cries of
" Divide, divide..") He was understood to say that Mr.
Walker, the engineer, when examined, stated that though it
would be for his own interest to recommend the narrow gauge,
yet for the benefit of the public he would recommend that the
harrow gauge should be uprooted throughout the kingdom, and
one broad gauge adopted. There might be some doubt as to
the extent of the broad and narrow gauge, and when he heard
it asserted that the narrow gauge was uniformly adopted
throughout the Continent, he thought there was a doubt as
to the exact width. He believed that they would find it five
feet in some places, and six feet in others. The length of
junction was in favour of the arguments produced on the
London and Birmingham line. It had been already stated that
the Board of Trade had not an opportunity of considering how
to remedy the evils of transferring passengers on the narrow
and broad gauge.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
He would call upon the House most earnestly, and more par-
ticularly on the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, to confirm the
decision of the Committee. The Committee had been ap-
pointed a properly constituted judicial authority, and he re-
quested the House to support them in the position they had
assumed as arbiters of the most beneficial mode of laying down
rails on railway lines.
Sir G. GREY said there were some particular circumstances
affecting this question which he thought made it a proper question
to bringbefore the House, and 4e expressed a hope that the Go-
vernment would see fit to express their opinion on the subject
before any division was come to. When the question
came before the Committee on the Bill, there was a
peculiar circumstance which arose between them and the
Commissioners of the Board of Trade. One of the differences
between the Committee And the Board of Trade was a ques-
tion of competition. It had been stated that the London and
Birmingham line was an integral independent railway, and it
was asked that another competing independent line should
be established by means of the Great Western Company.
His opinion was in favour of it, but he really thought it would
be desirable to have some expression of the ideas of Govern-
ment. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated at length, the
circumstances connected with the whole proceedings of the
Committee, how it was proposed to lay down four lines of rail-
way without making a new railway. He would read a few
passages in support of that idea. The House was called upon
to forbid the construction of a line of railway which had been
adopted by the Committee contrary to the expressed report of
the Board of Trade, which could not be adopted without
occasioning great inconvenience both to passengers and traffic.
They stated that laying down a double line of railway would in
many cases be disadvantageous. The difficulty of maintaining
the permanent way with a double set of rails would be very
great ; the difficulty was so great as to prevent experiments
being tried to any extent. He (Sir George Grey) thought
that the House was not justified in stopping the progress of this
Bill, even though the Board of Trade, after the evidence which
had been adduced before the Committee, should be still of the
same opinion as that which appeared in their report. He
thought it would he well for the Government to appoint a com-
mission to inquire into this subject ; but he did not think that
the House would be justified in postponing this Bill.
Sir G. CLERK said that after the appeal which had been
made to him by the Right Hon. Gentleman it was impossible
for him to allow that debate to close without saying a few words
on the subject. He perfectly concurred with the Right Hon.
Gentleman as to the importance of supporting Committees of
that House. He believed that no tribunals had bestowed
greater attention in the discharge of most arduous duties
than had the Railway Committees of that House.
This was a question of very great importance. They were
not called upon now to decide, for the first time, as to which
was the best width of gauge. That question had already been
decided. He was of opinion that the laying down of another
kind of gauge would not be of that advantage which was be.
lieved, and that the loss would more than counterbalance
the gain. Yet, the Committee in passing the preamble
of the Bill, gave a decision in favour of a particular
company, and practically decided the question. The
London and Birmingham railway ran through one
of the most important districts in the kingdom, and was of
considerable length. Great traffic might be expected on any
branch lines connecting the contiguous districts, which
abounded in minerals, with the main line, so that the question
was one of great importance to that line. It was on that
ground that the Board of Trade, looking at the traffic which
might be expected on that railway—that three-fourths of the
traffic would come from the north, and either terminate
at Bristol, or before it reached it, and that a very small pro.
portion would come from the south, arrived at their decision.
With regard to the transfer of the goods from one line to an-
other being of great inconvenience, he did not think that ob-
jection had been sustained. But he was ready to admit that
the change from one line to the other should take place at a
place where it would be attended with the least possible de-
lay.—( Hear, hear.) However, all the traffic of which the
Hon. Member had spoken as passing south of Birmingham,
about nine-tenths of it terminated at Bristol—(Hear, hear)—
and no inconvenience whatever could, therefore, be felt from
the fact of a change of the gauges there, for there was very
little through traffic there.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said
that this subject had not been before the Board of Trade.
Now, be begged to assure the House that no subject had come
before the Board of Trade which had occupied so much of their
time and attention as this very question.—( Hear, hear.)
The difficulty of mechanical contrivance might be got rid of
by adopting the report of the Committee, but the waste of
time and expense never could. The Board of Trade thought
the transhipment of goods, as it was called, was attended with
great expense and labour—the proposition of a double line of
rails emanated voluntarily from the Committee. The opinion
of the Board of Trade was, that danger and inconvenience
would result from the proposed combination—that opinion re-
mained unchanged, particularly as regarded the line of com-
munication between Woburn and Worcester. It was perfectly
impossible that trains passing along at various rates of speed,
some on a narrow and some on a wide gauge, could long con-
tinue to run without some fatal accident occurring. The Com-
mittee did not expressly recommend either system. Notwith-
standing the disposition of the House, he must say its natural
disposition, he still thought the decision of the Board of
Trade the right one, and he should support it. If the House
confirmed the opinion of the Committee they would be es-
tablishing the principle that the broad gauge ought to be ex-
tended throughout the country.
Sir THOMAS WILDE had no personal interest in the
question, except so far as it related to his constituents.
He must confess that it was an unfair thing that these matters
should be referred to the Board of Trade, where the investiga-
tions were carried out in private—(Cheers)—particularly
when they had no means of knowing the source whence the in-
formation was obtained upon which the Board acted. 'When
a report came out they found quotations in them apparently
from impartial persons, but when they got into Committee
they turned out to be extracts from private letters of inte-
rested persons, and yet they were put forth under the autho-
rity of the Board of Trade, and afterwards supported in that
House by Members of the Government. He must say that
the parties had just grounds for complaint. Wheu he attended
as one of a deputation at the Board of Trade, from
Worcester, he was told by a gentleman of the name of
Laing, who came out of the room, that the whole
question had been fully investigated on both sides.
He inferred, therefore, that a careful consideration had been
given to the case of both parties, and he now asked the lion.
Gentleman if he could produce the evidence which had induced
the Board of Trade to come to such a decision. The Board of
Trade had stated certain opinions as to the difficulty of trans-
ferring from the one gauge to the other; but the Committee
thought there would be no such difficulty. The Great Western
had never received any communication op the subject. The
Board of Trade had alluded to the great difficulties that would
arise from the transfer. When a witness was called and was
asked if be wrote to the Board, he said that he had written a
private communication which he re-
private letter in reply to a
ceived from the Board of Trade. He then asked the Right
Hon. Gentleman if the other side had had any similar infor-
mation ?—(Hear, hear.) He also asked him if he could pro-
duce the evidence of those who said that the ehange could
be effected with the greatest facility. It was proposed to be done
in two ways, either by lifting up the waggons, or by putting them
on a truck, and they gave the number of minutes in which it
could be done and the expense that would be incurred. When

Mr. Brunell had stated this his cross-examination was ad-
journed, while Mr. Stephenson's evidence on the other side
was closely gone into. But there were also other parts of the
report of the Board of Trade which, though strong in expres-
sion, were quite unsupported by such evidence as was adduced
before the Committee. What were the facts told to the Board
of Trade? They were not known. Were both sides heard
before them? They knew that they were before the Com-
mittee. There counsel were instructed on both side,. of the
case. Witnesses were called, and surely those objections
which had weighed strongest with the Board of Trade could not
be utterly unknown to the London and Birmingham
Company. ( Hear, hear.) They could have ine
strutted counsel to refer to those objections. Did it
appear that their attention had been directed to this? Wit..
ness after witness was called, not making ex parte statements,
but examined, cross-examined, and re-examined, and now he
should wish to know which of these reports ought to be en-
titled to most credit ? Whether was an examination taken in
private by the Board of Trade—let them be given credit for the
greatest intelligence and diligence, still such an accumulation
of business could not be properly attended to by them. The
inquiry was more satisfactory when both parties made their
statements face to face, and where perhaps twenty-five days of
examination was the average. The report of the Board of
Trade had nothing at all to do with the question. This Bill
would be subject to all the legislative enactments which passed
on the subject of railways, and it might be an easy matter to
bring in a clause in the Bill to alter their gauges, They have
done this in the line between Worcester and Bristol, where
the gauges were both broad and narrow. They had heard the
evidence of engineers on the subject, arid it was a matter yet in
doubt which of these gauges was the better one. He
was astonished that the Hon. Member for Stockport had not
exercised that great intelligence which belonged to him, before
he bad expressed the hope that they had chosen a uniform
gauge in the beginning of these railway speculations. They
did not know then, they did not yet know, which was the better
gauge, for they had not had sufficient experience on the subject.
ft was quite easy to insert a clause in this Bill to give the
power of making either the broad or narrow way. But he
thought that it was highly unjust that this Bill should be cast
aside by a side-wind. There was the utmost desire to give
every facility to the necessities of the country. The broad
gauge was proposed as absolutely necessary for the wants of
the district through which the lines had to pass, and the inte-
rests of the parties concerned in the narrow gauge might be
met by the introduction of the additional line of rails. He
did not know on what evidence the Board of Trade had come
to their decision, or why they should make so strong a re-
port as they had done on this subject ; but hi'
must say that the desision of the Committee was
much more valuable, fur it had been made with the report of
the Board of Trade before them. It was made with the parties
advocating both systems face to face, and the counsel employed
on both sides fully instructed to state the circumstances woich
should give that decision a judicial character. He, therefore,
saw no reason why this Bill should not be suffered to pass.
There had evidently been a full inquiry, and he trusted the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would assist in giving effect
to the report of the Committee. He looked forward with great
confidence to the advantages which would result in future
throughout the whole country. He trusted, therefore, that
the House would affirm the decision of the Committee.
Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. Gentleman had thrown
out an imputation against the Board of Trade for which there
was not the slightest ground. The Board of Trade hail not
decided without receiving all the testimony they could desire.
They had every one before them who could give any inf,,rma-
tion. They had seen the Direetors of the Great Western
Company, and with them all those at all competent to express
an opinion on the merits of both systems. The principle had
been fully discussed ; and they had not only had one intervi, w,
but a second and a third, and had not come to their conclusions
without the fullest investigation.
Mr. H. WARD said that he should not have spoken on this
question but for the undue warmth which the Chairman had
thrown into his vindication.--(" No, no," from Mr. Shaw. )
The Hon. Gentleman said that his decision did not coincide
with the report of the Board of Trade ; but he had not shown
how it furthered the public interest.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that the observations of the Hon. Member for Stock-
port (Mr. Cobden) were worthy of the fullest consideration by
the House, Without disputing the qualification of the Corn-
rnittee to adjudicate on so important a question, he thought it
ought not finally to be decided by the incidental interposition
of any committee, and they ought not to complain if the House
analysed the details of their decision, and expressed an adverse
opinion. The guages were to be judged of by their relative
speed, safety, and means of carrying great weight. The
report of the Committee itself stated that the same speed
could be obtained on both. The Hon. and Learned Member
for Worcester had given an opinion on the proposition of tran-
shipment of goods at the point of the change of gauge, and had
expressed a rather strong opinion on the feasibility of such a
practice. He (Mr. Ward) having had a little more expe-
rience in such matters than his Hon. Friend, having had the
misfortune to be a director of a railway company fora consi-
derable time, he could bear witness to the great inconve-
nience ever arising from changes of a like description, in re-
spect of stoppages, transferring, waste of time, &c.--inconve-
niences so great, as he felt assured mast prevent it ever being
used on an extensive scale.—( Hear, hear.) The real ques.
tion was, whether two members of a Committee should settle
this important point ; and whether a small party in a Commit-
tee should decide that which required the wisest heads and the
most practised minds, involving, as it did, the best interests of
the country.--( Hear, hear.)
Sir T. ACLAND said, that if the question was taken up
at all it ought to be taken up seriously. lie admitted that an
inquiry into the merits of the gauges was a very necessary in-
quiry, but the present was not the time to make it. It was
not fair to raise the question now, after having allowed
the two rival companies to pull themselves to pieces, and
in so doing spend 10,000/.—( Hear, hear.) This was
not the time to settle the general principle of the gauges, but
the question was the merits of the two present railways. On
their comparative merits the Committee had given a decision,
and if the House did not agree in that decision, it would reflect
no credit on them.—(Cheers.) Why was not the question of
gauge brought up when railways were agreed to be constructed
between Reading and Basingstoke, in which the broad and
narrow gauges came in contact. Other railways had like-
wise been constructed, in which this question migSt have been
agitated. If it was right to interfere now, why did they not
interfere then?
Sir R. PEEL said it was exceedingly difficult for those who
were Ministers of the Crown to divest themselves of any influ-
ence they might be possessed of, in giving an o;:inion on a
subject of so peculiar a natui e as the present ; and he thought
that, as a general rule, Ministers of the Crown should refrain
from expressing any opinion on such matters. He had heard
the discussion, and he would pronounce his opinion in a purely
judicial manner, unbiassed by any considerations except those
of general benefit. The Right Hon. Gentleman had asked
him to exert all the influence he possessed on the subject. He
would, however, exert no influence whatever. He would rot
interfere with the report of the Board of Trade, nor, looking at
the construction of the Committee, would he attempt to influ-
ence them. At the commencement of the present session, he
had made a public statement that the report of the Board of
Trade did not constitute a final decision. He considered that
they might be extremely useful in enabling Committees to ar-
rive with greater facility at a more correct judgment; but the
reports were never intended to form a definite opinion. The
Committee had been presided ever by a Right Hon. Gentle-
man, than whom a person of greater experience, or more fit to
perform an office of that nature, could not be found, and he had
informed him (Sir Robert Peel) that the Committee were
unanimous in the opinion which had been expressed
in their report. The opinion which he had formed
regarding the matter, and formed purely in the
exercise of judicial authority was, that it would not be wise to
overrule the decision of the Committee. He had acted ex-
tremely judiciously in the matter, and he could prove it by
stating that he held in his hand a petition from his own con-
stituents adverse to the course which he was now pursuing.
He thought it would be inadvisable and replete with difficulty
to overrule the opinion of a Committee on matters of this kind,
and he should most unhesitatingly give his support to the de-
cision of the Committee.

Mr.
.W. 0. STANLEY said he thought there were some
paints in the subject before the House which deserved their
attentive consideration. The Hon. Member quoted something
from a blue book which he held in his hand, but such were
the cries of " Oh," and " Divide," that it was impossible that
even the Hon. Member who sat next him could hear him.
Mr. SHAW said the facts were exactly opposite to what the
Hon. Member who had just sat down stated. The Committee
was not in favour of any particular line, but would approve of
the best.

Mr. MUNTZ had no share in any railroad and no interest
in any gauge. The difficulty was to have to settle the subject
at last. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite said he would
not determine in favour of any gauge. Who, then, was to
determine? It was a most important question, and the expense
of deterntining the best gauge ought to be paid out of the con-
solidated fund.—(Laughter.) It was very well for Hon.
Members to laugh, but would they laugh when the adoption of
both gauges caused loss of money, loss of time, and loss of life?
He ought to know something of these matters, and he pre-
ferred having one gauge to two. Would the House pledge
itself to carry out one of those gauges without further informa-
tion. The question was of the utmost importance. How were
they to get large trucks into little tunnels ? He thought the
Board of Trade was composed of very sensible painstaking
men, and the House should not lightly disregard its recommen-
dation. He had no interest or feeling in the matter, but would
again recommend them to inquire into the subject of dispute
before they decided upon it.--( Cries of " Divide.") He knew
Hon. Members wanted to get to their dinners ; he, too, was
hungry ; but a broken neck was no such light matter.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART said there would be no danger
whatever in adopting the recommendation of the Committee,
which ke thought should be preferred to the decision of the
Board of Trade.
Lord INGESTRE said, as his constituents were much inte-
rested in this question, he must say a few words. He hoped the
Hon. Member for Stockport would bring forward his motion
on a subsequent day—it was far too important a question to be
hastily decided upon.
Mr. GODSON rose amid loud cries of "Divide," but each
time he attempted to speak he was met by such a storm of
" Oh, oh !" that he could get no further than the first syllable.
He, however, continued standing with a bundle of papers in his
hand, loJking vacantly round the House. After the lapse of a
few minutes he proceeded to say that the Committee
had no confidence in their own report, and he would
undertake to say that the Committee could not receive it.
After the noises with which he was assailed had in some degree
subsided, he proceeded to say that the original Bill contained
fifty-two clauses, and that the Committee had added fifty.eight
—more than doubling it. He called upon the Chairman and the
Members of the Committee to point out the clauses which they
supported in their report.—( Oh, oh.) On the small five lines by
the side of the main line, for the use of coalmasters at Stour-
bridge and Dudley, they increased the toll from Id. to lid. per
ton, thus increasing the profits of the company fifty per cent.
per mile, and the company were empowered to charge as much
for the conveyance of coals and iron a hundred yards as six
miles. Thus the coal-masters of South Staffordshire would
have to pay 1,000/, per cent. more than by any other line. Such
was the report which they were called upon to pass.
He held
in his hand a petition from those carrying on business in the
mining districts of that county, in which they complained of
the manner in which the Committee had treated them.—
(Cries of Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide.") Now, proceeded
the Hon. Member, amidst the most discordant noises, and with
a peculiar action and emphasis, which called forth repeated
peals of laughter, I call on any three of the fi ie Committee men
to rise in,theirplaces and say that they read the clauses which
they
inserted in the Bill.—(Laughter.) The report which
they brought
hey brought up is contradicted by the clauses which they have
passed, and the House should send it back, that it may be re-
considered, for I hold that the public have no right to be taxed
in the way they have laid down.
Colonel ANSON, on the authority of the coal-masters and
iron-masters of South Staffordshire, stated, that altboegh there
was some ambiguity in the Bill, yet they were perfectly satis-
fied with the tolls which it imposed.—( Cheers. )
The House then divided, when there appeared—.
For receiving the report
2 Against it ...... . 47
..................... .
Majority for receiving it
134
The report was then adopted.
OXFORD AND RUGBY RAILWAY BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill be adopted, Mr. LOCKHART said, on the receipt of the Oxford and
Rugby Railway Bill, he had said that the two schemes had been
supposed to be so assimilated with the one which had just been
discussed that they ought to go together. But though he knew
that this to a great degree was true, there was indeed so great a resemblance, that what had induced him to vote against one
Bill wonht induce him to vote against the ether. He should.