The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

sourx WALES RAILWAY.

Mr. VIVIAN moved, pursuant to notice, that this
Bill be returned back to the Committee that sat upon the
Bill, and that the Committee should have leave to sit and
proceed with the measure on Monday text.
Captain BERKELEY opposed the motion, believing
that the interests of the public were not consulted in the
formation of this Company, but only those of the Great
Western Railway Company, who had bought up the
line. He believed that the bridge .that was propsed
to be built on the line would be a total annihilation of
the river Severn. The present measure was a com-
pletely new Bill—it was not the measure that was first
introduced into Parliament. The populous districts of
Gloucester and Cheltenham were entirely thrown over-
board by the measure.
Lord G. SOMERSET supported the moti:>n. He
adix&ted that he was not himself an impartial person
with respct to this measure, but while he did so, he
must confess that he did not think there was much impar-
tiality in the speech of the Gallant Member opposite.
All he seemed to think was that the interests of
the city of Gloucester were paramount to every other.
The interests of the city of Gloucester, it should be
remembered, were not the representatives of the inte-
rests of the public at large. He believed that the pro-
posed Railway would be a great national benefit, and
the Committee were of the same opinion, because they
had unanimously voted against the preamble of the
Bill. He hoped the individual interests of the city
of Gloucester would not be allowed to supersede
a great national undertaking.—(Hear.) As far as
he was concerned, he should support the proposition, in
order that the merits of the measure might be fully gone
into and corisideresl•

IH. BERKELEY trusted that the House would not
Salletio.l) such a principle as "could be set up if the motion
was agr. ea to.
Mr. HOIXIBON HINDE thought the present was a
question essentially standing orders, and not one be •
i.we'•n the city of Gloucester, the putdic, and the Great
West,.rn Railway Company, The question was,
when parties brought one ru:asure before Par.
liatnent, we e they to be allovC.:'d to proceed
with are!ther of a totally different descr;c:j"n ? If
the present rn,.ti was curri, d, tho Howe would in ;Erect
~rdering the c,tivuittk-e to take a course which they
,n•enned I.} They [la.! net, mimed that they woOtd
ni,t proceed with the Biil, and the preseat motion was
to compel thew to do so. lie should therefore oppose
the motion.

Capt. OSBORNE supported the motion.
Mr. ESTC4 tURT also supported the motion.
Mr. C. WOOD considered the question to be whether
the Committee were justified in discontinuing
to proceed with the Bill ; he thought they were
not justified in so doing, because the course they ought
to have• adopted was to have brought their proceedings
to a close, and then have reported them to the House.
All that the motion of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Vivian) required of the House to do was to direct the
Committee to renew its investigation and report the re-
sult.

Mr. VILLIERS made a few remarks, which were
perfectly inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. W. COLLETT said he should support the mo-
tion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester,
that the Bill be referred back to the Committee.

Captain BERKELEY withdrew his opposition to the
motion of the lion. Mentb 'r for Gloucester (Mr. Vivian),
with the understanding that he (Captain Berkeley)
would be under the protection of the Standing Orders
Committee.

After a few words in reply from Mr. VIVIAN, the
modon was agreed to.

RAILWAY BILLS.

Mr. GREENE postponed his motion for the further
colsi.leration of tzie report on Railway Bills.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that he would, under those
eircum,,tances, postpone the resolutions he had given
notice of till such time as the report was brought, under
consideration.

COVENTRY, BE I )IVO RTH, AND NUNEATON

RAILWAY.

The report ,if the :shove Bill was brought up and re-
e.,ived, al o the reports of the Bristol and Gloucester
railway ( No. 2), tne Norwich and Brandon Railway
iieviation and Diss and Derehain Branches, the London
And S..uth Western (No. 1) (Metropolitan Extension)
Railway, the Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin
to Mullingar and Athlone), the Coekermouth and Work-
ington R4lway), and the Middlesborough and Redcar
Railway.

FALMOUTH HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
WEXFORD AND CARLOW RAILWAY.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved that the Wexford,
Carlow, and Dublin Junction Railway Bill be re-
committed. He said there was a very essential
dilf,rence between this railway and the one
which had previously engaged the attention of
the Rouse (the South Wales). The grounds upon
which the Committee rejected the preamble of this
Bill was that, it did not provide for the improvement
of the harbour of Wexford, and further, that if any
tuture railway was to be constructed into the town of
Wexford, it should provide for the improvement of the
harbour. The promoters of the Bill had no idea of this
difficulty being started, and therefore, under the circum-
stances in which they were placed, they had no power or
opportunity of meeting it. He now, however, was in-
structed to say, that if the House agreed to the recommit-
tal of the Bill, steps would be taken to meet the objection.
The Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Col-
quhoue) coul i say whether what he had stated in re-
lerence to the decision of the Committee was correct--
whether the preamble of the Bill had not been rejected
on arculint .4 the dithcul,ies rospecting the harbour at
W. xforki. The pr• motera of the Bill prayed for its com-
mittal in order to carry out. if possible, that portion of the
juint s,-11,1ne fur toe construction of the line from Carlow
to Enniscorthy. Under these circumstances he thought
the Rouse ought to agree to his motion, as in the event
of the rt committal, they were prepared to grapple with
the question of Wexford harbour, and to provide for its
efficient construction.
Mr. W. COLLETT was opposed to the recommittal
of the Bill. _ _ _

Mr. COLQUHOUN informed the House that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork had not stated cor-
rectly the grounds upon which the Committee had de-
cided the case. The construction of a harbour at
Wexford was not the reason of the rejection,
but the general insufficiency of the estimates—(Hear,
hear)—the land and engineering expenses being
under-rated. On these grounds the Committee had
decided to reject the preamble of the Bill before the
question of the harbour came before them. After they
had decided to reject the Bill they agreed to recommend
that in any ;uture Bill the construction of an efficient
harbour at Wexford should be a prominent feature.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it appeared he had
misconceived the grounds upon which the Committee had
come to their decision; he would, therefore, withdraw the
rno t ion .
The motioo was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. coi3DEN then mo;iiii--" That, it having been
repri sensed to this Him e by petitions from various
public bitches, s well as from tnerchants, manufacturers,
an,' oda,: s, that serious imp. diments to the internal
trathe of the country are likely to arise from
flit ` breaks' that will occur in railway coin-
municatiams from the want of an uniform
augt ; and these representations not having been
fully inquired into by any of th , Committees of this
ii. itse upon private Bills, find it nein,. desirable that the
~übjea should be ford, r imestigateif. tin humble address
to hei ,littee ty, praying her Mjesty to be
gracieusly ideased to issue a Coartnission to inquire,
bi.ther in future pri. ate Acts or the construction of
rariway,i provision ought to be made for seeming uni-
form ga:uge, and whether it would he expedient and prac•
ticabfe to take measures tobring the railways already eon-
tructed, or in progress of co fstruction in Great Britain,
into uniformity of gauge ; and to inquire whether any
other mode of obviating or mitigating the apprehended
evil could be adopted ; and to report the same to this
House." This was the first attempt to carry a narro
gauge in the north of England—he would not say
which was the best gauge—either broad or narrow would
eio very well, but he thought the opinion of the best engi-
neers should be taken upon the point which was the best
gauge be ore it came into general operation, so thi.it a
uoiform practice might be adopted. The Committee
could likewise report where the line of demarcation
e• uld best Ira played, so that both gauges might not be
mixed, which would subject the convet ante of goods and
passengers to great delay, expense, danger, and incon-
venience. In the eastern c unties, in Kent, Surrey, and
iussex, the narrow gauge prevailed, and were they to
introduce the broad gauge into those districts ?
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS seconded the motion. He
had felt gr,•at difficulty in deciding on the question
a hid) was yesterday before the House. The Committee
on the l;ills which had been before the House yesterday
had been called upon to decide the question of the gauges
nicht, ntally. It was a most embarrassing subject for a
Committee to have to decide upon, and the Committee
uigh, not to be held to have decided in favour of the
broad g mac against the narrow, when the question
on) y came before them incidentally, and they had merely
decided that one line of railway was better adapted
to the requirements of a particular district
than anrther. It would a matter for great regret if
chat should be considered to have decided the question
of gauges. It appeared to him that the motion of his
Hon. Friend fir a Commission to examine the question
was a tnost wise one. They wanted something to guide
them in the consideration of this important question.
IL did not think that a Committee of the House of
Commons was a proper tribunal for its consideration—
a Commission would be a much better one. Great
inconvenience would arise from the admixture of gauges
in the midland counties, and for that reason he had
voted in favour of the narrow gauge line to Rugby.
He considered the question a most embarrassing one to
be left to the decision either of Committees or of the
House, and it was highly desirable, therefore, that the
proposed Commission of inquiry should be appointed.
Sir G. CLERK would not object to the appointment
of the proposed Commission, because the question had
n.w assumed so much importance, that it was become
itbselutety necessary that it should be submitted to the
decision of some tribunal, the decision of which would
carry weight with the country. There was one
point, however, which he would wish to submit to the
consideration o. the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had
brought forward the motion, and that was whether it
weuili not he xpedient to withdraw that part of the re-
solution which directed the Commission to consider how
far it may be practicable to reduce all the
to one uniform gauge. That part of
the resolution was calculated to produce unne-
e,ssary alarm. However desirable it might have
been at first to have had ail the railways laid down upon
oue uniform gauge, he believed that now it would be