The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-27 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILLS.

Mr. STEWART WORTLEY moved the order of the day
for the adjourned debate on Railway Bills.
Mr. W. PATTEN said since the debate had been ad-
journed he had considered this subject fully, and he was
in doubt as to whether they ought not to adopt
the resolution altogether as it how stood. At the
same time they ought to look that, in framing these regu-
lations, they threw no discouragement in the way of rail-
way companies. The House should recollect that they had in
a former sesaion passed certain regulations which at the time
were considered as not imposing any restrictions upon
railway companies, but were afterwards found to
prevent many useful schemes from coming before the
House. The House, he again repeated, should take care
that they enacted that which was calculated in the smallest
degree to discourage the extension of these projects.
Mr. HAWES said that the commission had proposed that
in any railway Bill brought into the House which recited any
railway Act already passed, this clause should be in-
troduced. Therefore they must consider this clause
as extending to all railway Bills which had
passed since the first railway Bill had been
introduced into that House. The Hon. Member for the West
Riding went as far as that—but the Noble Lord went much
further. The Noble Lord further required that every railway
Bill reciting any preceding railway Act should be subject to
revision and alteration, as regarded the rates of fines. New if the
House intended t 3 revise the rates of charges of all railway com-
panies, let the House distinctly decide that it intended to revise
the rates and charges of all railway companies, after due notice
given, and after the parties objecting had had an op-
portunity of being heard, It had been said that the
charges were high—but by the returns which had been made
it had been shown that for thirty-eight millions of capital in-
vested in railways the average return hail not been more than
five per cent. Thus it did not appear that such an enormous
profit had been made on the capital invested in railways
as ought to induce the House to ifiterfere. It had
been said that the charges in foreign railways were
lower. Undoubtedly they were ; hut it should be recollected
that in foreign railways a portion of the capital bad been fur-
nished by the State, while here the whole had been subscribed
by private individuals. And in foreign railways, if there was
not a certain return for the capital invested, taxation was
imposed upon the people to secure the required amount.
Therefore, the resolul ion in its present state, ought not to be
passed, but, at all events, he could not consent to it unless he
heard some explanation of the words which provided that if
any future Bill should recite a former Act, such Act should be
subject to the decision of Parliament. Such a resolution,
he repeated, ought not to be passed by the House ; but be&re
the House did pass it, he hoped Government would farm& them
with their opinion upon the subject, because the resolution ie
itself affected great masses of property, and was looked to wills
great interest by the public.
Mr. BARING said the House, by its previous legislation,
never intended to sanction the monopolies which were exercised
by some of the existing railway companies. If the House re-
ferred to the reports of former Committees, they would
see that, so far from this being the case, a
clause was introduced into almost all the Bills to
prevent such monopolies, but that clause had since
proved to be defective ; but, nevertheless, it was evident every
Committee appeared desirous of establishing such a
system of competition as would avert the existence
of monopoly. He was, therefore, inclined to think
the House had already the power to make additions and
alterations in the Acts of companies, who should conic to them
for extended powers ; but, in his opinion, they had no right to
make these alterations until the companies did come to Par-
liament. He hoped, before the approach of the next session of
Parliament, Government would take the whole subject of railway
legislation into their serious consideration, and see if something
could be done to improve the present system. It was evident
such a system could not last ; and he thought Government
could, if they liked, place railway legislation upon a more firm,
settled, and satisfactory footing.
Sir R. PEEL thought the resolutions contemplated two
distinct things. In the first place they contemplated subjecting
every railway company, whether new or old, when they ap-
proached Par.iamerit for new or extended powers, to such
restrictions and additional legislation as the House
might think desirable. The second resolution sub-
jected any railway which might hereafter come to
Parliament to a resolution affecting the tolls and fares which
might be charged on such railway, and he must confess the two
resolutions appeared to him to be anything but objectionable.
They (the House) had not time then to consider all these oh-
jections, but they said to the promoters of railway schemes—
" We should be prejudicing your interests were we to postpone
the passing of your Bill until we had time to give the subject
due consideration. We shall consent to pain your
Bills generally, without inserting this resolution ;
Lut we shall reserve to ourselves the power of
subjecting your tolls to such further control as we may see
proper." That was to say, they would not exercise an arbi-
trary right on the subject of tolls generally, but they should
deem it their duty to see that passengers were protected, and,
holding these opinions, he should support the motion of the
Hon. Member.

Mr. PARKER said there was an absolute necessity for the
discovering some mode by which the labour of the Committees
might be abbreviated, and by which they might be put in a
better position than on the mode by which they had been
hitherto guided. Hon. Committees might well complain that
their labours were somewhat of the greatest, when seventeen
or eighteen days were consumed on each line, traffic evidence
taking up a five days' consideration, engineering evidence as
much mere, and clauses, with counsel's speeches en either side,
filling up the remainder of the space. He thought that no
public duty should be imposed upon the Members of the House
sitting on Committees.
After a few words from Mr. DARBY,
Captain MANGLES said lie thought the House ought
to well and seriously consider the whole object be-
fore they legislated upon a subject of such importance.
He thought it would be most desirable that her Majesty's Go-
vernment should take up the subject, and give the whole
weight of their influence on a question upon which Hon. Mem-
bers so materially differed.
After some observations from Mr. ENTWISLE and Lord
EsatwaTou,

Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he thought that evary
Bill which would be hereafter brought forward ought to be
subject to such regulations as Parliament might think fit. Go-
vernment ought to bring in some comprehensive measure on
the subject of railways.
Mr. COLLETT wished to know whether it would be a
sessional or a standing order?
Lord HO WICK thought that it would be better to make it
a sessional order, as it would at a future period come under the
consideration of the House.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that be thought it would be im-
possible not to have some difference, but most of the railways
had improved the accommodation of the third-class trains.
The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to.
Sir GEORGE GREY presented a petition against the
South-Western Extension Railway Bill, and praying to be
heard by cowls( 1.
On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, the third reading of
the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill was postponed to
Wednesday next. .

Mr. CCiLLETT moved, That it be an instruction to the
Committee on the Norwich and Brandon Railway Deviation,
and Diss and Dereham Branches Bill, that they hear parties
on the petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the
Borough of King's Lynn, notwithstanding the same was not
presented three clear days before the day appointed for the
first meeting of the Committee.—Agreed

—_,.—Agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Wed-
nesday next,
Mr. COLLETT moved that the House adjourn to Thurs-
day next. Her Majesty's Ministers would entertain their
friends to-morrow. The Derby day would be the day after,
and he saw no reason why Members should not be at liberty
to attend it.

Captain PECHELL seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not
press the motion, it would certainly be a very bad precedent
for the House to sanction. Hon. Members were at liberty to
attend or not, as they pleased, but to accede to a motion that
the House should not sit on a particular day, because there was
a race, would be unbecoming the dignity of the House.
Mr. COLLETT had no objection to forego the motion, pro-
vided Hon. Gentlemen on the other side agreed not to make
a House on the Derby day. Otherwise he would certainly
press the motion to a division.
POOR-LAWS.
Sir G. GREY wished to ask whether it was the intention
of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to introduce further amend-
ments into the present, Poor-law Act, as, according to the
report of the Poor-law Commissioners, which gave full infor-
mation on the subject, several clauses in it were found to be
particularly inoperative.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he could assure the
Right Hon. Gentleman that he had received the Report
of the Poor-law (Commissioners about a fortnight ago, and
quite agreed with him in_his earnest desire to amend the law.