HL Deb 17 February 1857 vol 144 cc739-40
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

presented a Petition from Cesspayers in the barony of Clonmacnoon against any measure empowering railway companies to have interest upon their capital secured upon the rates of counties. It was certainly a principle most unsatisfactory that such a state of things should exist. He could conceive that in some small barony, where nearly every individual could give his assent, and where a railway might be of great advantage, such an arrangement might well be made; but in the case of a county it was impossible that anything like a personal assent could be given; and the petitioners broadly stated that they entirely dissented from the payment of the rate in this instance.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

said, the plea put forward for these guarantees was that it promoted the making of railways; but he believed the contrary was the fact, and that they were discouraged because those who would come forward to construct railways were kept back by the restraint this system of guarantees placed upon their movements. The contractors ruled that the county believed the railway would pay or the county would not give the guarantee; and in exchange for that gratuitous undertaking the county magistrates peremptorily took upon themselves a very large share of the management, and which very much interfered with the movements of the promoters of the line. Now he believed that I generally the railways in Ireland had been more successful than those in England, and therefore any well-devised line would be certain to meet with support on its own merits. He should therefore support the prayer of the petition.

LORD MONTEAGLE

observed, that the system of guarantee ought, he thought, to be used with the greatest caution, and the Committee to whom the Railway Bill was referred ought to inquire before permitting it.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, that in most instances it was inexpedient to permit a guarantee on the original shares, but not always. Whenever it was done due notice should be given to all those who were likely to be affected by it, whether by means of the grand jury or otherwise. He thought that in small counties, with this restriction, the guarantee might sometimes be allowed.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that they must lay down a principle, and not suffer it to be tampered with by Committees. It might, in most cases, be injudicious to permit a guarantee; but if any portion of the county wished to secure that a railway should pass through it, and were willing to give a guarantee to effect that object, he did not see that Parliament ought to lay down any strict and inflexible rule that no such guarantee should be given.

House adjourned to Thursday next.