§ Mr. Baineswished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) to proceed this Session with his Bill for the periodical revision of the tolls upon railways. There was a strong impression out of the House that this was a very extraordinary interference with property, and he therefore wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member to proceed with his Bill, feeling, as he must feel, that the Bill was not approved of either in the House or out of the House.
§ Mr. Morrisonhad no hesitation in saying that it was his present intention to proceed with his Bill to the second reading. He would, however, move that the second reading be postponed till Monday, in order to give hon. Members, whose constituents felt an anxiety on the subject, an opportunity of consulting them. If he thought that his Bill could not be passed this Session be would withdraw it; but he 1311 knew that it was the wish of a great number of persons in the House, and out of it, that this Bill should pass. One part of this Bill was much misunderstood, and he had been asked by some friends whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill to the effect that tolls on railroads should here after be altogether abolished. Now, the word "abolition" occurred in the Bill, but it was by no means necessary, and he had not the slightest objection to strike out the word. It was certainly not his intention that persons who engaged in great public undertakings should not be remunerated— it was, in his opinion, the duty of the House to encourage persons who engaged in works of this kind, and his Bill would not have the effect of discouraging—if it had, he would be very reluctant to proceed with it; but he was very sure it would have a contrary effect, and he was equally sure that no persons ought to feel more interested in the Bill than the proprietors of railroads themselves. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be postponed till Monday.
§ Bill postponed till the ensuing Monday.