RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS. (Hansard, 12 April 1839)

§ Mr. Easthope
begged to observe that the public would feel much discontent that no statement had been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the objects of the committee, and that the country would view with anxiety and alarm the appointment of such a committee without a statement of its precise objects. He had informed the right hon. Gentleman in private, and he repeated it there, that he had hoped the defect of last night would have been remedied, and that he would have given that night the fullest information to the House.

§ Mr. Poulett Thomson
said that it was not his fault that the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with what he had stated to the House relative to the objects of this committee. The House had agreed to the appointment of the committee; and he must say that this course was not 1336 adopted by him from any choice of his own, but it had been pressed upon him; and as to the charge of an absence of statement, and of surprise, he could only add, that the hon. Gentleman differed from those hon. Members who did attend to what he last night said. He had, however, no objection to repeat what he had said. The object of the committee was to inquire into the regulations which might have been adopted under the bills which had been passed by Parliament, to see whether the powers which had been entrusted to the railroads by Parliament had been advantageously exercised, whether any amendment could be made, and, if so, whether an opportunity might not be taken of introducing into the bills, so many of which were now passing, such regulations as the Parliament should seem fit. He had stated that it was not his wish that the committee should not be considered as hostile to the railroads, but he thought that an inquiry might benefit equally the public and the parties concerned in the railroads themselves. These were the objects that he had in view in moving for the committee.

§ Mr. Hawes
was very sorry to be obliged to trespass upon the attention of hon. Members; but his excuse was this, that had he understood that the subject was to have been brought on, upon the preceding night, he certainly should have felt it to be his duty to be in attendance. The subject having been brought on the night before, he believed, arose from a misunderstanding. He did not say with whom the misunderstanding had arisen. He took it that the misunderstanding was on his own part; but then he had to say, that but for the misunderstanding he should have been present and made some remarks upon the appointment of the committee. He decidedly objected to the appointment of any such committee; he objected to it upon principle. He thought that it was a most undue, improper, and wanton interference with capital. He had not yet heard a single public ground stated on which such a proposition could rest. What object could the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade mean by the appointment of such a committee? What information did he require of which he was not already in possession? Did he wish to know the regulations? Did he wish to understand the nature of these companies? Did he desire to know what 1337 powers the railways possessed? If this were all that was wanted in a committee, then the right hon. Gentleman had no necessity for a committee, for he had nothing to do but to ascertain it all by documentary evidence which was then in the possession of the House. And, then, as to the postponement of the railway bills, he must say that he did not see any necessity for pursuing any such course. There was nothing to prevent those bills going to a third reading, and if the House were disposed to have any clause subsequently introduced, it had full power to introduce such a clause. But he wanted to know what were the public grounds for this committee? What were the public grievances which compelled the appointment of any such committee. They saw the advantages of capital being embarked in these undertakings. They did not see any public evils which had arisen from them. He said this, as he had not any thing embarked in these railways—he had no interest in them beyond a mere trifle; and he believed that no one had embarked less in them than himself. This being his situation with respect to railways, he said, that unless some public evil arose out of these great undertakings, the House ought to be very cautious how, by any interference upon its part, it fettered the application of capital. It had not been shown that there had been, on the part of the railways, any interference with fair competion—no such thing had been shown or attempted to be shown on the part of the managers of the railways. 1338 What railway, he asked, had yet returned a remunerating profit for the capital embarked? He had heard, undoubtedly, of high premiums upon shares; but then he did not see actual profits divided. This, at least, was certain, that no profits had been made at the expense of the public. But then it might be asked had not the public gained considerable advantage by them? The companies' interest was bound up with that of the public. The interest of the public was theirs, and could not be separated. Another objection that he had to the appointment of the committee was that it interfered with the capital so embarked: but a more practical objection that he offered to the committee was, that no public ground had been laid for it, nor had he heard of any attempted to be laid by his right hon. Friend in the appointment of the committee. Had his right hon. Friend any plan to propose? Had he any principle to lay down? Had he any single defined object in view? Did he mean to say that he would limit profits? Did he mean to exercise a control over the carriages? or did he mean to interfere with the by-laws of the companies? These were matters which the public were entitled to know before Parliament tampered with a subject of such importance. Before any thing like this was done, the public had a right to know what was the object in view in appointing a committee.