HL Deb 24 February 1863 vol 169 cc718-9
VISCOUNT LIFFORD

moved the second reading of this Bill. The noble Lord said, he was wholly unconnected with the district which this railway would traverse, but he happened to be on the Committee of last year which sanctioned this scheme. The present Bill simply asked for an extension of the time granted by the Act of last Session, which was promoted by local proprietors for the purpose of shortening the distance by railway between London and Cheltenham twenty-one miles, and for opening up a district of country at present destitute of railway accommodation. The scheme was originally promoted by the Great Western Railway Company, but that company had lately seen fit to withdraw their support. He believed there was no objection to an extension of the time asked.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he must oppose the Motion, on the ground that the Standing Orders of Parliament had not been properly complied with. It appeared that some local proprietors had come forward and subscribed £120,000 as their share towards the costs of the undertaking, and that the Great Western Railway Company had subscribed the remainder of the sum (£440,000) necessary for making up the amount of capital, and had also guaranteed to pay 4 per cent interest on the £120,000. He was of opinion that the Great Western Company had acted in a very imprudent manner in the course they had adopted. The House could not enter into questions between the parties, but ought to confine themselves to the question whether the promoters of the scheme had done their duty or not. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")

VISCOUNT LIFFORD

hoped that the Bill would not be rejected on this occasion, but that a fortnight's delay would be granted to the promoters to consider the matter.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he was unable to see why there should be any delay at all. The promoters had had plenty of time to perform their duty. He knew nothing at all of the merits of the scheme.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, their Lordships were asked to reject this Bill without having received any information which could lead them to form a correct judgment on the matter. He thought the Bill ought to be sent before a Select Committee and be treated with fairness, and their Report would decide what should be done. He would, if in order, move that the debate be adjourned.

After a short discussion,

Further Debate adjourned to Tuesday, the 10th of March next.