The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-07 00:00:00

CHELTE HAM AND GREAT WESTERN
UNION RAILWAY.
On the order for bringing up the Report of the
Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway Bil.
being read, •
Mr. LAWSON rose and moved that the Bill be
le-committed. The Hon. Gentleman, who spoke in a
manner so indistinct as to be at times completely unin-
telligible, was understood to say that the present Bill
had been introduced by the Cheltenham and Great
Western Union Railway Company in direct breach of an
agreement entered into by that Company with the Bir-
mingham and Gloucester Railway Company. In 1386
these Companies had each obtained an Act of Parliament
—the Birmingham andGlo aces terCompany for the con-
struction of a railway from Birmingham to Glouces-
ter, and the Cheltenham and Greac Western Union
Company, for the 'formation of a line from Chelten-
ham to join the Great Western line near Swindon. The
lines of these two railways ran parallel to each other
from Cheltenham to Gloucester; and it was agreed be-
tween the two Companies that only one line of railway
should be constructed between Cheltenham and Glou
cester, such line to be constructed for the joint use
and at the joint expense of the two companies, the Bii7-
iningham and Gloucester Company being the owners
of the one 'half of the line lying next Gloucester and
and Cheltenham, and the Great Western Union Com-
pany being owners of the half nearest to Cheltenham.
The time granted by the Act to the Cheltenham and
Great Western Union Company for the purchase of
lands, was two years, and for the, completion of the
railway, seven years. They applied for an extension
of these periods in the year 1838. This application
was opposed by the Birmingham and Gloucester
Company for the purpose, of procuring the insertion
of clauses securing the completion of the line
from Cheltenham to Gloucester, a matter of
the utmost importance to the Birmingham Com-
pany, inasmuch as they had no power to
form that portion of the line under their own Bill.
The Committee on that Bill intimated an opinion
that the clauses required by the Birmingham and
Gloucester Company ought to be inserted, and ac-
cordingly an agreement was entered into be-
tween the two Companies, the second clause
of which was to the following effect :—" If
the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Rail-
way Company do not complete their line between
Cheltenham and Gloucester by Midsummer-day,lB4o,
the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company
may enter on the same, and do all such works as may
be necessary to' complete it, or to concur in corn-
pleting it for their own benefit so as to insure its open-
ing at the earliest possible period; but the Cheltenham
and Great Western Union Railway Company to be
entitled to re-purchase all their rights under the exist-
ing Acts, by payment of one-half of what may have
been expended by the Birmingham and Gloucester
Railway Company, in the completion of that portion
of the line between Cheltenham and Gloucester,
provided a continuous line of Railway from the
Great 'Western Railway to Gloucester shall have been
completed within -.a period to be limited for that
purpose by the Bill now before Parliament.' "
The period fixed upon for the completion of the line
was the 21st of June, 1845, and upon the faith of
that agreement the Birmingham and Gloucester Com-
pany withdrew their opposition. In June, 1840,
the Cheltenham and Great. Western Union Company
not having completed the line gave it over, under
the provisions of this Act, to the Birmingham
and Gloucester Company, receiving from that
Company a large sum of money for the works
they had already constructed on that line, and the
line was completed by the Birmingham and Glou-
cester Company at a considerable additional expense.
He held in his hand a copy of the agreement
entered into . between the two Companies, in which
it was distinctly -stated that the time for the
completion of the railway should expire on
the 21st June, 1845, so that they had three years
yet unexpired, in which they could complete this
railway. Now, by the present Bill, which was in
fact an amendment of an already amended Act,
tire), sought not-_-• atty. for a still further ex-
tension of the time for the completion of their
line, and consequently for the redemption of that
portion of it between Cheltenham and Gloucester
from the Birmingham Company, in violation of
their agreement, but they also sought to have the
power of disposing of their line, or of any portions of
it, to any other parties or companies they might see
fit. Now, as it appeared that the line might
be finished in two years, which was within
the time limited by their present Act, and
at a cost under 200,0001., and as they had not raised
all the money they had the power to raise under
their present Act, he was of opinion that the powers
they now sought were totally unnecessary, and there-
fore he thought the Bill ought to be recommitted.
He thought that the time taken up by the Hon. Mem-
bers employed on that Committee had been entirely
wasted; if this Report were received, he should consi-
der that they had been most unprofitably employed,
and he for one must say, that if the time of Hon.
Members on Committee were thus to be wasted he
for one must decline, unless by order • of the
Speaker, again sitting on one. He trusted that the
House would support the motion which he had to
make, for if they did not, he should not entertain that
high opinion of the justness and fairness of the House
which he at present held.
Lord WO RSLEY said that, as Chairman of the
Committee on this Bill, he went into the Committee-
room without knowing anything of the local circum-
stances of the Bill, but from hearing counsel on both
sides of the question, he must say that he came to the
conclusion which would have led him, had he been in
a position to vote, -to have voted in direct opposition
to the Honourable Member. When the Bill was
before the House, it was considered desirable
that a certain portion of the line should be
finished at the same time that the Birmingham and.
Gloucester. Railway had finished their line, so that
the communication between Birmingham and Bristol
might be complete ; and he believed it was agreed that
if the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Company
did not complete that portion by the specified
time, the Birmingham and Gloucester Com-
pany were to be at liberty to purchase
their portion of the other line and finish it. It
appeared to him, under all these 'circumstances,
that it was not preposterous to ask for an extension of
time. He might state, that on the Committee, there
Was a large majority in favour of the Bill, and he also
agreed with them m their opinion. ,He trusted,
therefore, that the House would not consent to the
motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY said that he was a
Member of the Committee, and as such, he thought
it right to support the motion of the Hon. Member
opposite. His reason for doing so was that when
they got through the Bill, the Parliamentary agents
brought in a great number of clauses which were read
at the table, so that it was impossible for Members to
ascertain what they contained ; that he considered
was not a proper way to conduct private
Bills, and it was very unsatisfactory both to the Mem-
bers who composed the Committee and to the public.
When he knew the composition of the Committee
who sat on the Bill, he knew that the interests of his
Hon. Friends were so preponderating that the Bill,
no matter what was the evidence brought forward,
would pass. One of the clauses to which he objected
was that important one relating to money at six per
cent. That was an imposition on the public, and one
that ought not to be sanctioned by the House.
The Bill was a contest between two Com-
panies' and two engineers were examined—Mr.
I3runel on the part of one Company, and
Mr. Wishaw on the part of the other, and'when one
gentleman stated that white was black, the other
said that black was white.—(Laughter.) He should,
therefore, support the motion of the Hon. Meinber
for Knaresborough.
Mr. SCOTT said that it appeared to him that
position to. be
n'ecaessary for com-
pleting
theabl
e Committee oomt
hmreai tsleei en e
t.e were
It was
funds
a
sat s
completei in part, and
they were not able to obtain the money necessary
for finishing the remainder. The line was of great
importance, as it was to convey goods be-
tween Birmingham and Bristol. It appeared
to him most important to the public that the
line of traffic shoull not be interfered with.
The Company, of the 250,000/. which they sought to
raise, were not able to raise more than 20,0001., and
the shares had fallen to 21. 10s. They had, however,
declared a dividend of 11. to the Shareholders. And
what object could they have in so acting, except to
raise the shares in the market when the Company were
actually insolvent and not able to carry on their works ?
It was his belief that the Company were not able to
complete the works. They had already had ample
time to bring it to a conclusion if they had been en-
abled properly to conduct the undertaking. The
powers of the Company would terminate in 1845 ; and