MAILS ON RAILWAYS. (Hansard, 26 July 1838)

§ Mr. Easthope

said, that, before the bill passed, he wished to enter his protest against the language which had been held against those who opposed the bill as it was introduced to the House. Those who had taken an interest against the bill had been represented as a set of men who desired to appropriate the Post office revenues to their own uses. The proprietors of railways had been held forth as a set of rapacious adventurers, reckless of all principles of justice and fair dealing. He felt particular regret, that any one connected with the Government of the country should have sanctioned such a tone as this. No desires or feelings of this character actuated the individuals who were so grossly maligned. Parties connected with railway interests were held forth to the public as though on their trial; and, forsooth, on their trial for what? For promoting at their own risk great national undertakings, of the value and public utility of which there were now pot two 699 opinions, and without the prospect of any advantage beyond that which Parliament itself had declared to be equitable. Any hon. Gentleman who looked at the evidence before the railway committee on this subject would find, that that evidence was all one way, and the resolutions moved under the auspices of Government all the other way. The bill, as it was first introduced, was in utter defiance of all the acknowledged principles of the rights of property—of all the principles which had ever been deemed essential to the security of the property of the country: it proposed to take possession of the property of railways, without any remuneration whatever. This proposition was in absolute defiance of the evidence taken before the committee, in defiance of all the great and acknowledged principles of justice, whilst those who opposed the bill were held up to the country as a set of rapacious adventurers, eagerly bent upon appropriating the Post-office revenues to their own benefit. Again, they were told, that if, upon the original introduction of railway bills, it had been claimed to insert a clause by which mails should be passed along the railways free of charge, the claim would have been readily conceded; and it was said, that the public interests had been injured by the non-introduction of such powers in the first instance. Now, he did not mean to say but that there might have been parties connected with the original promotion of some of these bills, such as the legal gentlemen, whose interests in them were mostly temporary, and the engineers, whose interest was in their construction: he did not mean to say but that these parties, in their anxiety to secure their temporary advantages, might have given their assent to what he (Mr. Easthope) should ever consider a most monstrous proposition; but he would put it to the House whether it was to be borne, that individuals who had advanced their capital in undertakings in which they could not be by any means certain at the time of realizing a return were to be stigmatized as rapacious adventurers, because they claimed what had been guaranteed to them by Parliament? And he would ask, whether it was honest or proper on the part of the Government, to sanction a measure by which the property of railway proprietors was invaded, and by which the rights secured to them were so shamefully infringed? He was 700 sorry that a Government which he had generally supported, should be justly considered an anti-railway Government. The bill was far from creditable to them; it would afford them no advantage which they could be proud of; and when this precious bill was compared with the evidence, and whenever the discussions upon it were fairly considered, he should not envy them any merit or credit they might think to derive from their original bill, or from these discussions. A vast deal had been said about the whole of the Post-office revenues being assigned over to the railway proprietors. What was the fact? In the commencement of two or three of the railway bills there was a proposition made by the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-general at the time, to introduce into them certain stipulations, which were to be the measure of the advantage, or payment, to the railway proprietors; and what said the evidence? That that which was taken by the railway proprietors as a remuneration for their services was not equal to what the Duke of Richmond, by his minute, intended to give them. The Duke of Richmond never contemplated passing the mails along railways without payment: he never, for a moment, conceived the idea of taking possession of the lines of railroad without any remuneration to the proprietors. Nothing of this sort had been started, yet it was with great facility assumed, that had such a proposition been made to the proprietors of railways they would have readily assented to it. It had been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a former stage of the bill, why any consideration should be given to proprietors in respect of "the enormous and improper amount paid by them for land?" He, in return, would beg to ask where would be the equity, the honesty, of refusing them a consideration in respect of the sums they had paid for land? Had not Parliament itself dictated the principle on which land should be paid for? Was not land essential to the formation of railroads? Obviously. Why, then, were they to be asked to waive their claim to a consideration in respect of what they paid for land? If what had been really expended for land in the original construction of railroads was, in some instances, improper and enormous in amount, let it be remembered that the companies had paid it under the dictation of the Legislature, and that land was essential to the 701 formation of railroads. The fact, as he believed, was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apprehended a considerable reduction of the Post-office revenue by a reduced charge for postage, and, at a time when it was even uncertain what would be the extent of duty prospectively required to be performed by railroad companies, it was sought covertly to cast a great part of this additional burthen on the railroad companies. Thus they were abused as rapacious, and charged with being grasping in their intentions, by parties who sought by fraudulent legislation to throw burthens upon them, against every principle of reason and justice. A bill more destructive of the rights of property, more unfair and unjust towards individuals, than this bill, as originally framed, had never been introduced into Parliament; and, if he were to be denounced because he felt indignant at the measure, he was content to be so denounced. The bill, in its present state, was sufficiently hard and stringent upon the railroad companies: as originally proposed it was characterised by gross dishonesty. As, however, it had been freed from its most obnoxious qualities he should not oppose the third reading.