HC Deb 20 May 1845 vol 80 cc594-9

The Report on the Grand Junction Railway Bill was considered.

On the Motion that the Amendments made by the Committee be now read a second time,

Mr. Ricardo

begged to enter his protest against the further progress of the Bill. It would seriously injure his constituents, without at all serving the districts (the Potteries) through which it was intended to pass. He had presented petitions signed by 20,000 of his constituents, against the measure, which he trusted would have its proper weight with the House. He contended that the whole scheme was a mere juggle, seeing that the Standing Orders as regarded capital had not been complied with. The hon. Mem- ber concluded by moving that the Report be taken into consideration that day six months.

Mr. Wilson Patten

observed that the Bill had been referred to a Committee the Members of which had no personal interest in the measure. They had decided in favour of the line, considering that it would confer great advantages on the district through which it was to pass. He trusted that the House would not reverse the decision of the Committee.

Mr. E. Buller

understood the decision of the Committee had been come to by the casting vote of the Chairman. He had also learned that the Committee of the Board of Trade had recommended the postponement of the Bill until a future Session.

Mr. Hawes

, as Chairman of the Committee, defended its decision, which had been pronounced on the merits of the case alone. It had been proved to their satisfaction, that the line would confer great local and public advantages.

Mr. Gisborne

supported the Amendment. He contended that the Potteries had been worse treated than any other district, with respect to railway communication. Ten years ago they had obtained a Bill which they sold to the Grand Junction, on the understanding that that company would carry out the line themselves. Up to this time, however, they had been left wholly without railway accommodation. He believed that the only object of the Grand Junction Company, in now coming forward, was to shut out competition and to obtain a monopoly for themselves.

Lord G. Somerset

said, that if he were satisfied, first, that if the Bill passed, the line would be carried out; and, secondly, that it would not prevent the formation of a better line at a future period, he should be prepared to support the decision of the Committee.

Mr. Hawes

assured the noble Lord that the Committee had been satisfied on both these points.

The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 73; Noes 206: Majority 133.

List of the AYES.
Ainsworth, P. Bagot, W.
Aldam, W. Baird, W.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Baring, F. T.
Barrington, Visct. James, Sir W. C.
Bateson, T. Jervis, J.
Blackburne, J. I. Johnstone, H.
Broadley, H. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Buller, C. Lawson, A.
Byng, G. Layard, Capt.
Carew, W. H. P. Lockhart, W.
Childers, J. W. Lowther, Sir J. H.
Clifton, J. T. Lowther, hon. Col.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Mackenzie, W. F.
Collett, J. Mahon, Visct.
Colville, C. R. Martin, T. B.
Courtenay, Lord Mitchell, T. A.
Dennistoun, J. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Disraeli, B. Mundy, E. M.
Douglas, Sir H. Pakington, J. S.
Easthope, Sir J. Pendarves, E. W.
Ebrington, Visct. Pollington, Visct.
Emlyn, Visct. Price, R.
Entwisle, W. Russell, C.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Ryder, G. D.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Sandon, Visct.
Fuller, A. E. Shirley, E. J.
Gladstone, W. E. Smith, A.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Somerset, Lord G.
Godson, R. Stewart, P. M.
Greene, T. Strickland, Sir G.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Thornhill, G.
Guest, Sir J. Trotter, J.
Hollond, R. Walker, R.
Hornby, J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Howard, C. W. Winnington, Sir T.
Howick, Visct. TELLERS.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Patten, J. W.
James, W. Hawes, B.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Visct. Brocklehurst, J.
Ackers, J. Brotherton, J.
A'Court, Capt. Bruce, Lord E.
Acton, Col. Bruce, C. L. C.
Adare, Visct. Bruges, W. H. L.
Allix, J. P. Buckley, E.
Anson, Col. Buller, E.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Buller, Sir J. Y.
Busfeild, W.
Astell, W. Carnegie, Capt.
Attwood, M. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Baillie, J. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baillie, Col. Christie, W. D.
Baillie, H. J. Chute, W. L. W.
Barclay, D. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Baring, H. Clive, Visct.
Barnard, E. G. Cobden, R.
Barron, Sir H. W. Codrington, Sir W.
Bell, J. Colborne, W. N. R.
Benbow, J. Collins, W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Colquhoun, J. C.
Berkeley, C. Coote, Sir C. H.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Corbally, M. E.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Crawford, W. S.
Berkeley, G. Dashwood, G. H.
Blackstone, W. S. Dawnay, W. H.
Botfield, B. Deedes, W.
Bowring, Dr. Denison, J. E.
Bramston, T. W. Dick, Q.
Bright, J. Divett, E.
Dodd, G. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Mackenzie, T.
Drummond, H. H. Mackinnon, W. J.
Duff, J. M'Geachy, F. A.
Duncan, Visct. McTaggart, Sir J.
Duncan, G. Maher, N.
Duncombe, T. Mangles, R. D.
Duncombe, O. Manners, Lord J.
Dundas, Adm. Marsland, H.
Dundas, F. Masterman, J.
Du Pre, C. G. Maunsell, T. P.
Eaton, Capt. R. J. Milnes, R. M.
Egerton, Sir P. Mitcalfe, H.
Egerton, W. T. Morris, D.
Egerton, Lord F. Muntz, G. F.
Ellice, E. Murray, A.
Ellis, W. Napier, Sir C.
Elphinstone, H. Neeld, J.
Evans, W. Neeld, J.
Fielden, J. Newdegate, C. N.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Newport, Visct.
Ferrand, W. B. Norreys, Lord
Fitzroy, Lord C. O'Brien, A. S.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. O'Brien, J.
Ffolliott, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Forbes, W. O'Conor Don, The
Forman, T. S. Osborne, R.
Forster, M. Oswald, A.
French, F. Packe, C. W.
Gardner, J. D. Paget, Col.
Gibson, T. M. Palmerston, Visct.
Gisborne, T. Pattison, J.
Gore, M. Pechell, Capt.
Gore, R. Peel, J.
Granby, Marq. of Philips, G. R.
Grimsditch, T. Plumridge, Capt.
Grogan, E. Praed, W. T.
Halford, Sir H. Pusey, P.
Hall, Sir B. Rashleigh, W.
Hallyburton, Lord Redington, T. N.
Hamilton, Lord C. Rendlesham, Lord
Hanmer, Sir J. Rolleston, Col.
Hatton, Capt. Round, C. G.
Heathcoat, J. Round, J.
Henniker, Lord Rous, Capt.
Hindley, C. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hodgson, F. Scott, F.
Holmes, W. A'C. Somerville, Sir W.
Hughes, W. B. Spooner, R.
Hume, J. Stanley, E.
Humphery, Ald. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hussey, T. Stewart, J.
Ingestre, Visct. Stuart, Lord J.
Jocelyn, Visct. Strutt, E.
Johnson, Gen. Tancred, H. W.
Johnstone, Sir J. Taylor, E.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Thompson, Ald.
Kelly, F. Tollemache, J.
Knightley, Sir C. Towneley, J.
Langston, J. H. Trelawny, J. S.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Trench, Sir F. W.
Leader, J. T. Trollope, Sir J.
Legh, G. C. Troubridge, Sir J. E. T.
Leveson, Lord Turner, E.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Turner, C.
Lindsay, H. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Loftus, Visct. Vane, Lord H.
Verner, Col. Wodehouse, E.
Villiers, C. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Vyvyan, Sir R. R. Wrightson, W. B.
Waddington, H. Wyndham, Col.
Wall, C. B. Wyse, T.
Watson, W. H. TELLERS.
Wawn, J. T. Copeland, Ald.
Wilshere, W. Ricardo, J. L.

On the main Question as amended being put,

Viscount Howick

took that opportunity of stating his opinion that it was incumbent on the Government to introduce some regulations with reference to the charges upon railways. In some cases charges were very high, and in others very low. His opinion was, that in some cases, higher charges were established than were consistent with the welfare of the public. This House ought at once to make these alterations, as they could not be made in the House of Lords. In one railway 3d. a ton per mile was charged upon coals, in another only 1d., sometimes only ¾d. where the competition was great. On many railways the charges for passengers were 3d., 2d., and 1½d. a mile in the first, second, and third classes. Now these charges were too high. With respect to the old companies, he believed there was no redress to be had; but he believed the object of the Government in introducing this new Standing Order was to establish a new rate of charges in the different conveyances of the new companies, and reduce those that should be deemed to be unreasonable. This was a question of great importance, and before the present Railway Bills should be read a third time, he trusted the Government would take up the question.

Sir G. Clerk

concurred with the noble Lord that it would be a very proper question for the consideration of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Labouchere

replied that his noble Friend had never said that the Board of Trade ought to perform any such duty. He thought, however, that the Board might look into the matter, so as to be able to make some recommendation to the House as to the rate of charges they thought reasonable. No Railway Bill, he contended, ought to be read a third time until the proposition of the right hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. S. Wortley) had been fully considered.

Consideration of the Report postponed for six months.

Back to