The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FR

line, while the South. Eastern Company only charged ss. 6d. trans
Folkestone to Reigate--a similar distance. For these reasons he,
thought that an equal mileage system was a tight principle to
adopt on those line where the company had been put to only ordi-
nary expense; but in those instances where the expenditure had
been increased, he thought that there ought also to be an increase
of charge. Perhaps these particular instances might
be met by clauses in the Special Acts, but he
thought it requisite to draw the attention of the C-:mmittect to these
points. He thought the companies ought to be protected, which
by the clause they would be ; for he felt the public were able to
protect themselves,
Mr. TATTON EGERTON said, it appeared to him, that the
view of the case which had just been taken ass, in some instances,
incorrect; but yet that something •f the kind ought to be adopted,
so as to carry the object of the clause into effect. As it stood
it would tell heavily against the lower classes. It the companies
were obliged to adopt equal rates, they could not give those favour-
able terms to thiri-class passengers which they all destrei to grant. Li
the neighbourhood of large towns this would prove a great grievance.
The Manchester and Leeds Company, he knew, were anxious to ac.
commodare the third class passengers, and if they could obtain a
remuneration for expenditure by other means, they would be ab:e
to do so. He did not see why the principle of different rates, which
had been used by canals, should not be applied to railways.
• Sir H. HALFORD said, that on the Peterborough Canal, by
a certain law the public had a right to have oxen and sheep carried
not only aat ort distance, but all the way to London; while with
respect to other parts of the country they were under no such
limitation. Now, he thought the principle which they had adopted
on that car.al, which was that of public convenience, might be ap-
plied to railways. He should support the amendment.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that this was no novel
proposal. It had often been mooted in Committees, which had
beers very hilly attended by Members of that House, and in all
those Committees it had been decided that the principle of the
clause was a good one. By the arrangements into which the Siert h-
Eastern Company had eiitered, coal was carried cheaper from Dover

to Tunbridge than ever it had becon before; and no one could deny

that the effect had been very much to reduce the price of coal at
Tunbridge. Passengers from London to Tunbridge were carried
for the same rate as they were to a place ten miles short of it ;
so that the charge for travelling forty miles was the same, and this he
conceived was a great advantage to tire public. 111_1 object was to
equalise the charges ; and the mover of the amendment, the Hon.
Member for Dover, might as well say that a person travelling one
hundred miles should be carried at the same rate as one who only
travelled ton. He really thought that if the Company had not
stirred in the matter the house would have been better affected to-
wards •he proposition, and he hoped the elause would be retained,
Mr. BROTHERTON said that lie could not exactly agree in
the principle that the public should be oarziesi forty miles at the
same charge as they could travel thirty. As an instance, sup-
posing a colliery, which was largely used by the public, was situated
thirty miles on a line of railway, and another should be established
at forty. The difference of charge between these two places was 2s. Ad.;
yet something in the nature of the amendment ought to be adopted.
Bur to keep out a certain colliery, you put on double the toll for
the ten miles; and although it appeared to be advantageous to
the public in the first instance, it might prove doubly disadvanta-
geous in use end. It was absolutely necessary thet persons having
warehouses in the neighbourhood of a railroad should have the
right of sending their goods by the rail at a uniform rate. Such was
the case upon the canals. Any person could send his goods
by the Bridgewater Canal upon paying one fixed
rate of toll. It the railroads had the power of refusing to carry
goods, or of charging what tl.ey pleased for different parts of the
line, they would have a complete monopoly, and be able to ruin
any man who expended his capital in building works in their
neighbourhood. He admitted that there would be great difficulty
in framing a clause to guard against the inconvenience, but he
thpught it was desirable to take it into ccnsideration.
Mr. D.A RBY agreed with the Hon. Member for Salford that
there would be great difficulty in properly framing a clause. Ile
had been upon a Committee in which the subject had been fully
discussed, and he was of opinion that it would give the companies
a great advantage over the public if this amendment were passed.
An HoN. Megarss said they could not charge more than their
maximum.
Mr. DARBY—They could not charge more than their maxi-
mum, but they would raise the toll all through the country. He
would vote against the amendment; but lie hoped his Noble
Friend (Lord G. Somerset) would introduce an addition to the
clause, to meet the views of the Hon. Member for Salford.
Lord MA IISH AM was in favour of the amendment proposed by
the Hon. Member for Dover, as it would have the effect of checking
the monopoly which railways were acquiring at the expense of the
canal companies. In his county, what was called the " competi-
tion" of the South-Eastern Railway with the Medway Navigation
Company was, in fact, to raise the price of carrying goods. For
instance, the price of coals had risen since the opening of the
railway, and such would be the case throughout the country. He
would support the amendment.
Mr. MORRISON also supported tire amendment. He thought
that it would be a great protection to the public, and that there
would be no difficulty to the companies In equalising their rates.
They had almost suppressed every other means of conveyance, and
it w.,s necessary to guard against their monopoly.
Mr. ENT WIbLE said that some gentlemen, in discussing
questions connected' with this subject, dealt with them as if the
railway companies were something else than carriers—as if they
were coal.mitie proprietors, or something else than companies es.
tablished for the accommodation of the public. He was understoo
to support the clause.

Mr. FLU MPTRE said that' the fact was, that railway com-
panies, almost invariably, did act in some t.ther capacity than tha
of railway shareholders; and by the admission of his Hon. Friend,
the Metnber tbr North Lancashire, he was bound to support the
amendment.

Mr. If ORSM AN said that, in the case of .a particular line with
which he was acquainted, the conwany charged a low rate on the
tarts where they had to compete with the canal ; but they raised
the rate as soon as they got out of the competition. He supported
the amendment.

Lord G. SOMERSET defended the clause as it stood. It was
perfectly just for a railway company to increase their fares and tolls
en that portion of the line which required an additional expense in
the working, or which had originally cost more than another part
in the construction.

Mr. GLADSTONE admitted that the law as it at present stood
was far from satisfactory, but still all the existing companies
possessed the same power proposed to be given by the clause, and
he could see no reason why future lines should not have the same
advantage. In some cases individuals might be exposed to hard.
ship, but on the whole he thought the present system worked well.
Considerable inconvenience would be produced if they
were to establish the principle of charging equal fairs
along the whole line of railway ; but, independently
of this objection, the Hon. Gentleman would not gain his object it
he persisted in the amendment, seeing that if the Bill were nut
passed before Easter the necessity for it would have passed away,
and then the same clause would be introduces; into every
railway Act that came before Parliament. Just let them
see what would be the effect of an equalisation of fares along the
whole line of a railway. It might be extremely important
that on one portion of a long line of railway the
rate of charge should be reduced so as to Accommodate the
public convenience; but did they think a railway company would
consent to make this reduction if the Hon. Member's amendment
were in operation ? For instance, on the Manchester and Dir.
mingham line it was extremely important that trains should be con.
stantly kept running between Manchester and Stockport,
and at low rates of fare, to accommodate the la.
bouring population of the district. —(Hear, hear.)
Now, would it be fair for them to say to the Manchester and Bir-
mingham Company, " If you choose to carry passengers between
Manchester and Stockport at one halfpenny er three farthings per
mile, you shall not be allowed to do so, unless you are prepared to
establish the same rate throughout the whole line ?" Why, if they
did that, it would seriously inconvenience the operative population,
whose avocation! required them to be constantly passing and re.

passing between Stockport and Manchester. Then, again, to ac-
commodate this traffic, it was necessary for the railway company
to increase the fires between those portions of the line which

were better able to bear it.—(Hear, hear.) They were
going to have a complete chain of railways from London to the
north of Scotland, passing through Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee,
and Aberdeen. In some part of this route Hon. Members were
aware that steam-boats were constantly plying, and it was desirable,
for the public convenience, that the whole of this chain
of railway should be enabled to enter into competition with
these steam-boats. Now, they could only do this by establishing
low rates of fares for carrying passengers direct from London to
Aberdeen. But how could they do this if they were to say to the
London and Birmingham and Grand Junction Railway Companies,
" You shall not enter into this competition to carry passengers at
this low rate, unless you are prepared to make the same reduction
throughout the whole of your lines." It was quite clear the Bir_
mingkam and Grand Junction hallway Companies would not
agree to this proposal, and thus the public would lose the mivan-
tage of this railway convenience, and the railway company the
secondary advantage of competing with the steam-boats. He would
just mention a point which was analagous to the case
he had mentioned. As the present moment tbL. railways had
a considerable, and perhaps unfair advantage, over canal navigation
—for instance, a railway company had the power of being carriers,
but the canal company had not. The canal companies did not
wish the power to be taken away from railways, but, on the con-
trary, they thought it an advantage which they desired to possess
themselves. Under these circumstances, he should resist the
amendment.

Mr. RICE said that he did not wish to bind the nous
to the exact terms of tl:e amendment, but he desired
that the House should confirm the generul principle abieh the
amendment sought to establish. It would be sufficient for thous
to strike out the word "either," ai.d leave it to after oowideratitra
to settle the precise terms of the slause.

Mr. HAWES said some railway companies were in the habit
of running what were called excursion trains, while
others issueddaily tickets, which enable poroons to go from one
;"ace to another, and return for the same fare. There could be
no doubt that this was an alvantage to the public generally,
but to the inhabitants of populous districts and large
towns it was of incalcdable benetit.—(tlear, hear) Now,
if they adopted tie amendment of the Hon. Member for Darer,
they would entirely put an end to this praiseworthy system.
After some further discuasion, the Committee divided, who*
there appeared—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority aga:ll6t it

Lerd MARSHAM moved the expulsion of the clause alto.
tether 1 and a long disrussien ensued upon the effect which the
clause would be supposed to have, in giving a peculiar power
monopoly to railway companies.
Mr.Oaborne, Mr. Martin, Sir Denham Norreys, Mr. F. Maule„
Colonel Wood, Mr. H. Stansfield, and Lord Granville
Somerset, took part in it, but it was entirely con-
versational in its character, and the result was, that on
a suggestion of Mr. BrAherton, Lord Marsham refrained from
dividing the House, and the clause was agreed to, as was also the
71st clause.

On the 72d clause being put,
Colonel WOOD suggested the introduction of some words
Which would render the object of the clause mere specific
and clear. The object of the clause is to oblige com-
panies to affix a board, containing their rates of toll, at
each of their stations ; and another long conversation
similar to the present one, occurred on the power which the
word "toll " would have of fixing the charge for the
use of locomotives ; and Lord Granville Somerset de-
cided that the word " toll" included everything that could be
carried along a railway.
Clauses 73 to 80 were then agreed to.
On the 81st clause being read,
Colonel SIBTHORP said he conceived that the power which
this clause gave of levying a distress upon the goods of the
collector of the company for the wrongful detention of any
property was insufficient, and he thought that the distress ought
to be levied on the goods of the company itself.
Mr. HATTER and Lord G. SRMIERRET explained that the object of
this clause was to enable the company to punish their servants for
misconduct, and the public had a right of redress provided by the
80th clause, which enabled them to sue the company.
Clauses 81 to 00 were then agreed to.
Mr. HAYTER admitted that great difficulty frequently arose
from railway companies taking London time. He had no
doubt that, before long, this evil would be remedied.
Lord G. SOMERSET said nearly all the trunk lines had got
their own clocks ; it would be difficult perhaps to remedy the evil
ci-mplained of.
Mr. PLUMPTRE called the attention of the Noble Lord to the
subject of excursion trains on Sundays. He had frequently received
complaints from persons living in towns to which these
excursion trains went of the inconvenience that was felt by the
people who went by these excursion-trains walking about.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought, if they stopped these Sunday ex.
cursions, they ought also to stop omnibuses.—(Laughter.)

Mr. SPOONER recommended the Noble Lord to take this sub-
ject ir.to his consideration. In many cares these excursion trains
arrived just at the time when public service was commencing.
Colonel SIIITIIORP—You may as well rneve to shut up the
park gates.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MLINIZ thought these excursion trains did more good

than harm. It must be recollected that the persons whe availed
themselves, of these excursion trains were persons who
could not enjoy themselves on any day kut Sunday.—(Hear, hear.)
If they put down the excursion trains, they ought to
put down gentlemen's carriages, which rolled about and interrupted
Divine worship at all tames.—k" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.)
Lord G. SOM ERSE T said t►at if they attempted to legislate on
this subject they would have to interfere with the running of
steam-boats and coach, s on a Sunday.—(Hear.)
The clause was agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the CHAIRMAN reported progress,
after which the House adjourned till Fire o'clock.

The House resumed at Fire o'clock.
The Bedford, Birmingham, and London Railway Bill was
read a first time. _

It was reported to the House, on behalf of the Committee on
the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway, that the standing orders
might be dispensed with.
D A RTMOUTH ELECT I ON.
The following Members were sworn in as a Committee to
try the merits of the petition against the return of Mr. Somes:
—Mr. Pakington, chairman, Mr. Henry, General Lygon, Mr.
Parker, and Mr. Darby.
COIiNWALL RAILWAY.
Sir J Y. BULLER presented several ptitions against the
Cornwall Railway Bill.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.
Mr. SHEIL begged leave to p esent a petition from Signor
Palliotti, in reference to the transactions connected with
the Government opening of letters addressed to
foreigners resident in London. The petition was one
of some length, and the petitioners declared that they
had found it impossible to reconcile the treatment of
the Bandieras with the declarations of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, for this reason—that the letters were opened in the Lon-
don Post-office, at a time, and under circumstances totally at
variance with the statements of the Government. The
petitioners then went on to state that the Bandiera party
that they were in Calabria on
from thence until the month of
jiwteeiryes;itinbut
of
trhfAeuinai,nyi
.ftt6.te April,
4 , and
ta
e.i ;
Government assertion be correct, it would
be difficult to understand how they could reconcile the opening of
tho4e letter: with the alleged fact that they were ignorant of this
meditated descent, and, therefore, of all participation in the mur-
der of the s:x persons who had been executed at Bologna. On
these grounds the petitioners argued that the English Go-
vernment were participators in this perfidious conduct, and
prayed that a law should he introduced on the subject.
CHARITABLE REQUESTS ACT (IRELAND).
Mr. SHEIL also presented a petition from a parish in the
County of Down, against the Charitable Bequests Bid.
Mr. B. ROCHE presented a petition to the same effect
from the County of Sligo.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.
Mr. WAKLEY presented the following petition from the
Electors of the Borough of Finsbury :—" The humble ',sit ition
cf the undersigned persons, appointed by the electors of the
Borough of Finsbury in public meeting assembled on Feb. 26,
1845, for the purpose of signing a petition in reference to
abuses alleged to have taken place at the London Post-office,
and which petition was presented to your Hon. House on
February 28th last by one of their representatives in Parliament,
SHZWETII,—
" That your petitioners submitted to your Honourable House
an express:on of the mortification and disgust they felt at the
existence of the abuses in the Post office complained of, and
prayed your Honoarable House to examine into all the matters
therein set forth, and that you would do full and substantial
justice, —first, to the public at large; secondly, to their repre-
sentative, T. S. Duncombe, Esq. ; and thirdly, to the consti-
tuents of that gentleman ; and your petitioners further prayed,
that your Honourable House would immediately adopt such
measures as would effectually prevent the continuance or the
recurrence of the abuses complained of.
" That your petitioners feel and know, that such abuses in-
volve the personal rights and liberties of every member of the
community, that they affect the general tone of morality
throughout the nation, injure its reputation in the estimation
of foreign countries, prevent the free communication between
a representative and his constituents, and, in particular, im-
plicate the character of T. S. Duncombe, Esq , which your
petitioners feel to be a great and grievous injury to that gen-
tleman, as well as to those whom he represents.
" That your petitioners cannot consent to matters of such
importance being neglected or g ossed over by mere personal
apologies anti official evasions, but feeling, as your petitioners
do, that a grievous public wrong has been done, they are of
opinion that a public inquiry, and an adequate remedy, are im-
mediately and imperatively called for.
" Your petitioners, therefore. pray tlfat your Honourable
House will forthwith institute such a full inquiry as shall
satisfy the public at large, and the electors of Finsbury
in particular, whether any, and what warrant existed for
the opening of Mr. Duncombe's letters, and whether
any suspicion justly attached to his character, so that they
may judge if that gentleman is any longer fitted to continue the
representative of a free and independent constituency, and that
you will enact a full and sufficient remedy, so as to prevent the
recurrence of such abuses as are now complained of.
" And 3our petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pm),
(Signed)
" George Rogers, 58, High-street, St. Giles's.
" Edward Medley, 42, Brick-lane.
" Charles Tapperell, 14, Smith's-buildings, City-real.
" W. D. Cooper, 13, Bloomsbury square.
" Rid hard Moore, 25, Hart-street.
" W. J. Linton, 65, Hatton-Garden.
" Charles H. Elt, 18, High-street, Islington.
" Thcznas Savage, 213, Tottenham-court-road.
&e. &c. &c."
The How. MFMBER then gave notice that he should, to-
morrow, move that the petition be printed, wi..th the votes.
Lord J. NI AN NER S presented a petition from several Spanish
officers who were resident in this country against their will.
They had taken refuge in France, but they had been seized
by the French authorities, anti transported by those authorities
to this country aeainst their will. When they were landed here
they were without money, and since their residence here they
had hems supt•orted entirely by charity. They prayed the
House to take their case into consideration, and either to supply
them with the means of subsistence, or with the means of
leaving the country.
Mr. WYSE presented a petition from the guardians of the
poor-law union of Nenagh, praying that. they might be relieved
from the payment of the money due for the erection of a poor-
house in that union.

Mr. HUME presented a petition praying that no further
prosecutions might be instituted against persons for blasphemy.
The petitioners stated it as their opinion that truth did not re-
quire the intervention of laws for its ♦indication.
RAILWAYS.

Sir G. CLERK pre,ented certain papers from the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. SHEIL gave notice that he should, on Tuesday next,
bring forward the motion of which he had given notice on
Tuesday la,t, on the subject of the opening of letters of foreign.
era at the Post-office.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that if the Govern-
ment did not propose any measure for the amendment of the
law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should himself, after
Easter, move for leave to taring jn a Bill to enable the tenant,
if ejected, to recover compensation from his landlord for any
improvement he might have made upon the land, and also
to amend the laws regulating the value of property in Ireland.
Mr. WYSE gave notice that, after Easter, be should renew
the moticn which he had made last session on the subject
national education.

Mr. WARD postponed his motion in reference to burdens
on land until after Easter.

In reply to a question from Mr. BELLEW,
Sir R. PEEL said he would, on Monday next, state in what
order the ' rish measures would be brought forward after Eastee.
Mr. DUNCOM BE wished to put two questions to the
Right Hon, Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; one,
whether he thought it right that annuities paying the legacy
duty should be subject to the income-tax; the other referred
to the subject which he mentioned last night, in reGrenee
to the books of the Bank of England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
law imposed a tax on all legacies, whether paid in
gross or in annual incomes; and there was no provision for
exempting them from the income-tax. With respect to
the Bank books, the answer which he gave yesterday from
general recollection was perfectly correct. He held in his hand
the answer of the Bank clerk on the subject. and he would read
it as the most satifactory method of answering the question.
"l'he Right Hon. Gentleman then read the letter, stating that
the books were not referred to by any other person but himself
and the other two clerks of the Bank of England. No other
person was employed in the room. He and the other two
clerks had been upwards of thirty years in the service of the
Bank of England.
Lord MA lION wished to renew a question on the subject
of the Portland vase in the British Museum. The Right Hon.
Baronet must be aware that there was no adequate legal
penalty r>r the offence, and that the offender wa- punished,
not for breaking the vase itself, but the glass case which hap..
pened to cover it. When he put a nearly similar question on
a previous.occasion, he was told by the Right Hon. Gentleman
that a meeting of the trustees was about being holden on the
subject. That meeting having been held, he wished to inquire
whether it 'r as the intention of the Government to introduce a
measure on the subject?
Sir B. PEEL begged to state that the trustees had
c n-idereil the subject, and the Government also, and it
was the opinion of both parties that the law in its pre-
sent state, as regarded the destruction of works of art,
was ineffectual—that no sufficient protection existed for
the preservation of works of art against malicious darn Sge.
The Government, therefore, had resolved upon intro-
ducirg a Bill on this subject, and his Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General had a Bill prepared which would
he. introduced at an early period. He wished now to
correct a mistatement of a portion of his speech in the
newspapers. Indeed, he felt surprised the reporters
were so correct. In. the debate on the Now Zealand
question he was represented as having said that the Go-
vernment had received information of the arrival of in-
convertible ds bentures by Lord Fitzroy, and that his
NolA Friend, 14-)rd Stanley, had signified his disap-
proval of inconvertible debentures. The Colonial De-
partment had received no official notice whatever on the
subject. Ile said that convertible debentures had !Ten
issued, anti that his Noble Friend, Lord Stanley, had
taken the earliest opportunity of stating that he did not
approve of them.
Mt. COLLETT wished to know whether the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer meant to exempt holders of
Thrq e per cent. Consols, on which payment would be
made on the sth of July next, from the income-tax ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
did not know any reason why those persons should be
exempted from[the tax while it was in operation.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).

Mr. F. FRENCH -said he wished to know from the
Right Hon. Gentleman ojposite when the House would
be rut in po session of the decision come to by her Ma-
jesty's Government, with regard to the money spent by
Mr. Nicholls over and above the original estimate for
poor-houses?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the papers on the subject would be laid on the table
in a day or two.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Mr. COBDEN said that, in rising to bring forward
his motion On the subject of agricultural distress, he
was relieved fr,,in the necessity of apologising to the
other side of the House, for he had put a notice on the
book so long ago, that it could not be said it came from
a suspicious quarter, and he had so arranged the terms
of his mo:in. as to embrace ',nth the amendments
which had been made to it, so that he did
not think those lion. Gentlemen who gave notice of
those amendments would press them. The object of his
motion was to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into
agricultural distress, and how far the present laws with
re,4ard to the importation of agricultural produce affectecE
the agricultural labourers. And, with regard to that:
distress, he could not have higher authority than those ,
Hon. Gentlemen who professed to be the friends or
farmers and protrction.—(flear, hear.) And it RAS ad-
mitted by them that there was great distress amongst
the agricultural labourers. One Gentleman, Mr. Hud
son, stated that, in Norfolk. the farmers paid their retlt4
from their capital and not from tnt'ir profits ; and MT
Turner, of Devonshire, stated that the distress or t4s