BRIGHTON RAILWAY. STEPHENSON'S LINE. (Hansard, 13 April 1837)

§ Major Beauclerk
presented a petition from certain landholders of Surrey against this line.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
presented a petition from the chairman and others of the provisional Committee of a company for constructing a railway from London to Brighton, complaining that the sub-committee on standing orders had been griev- 1159 ously imposed upon by the promoters of Stephenson's line, and praying the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of these parties.

Mr. Curteis
rose to call the attention of the House to a petition which he presented two or three days ago, and which had been printed, with the votes. Its prayer was, that the House would be pleased to institute an inquiry, by means of a Select Committee, into the evidence given before the sub-committee relative to Stephenson's line. Mr. Mills had stated to him that morning, that there were, to his knowledge, no less than thirty-seven material alterations between the plans left with the clerk of the peace for the county of Surrey, and those deposited in the private bill office; and, moreover, he had stated that the petitioners, whose petition, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), had just presented, were prepared to prove 131 variations between these plans. Under these circumstances, he did say, that this was a fit case for inquiry; and he begged to state, that in the course he was taking, he was by no means actuated by a desire to stop the progress of Stephenson's line before the Committee. He was wholly uninterested in these railways; and, as he had said the other day, he brought this matter forward distinctly as a breach of the privileges of the House, for he did deem it a very grave Parliamentary offence for agents to come before Committees of that House, and state what was untrue. If the allegations contained in these petitions were proved, he should not think that the parties received more than their due, if they were confined to Newgate for the rest of the Session. This, it might be well to observe, was by no means the same case to which he had called the attention of the House on a former day—it was a case where, as he fully believed, false evidence had been given before the sub-committee; and having the strongest assurances from an engineer, that it was practicable to prove 131 instances of this false evidence, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject. So little was he interested in, or acquainted with, the case, that he did not even know who were the parties concerned, and he only wished for a Committee to inquire into the case, which could be fully sifted in an hour or two. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matters 1160 charged in this petition, and report their opinion thereon to the House.

Sir G. Strickland
thought, that if the allegations of the petitions were true, it would be quite impossible for the House to pass them over in silence, because he had a very strong feeling of the great injury which parties occasionally suffered from the loose mode of conducting business in the Committees of that House. The conduct attributed to these agents would, before a court of justice, take the name of perjury; but, as the House did not examine on oath, it only amounted to a breach of veracity. He thought the House, nevertheless, were bound to institute an inquiry, and he should vote for the motion.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
opposed it. He could not but think that the object of this proceeding was to get quit of Stephenson's line, and so give the preference to Mr. Rennie's.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that with respect to the objection that this motion was intended to raise obstacles in the way of Stephenson's line, he, for one, saw no reason why, if these allegations were proved to be true, the further progress of that line should not be obstructed. In that case, who would deny that the Bill ought to be thrown out? Not one individual connected with Stephenson's line, not a single hon. Member, had come forward to contradict these allegations. If (as had been objected) Mr. Mills had not himself been damnified or injured by the conduct of the agents, a very great injury had been done to those parties whose petition he had that day presented—the chairman and other members of the provisional Committee of a company for constructing a railway from London to Brighton. He thought the House, consistently with what was due to their own dignity and character, could not refuse their assent to the motion of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Green
begged to suggest, that the only point for the consideration of the Committee was, not the whole subject matter of the petition (for it was obvious, that they ought not to go into a great deal relating to Mills's line, and to his mistakes respecting the standing orders, which formed part of the statements of the petition), but whether any parties had deceived the sub-Committee by their statements before it, and who those parties were.

Lord George Lennox
would answer the 1161 statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), that no one had come forward to deny the allegations of the petitioners, by saying that no charge had been made. If they would give him any specific charge, he would answer it. As to speaking of 131 variations, it was but another mode of mystifying the inquiry. If the hon. Member (Mr. Curteis) would defer his motion till the Committee now sitting on the Brighton Railway Bills, should have made its report, then he would second the hon. Member's motion for a Select Committee of Inquiry; but at present he trusted the House would not, by appointing a Committee, prejudice either one line or the other.

§ The Speaker
This is a case in which the House ought to be very cautious. The inquiry ought to be limited strictly to investigating whether false evidence has been given. It is to be considered that even this inquiry in this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, may involve the House in difficulty. Will the House allow a Bill to proceed, if it shall be found that false evidence has been given? Will it stop the Bill when the parties complaining, not only might, but ought to have brought the question forward, at a time when the matter could have been investigated, without involving the House in those difficulties? The House, therefore, ought to have a very strong case made out before it consents to enter upon such an inquiry, and which must be productive of so much difficulty and embarrassment.

Mr. Curteis
having (by leave) withdrawn the first motion, begged to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any false evidence had been given before the Sub-Committee, with reference to the observance of the standing orders, by the agents of Stephenson's line.

Lord Stanley
said, with respect to any arrangements that promoters of rival lines of railways might enter into, to refrain from pressing objections, on the score of observance of the standing orders, he thought they were the last things which that House ought to sanction, or even to allow. The question was one of a gross breach of privilege; and the House was called upon to inquire whether or not the parties now actually before the Committee had obtained certain advantages by means of false statements made before the Sub-Committee respecting the stand- 1162 ing orders. He thought they ought not to interfere with the progress of the Bill. The Committee ought to be limited to inquire whether wilful fraud had been committed by the parties connected with Stephenson's line; and then, if they reported, that fraud had been used, it would be for the House to consider whether sufficient ground was laid, not for a Committee, but for the House to interfere further in the matter. He would not object to the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire whether a wilful breach of privilege had been committed.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
observed, that the discussion had originally stood for Tuesday, and had been postponed to meet the' wishes of the promoters of Stephenson's line.