Mr. Curteissaid, that it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had presented several petitions from a Mr. Mills, asking for a Select Committee on the ground that the promoters of Ste-phenson's line had given false evidence before the Committee on private bills. These persons were reported to have alleged, that they had complied with the standing orders in every particular. Now, 1216 in no less than thirty-seven out of fifty-five miles, they had not complied with the standing orders. There were, besides, twenty-one other instances of non-compliance with those orders on their part. He next came to that part of the notice in which he had declared, that he should call before the notice of the House the conduct of Government respecting the several Brighton Railways; and he felt he could not possibly be placed in a situation of more difficulty than that in which he now stood, being most unwilling to make any violent charges against a set of gentlemen to whom he had ever given his most cordial support; and it was only from his sense of what was due to a very large body of his constituents, that he had been induced to take this course. Two requisitions, most respectably signed, had that day reached him, desiring that he would call the attention of the House to the conduct pursued by his Majesty's Government on a late occasion. He felt most strongly the injustice of the usage his constituents had received. If he were to consult his own feelings, undoubtedly he should use stronger language; but he would then only say, that, considering gross injustice to have been done to a large portion of his constituents, he never would consent to sit quiet, whether he were an adherent of one Government or another, without raising his voice in reprobation of that injustice. A requisition was almost momentarily got up, and signed by nearly 400 persons, calling a large town meeting to take this subject into consideration. He would move, that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. Mills, which was presented on the 2nd of May last, relative to the conduct of certain parties in respect to Stephenson's line of Brighton Railway, and to the conduct of Government with respect to the same Railway."
§ Captain Pechellmust say, that it appeared to him that Ministers had acted partially; as he could not conceal from himself the fact, that they had lent themselves to a party against which a large majority of the Committee of that House had decided. The conduct of his Majesty's Ministers had excited an extraordinary sensation amongst his constituents; and if such conduct were continued, he must cease to give them that support which he had hitherto so strenuously, cheerfully, and 1217 cordially given them. He thought, that they had been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. P. Thomson). Delay was the object of all these proceedings, and to that delay the Government had most unjustifiably lent themselves. With respect to a statement which had been made on a former evening as to a noble Lord, the Member for Hythe (Lord Melgund), voting on this Bill, forty-eight hours after he had taken his seat; he (Captain Pechell) could state, that that noble Lord had been canvassed by the other party for his vote, almost, he believed, before the writ was sent down to Hythe; and what was also extraordinary, the noble Lord (Lord A. Lennox) who made the accusation, had himself attended only four days out of the twenty-seven during which the Committee had sat.
§ Mr. C. Barclayopposed the motion. It would be highly inexpedient for the House to appoint a Committee, for it could lead to no result; and he did not, for a moment suppose, that the hon. Member would divide upon the question. The charge against the Ministry he considered to be totally unfounded; the course they had taken, was one which they had a perfect right to take.
§ Sir H. Verneysaid, that in his opinion, so far from the Government deserving censure for the course they had adopted on this occasion, he was inclined to charge them with neglect in not having adopted some such course before. It was not, however, now too late; and he thought it was the duty of the Government immediately to appoint a Commission of Military and Scientific Engineers to inquire into the subject of all Railroads—a subject which involved such an enormous amount of property—and to report thereon to the House. This course would be much more creditable to the House, and more advantageous to the country.
§ Mr. Humethought, that the motion of his hon. Friend would not answer the object he had in view, and he therefore hoped he would withdraw it, and allow his (Mr. Hume's) motion on the same subject to come on.
Mr. Curteissaid, as he saw the feeling of the House was against him, he would not give it the trouble of dividing.
§ Motion withdrawn,
§ Mr. Humerose to move, that all the documents Find surveys relating to Mills's 1218 line of Railway to Brighton, be referred to the engineer, who should be directed to report upon it in the same manner as on the other lines. He brought forward this motion in consequence of the proceedings that had taken place on a former evening in that House, regarding the Report of the Committee on the Brighton Railways, when the Report of the Committee was set aside, and the matter referred to a military engineer. The proceedings of that day had entirely altered the rules of the House with regard to the Committees, and he thought it highly important that some final decision should be come to. He must say, that in his opinion the conduct of the Government on this subject, was quite inconsistent. They were condemning the course one day, which they recommended and established on the next. When some short time since his hon. Friend, the Member for Southwark (Mr. Harvey), proposed that the Government should appoint some person to make inquiry into every line of Railroad before a Bill was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, objected to it; and shortly after, when the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir H. Verney), brought forward a motion for the appointment of a Commission of Military Engineers for the same purpose, the right hon. Gentleman also objected to it. What was the result? On Thursday last, the Committee which had decided in favour of Sir J. Rennie's line, brought up their Report. If the usual course had been followed—if justice had been done —if the Government had not interfered, that House would have affirmed the rule laid down; but the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, overruled this, and told the House, that he was not satisfied with the Report of the Committee; and in consequence of the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, by a majority of 164 to 157, the Report of the Committee was set aside. This was in the face of three decisions of the House. He was sure, that the object of referring those lines to an engineer, was to obtain the best line; and there could be no objection to his motion, the object of which was to send Mills's line also to the engineer, so that he might choose out, of the three lines which was the best. This appeared to him to be extremely fair; and he would, therefore, conclude with the motion to this effect.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, that if the course which had been adopted on this occasion by the Government, had been pursued two years ago, it would have saved upwards of two millions to the public. The present system was injurious to the public and disgraceful to the Legislature.
§ Mr. Poulett Thomsonmust say, with reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, he could scarcely believe that the hon. Member was in earnest in making this motion. The hon. Member for Middlesex said, that an engineer was appointed by order of the House to consider certain defined lines of Railway, and that it would be a hard case if they did not take that opportunity of admitting the other (Mills's) line, that its merits might also be ascertained. The hon. Member seemed to forget, that the standing orders stated the practice of the House with regard to private bills; and he seemed also to forget the grounds upon which these orders rested. They were for the protection of private property. Mills's line, as far as he could recollect, came in the ordinary course before the House, and was rejected because the parties had not complied with the standing orders. The subject was mooted in that House, and the House was of opinion that it was impossible to admit this line without contravening the standing orders, and that the parties ought to suffer for the negligence, or omission, or whatever else it was, of the persons who had the introduction of the Bill; and the House declared, that it was impossible to allow the Bill to proceed under these circumstances, unless they were prepared to set aside altogether the standing orders. It seemed to him utterly impossible that this line could be referred under any circumstances with the other two, to the military engineer. He would come, then, to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex, with reference to the motion which had been carried the other day, for referring those lines to an engineer. He must complain of the conduct of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had not given himself any trouble whatever to understand this question, or of learning the course which he had recommended. He was not surprised, seeing clearly the hon. Member did not understand this question, that he should have charged him with inconsistency. He thought he could show 1220 most clearly, that so far from there being any inconsistency in his course, he had been consistent throughout. The charge was, that he had declared himself opposed to a proposition for referring all Railroads to the judgment of some Government engineers; that he then said he was determined to abide by the decision of the Committees, but that he now took a different course. He certainly did declare against referring these Railways, in the first instance, to Government engineers, who should decide upon their merits. He had never stated, that the House was to be guided by the decisions of the Committees; on the contrary, the Report of the Committee in 1836 was in direct opposition to this opinion—this opinion was in direct opposition to the practice which prevailed, and which he had invariably endeavoured to press upon the House. He could refer to the Report of the Committee of 1836, to show that he was correct in this statement. The Report, after stating certain rules and regulations for the conduct of Committees, went on to state, that the Committee most earnestly impressed upon the House the absolute necessity of giving their attention to Bills which came before them upon the further consideration of the Report, and attentively to consider the Report submitted to them, so that the House might be enabled, when competing lines were brought before them, to come to a decision upon the comparative merits of each. These were the principles which he had never ceased to press upon the House in all their discussions. All the information which he (Mr. P. Thomson) had to guide him in this question, was that afforded him by the Committee in the Report, which was made in pursuance of a special order of the House, with a view to assist the House in determining which of the conflicting Railways they should send back to the Committee, for the landowners to be heard with respect to their claims. Now, he had examined this Report, and he could not see that it afforded any satisfactory information on the particular point which the House had to determine, and with a view to determine which this special Report was called for. He would ask any Gentleman who had studied the Report, whether he had found it sufficiently explicit to enable him to make up his mind as to which line should be selected? He thought they would all agree, that the information which 1221 they required was not contained in this Report, and, such being the case, they were called upon to seek it by other means.
Mr. Curteisthought the Committee on this Bill had been very unfairly treated, and that they ought to be allowed to have the military engineer before them, to see whether he was a competent person to give an opinion in the matter.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 71: Majority 38.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Musgrave, Sir R., Bt. |
| Alsager, Captain | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Alston, Rowland | O'Connell, D. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Parry, Sir L. P. |
| Bonham, R. Francis | Pechell, Captain |
| Bowring, Dr. | Polhill, Captain F. |
| Bridgman, H. | Ruthven, E. |
| Chapman, M. L. | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Collins, W. | Stanley, Edward |
| Crawford, W. S. | Strickland, Sir Geo. |
| Crawford, W. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Curteis, H. B. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Duncombe, T. | Verney, Sir H., Bart. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Fector, John Minet | Villiers, C. P. |
| Forbes, William | Wakley, T. |
| Fremantle, Sir T. W. | Walker, Richard |
| Gordon, R. | Wallace, R. |
| Hamilton, Geo. Alex. | Wigney, Isaac N. |
| Hodges, T. T. | Williams, W. |
| Jervis, John | TELLERS. |
| Marsland, Henry | Gillon, W. D. |
| Mullins, hon. F. W. | Hume, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Heathcote, G. J. |
| Bailey, J. | Hector, C. J. |
| Balfour, T. | Heron, Sir R., Bart. |
| Barclay, C. | Houstoun, G. |
| Baring, F. T. | Howard, P. H. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Lennox, Lord George |
| Bewes, T. | Lennox, Lord Arthur |
| Biddulph, Robert | Lowther, J. H. |
| Blunt, Sir C. | Lynch, A. H. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Mactaggart, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Marshall, William |
| Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde | Maule, hon. F. |
| Burrell, Sir C. M. | Maunsell, T. P. |
| Chaplin, Colonel | Palmer, George |
| Clive, Edward Bolton | Pelham, John C. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Plumptre, John P. |
| Dowdeswell, William | Pryse, Pryse |
| Dunbar, George | Pusey, P. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Richards, Richard |
| Fitzroy, H. | Ross, Charles |
| Goring, H. D. | Rushbrooke, Col. |
| Graham, Sir J. | Russell, Lord John |
| Guest, J. J. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Hastie, A. | Sanford, E. A. |
| Hawes, B. | Sheppard, Thomas |
| Hay, Sir A. L., Bart. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Stanley, Lord | Wilde, Sergeant |
| Steuart, R. | Williams, W. A. |
| Strangways, hon. J. | Winnington, H. J. |
| Surrey, Earl of | Wood, Colonel |
| Talbot, C. R. M. | Wortley, hon. J. |
| Thomas, Colonel | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Thompson, C. P. | Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. |
| Thompson, Ald. | Young, G. F. |
| Tooke, W. | TELLERS. |
| Trelawney, Sir W. L. | Hope, Henry T. |
| Vivian, J. H. | Lefevre, Charles S. |