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

TWE SUN, LONDON,__SATURDAY -EVENING, JUNE 21, 1818,

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 alio 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 sides 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 in
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, and 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 had 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.
It was quite easy to insert a clause in titis 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 he
must say that the decision of the Committee was
much more valuable, for 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 repert 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 had not
decided without receiving all the testimony they could desire.
They had every one before them who could give any informa-
tion. They had seen the Directors 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 interview,
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 ; hut 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 Com-
mittee 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 vrather 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 for a 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 must 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. He 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 19,000/.—( 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 might 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
we; e Ministers of the Crown to divest themselves of any influ-
ence they might be possessed of, in giving an opinion on a
subject of so peculiar a nature 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 iu 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 not
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 ses,ion, he
had made a public statement that the report of the Board of
Trade did not constitute a Anal 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 i rex-
tremelytg that dic
hiu
e held
l e
matter, and he could prove it by
a
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
points in the subject before the House which deserved their
attentive consideration. The Hon. Member quoted something
from a blue book se hich 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 determining 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 ?
Ile 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 jute-
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, looking 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 Steur-
bridge and Dudley, they increased the toll from Id. to 12d. per
ton, thus increasing the profits of the company fifty per cent.,
and the company were empowered to charge as much
for the conveyance of coals and iron a hundred yards as for
miles. Thus the coal-masters of South Staffordshire would
have to pay 1,0001. 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 file Committee men
to rise in their places and say that they read the clauses which
they inserted in the Bill.—(Laughter.) The report which
they 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 altbosgh 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
Against it
Majority for receiving it —l34
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 %ne 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 would induce him to vote against the other. He should,