STAFFORD AND RUGBY RAILWAY.

HC Deb 17 March 1841 vol 57 cc317-25

On the motion that the Stafford and Rugby Railway Bill be read a second time.

Mr. Gisborne moved, that the second reading be postponed until the 24th instant in order to allow time for the Report of the Government Railway Commissioners (presented to the House on the 15th instant), on the subject of the best line of railway communication between London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, to be printed, and in the hands of Members, as such Report contains information bearing upon the merits of the proposed measure.

Lord Francis Egerton

was understood to refer to the Report of Sir Frederick Smith, and to say that there was nothing in it that directly affected the bill. But whatever was in it, he would give notice of a motion which should bring it under the full consideration of the committee. He thought the House would see no reason for delaying the second reading of the bill, and he should therefore oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Labouchere

did not rise for the purpose of expressing any opinion on the merits of this bill, but, on the contrary, he did not consider this to be a cage on which the situation in which he stood called upon him to express an opinion, He thought it was a subject on which every Member of the House could give an opinion, and he should therefore act in accordance with his general rule, namely, to abstain from all interference with the private business of the House, except some principle was involved which he thought called for his interference. The only reason, therefore, for his rising was to ask the House to allow him to make an observation on account of an allusion that had been made to the Report of Sir Frederick Smith. That Report was upon the Table of the House, but was not printed, He had asked Sir Frederick Smith yesterday what was the nature of his observations on this particular railway. Sir Frederick Smith assured him they were entirely of an incidental nature, and did not go at all into detail; consequently he felt bound to state, that he thought the House would be satisfied there was no reason to delay the consideration of that bill on account of the Report of Sir F. Smith. Whether it was advisable that the bill should be read a second time to-day, it was not his intention to express any opinion, but he thought it his duty to furnish the House with such information as he possessed, to enable them to come to a correct conclusion on the subject.

Mr. Wilbraham

wished to state the reasons why he should vote against the second reading of the bill. He had voted two years ago in favour of the original bill, but it was. then in a different situation. It was then an extension bill. But the bill which the House had passed was abandoned—and therefore the whole thing now stood in a different position. It was then an extension bill, but now there was no other place to extend it to, and therefore, though he voted for the former measure, he was consistent in opposing the present. The bill was only brought in for the purpose of standing in the way of any great measure which might come before the House in the course of a few years. The object was merely to pre-occupy the ground. The promoters of the bill never intended to carry the project into execution. They desired to exclude any mare direct communication with the central and manufacturing districts than was afforded by the Grand Junction Railway. They wanted to perpetuate the monopoly of that line. He therefore thought himself bound to oppose the bill, and if it were not withdrawn he should more that it be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. Mark Philips

was surprised to hear the statement of his hon. Friend, that the only intention of the projectors was to preoccupy the ground against any other railway. On the contrary, he could assure the House that his hon. Friend had formed a very erroneous estimate of the character and motives of the Gentleman who had promoted this bill. He held in his hand a petition from a large number of the most respectable inhabitants of Manchester in favour of the measure, and he could assure the House, that the districts which weald be affected by it were almost unanimous in its favour, and that it would undoubtedly be completed if the House gave it the sanction proposed in the present bill. No bill had ever been more thoroughly sifted in committee than this. The estimates which were laid before the committee in 1839 had never been questioned, and they were as moderate as any ever known. The levels were of the most favourable kind, and the whole line was calculated greatly to improve the communication between the central counties and Liverpool, and the metropolis. The money had been bonâ fide subscribed, and ten per cent, had been deposited. The first bill had been withdrawn in consequence of the state of the money market. But in the short time that had since elapsed the new company had been formed, and all its capital had been subscribed, notwithstanding that it was proposed at a time when the money market was still depressed. This showed the confidence of the public in the utility of the measure, and in the intention of the projectors. [Cries of "Question."]

Sir Robert Peel

supposed that any Gentleman who called "Question," would vote for the motion that the bill be referred to a committee. He supposed they agreed with him, that the House was not the fittest arena for the discussion, and that its merits could best be ascertained above stairs. He had a duty on this occasion to perform to his constituents, who had intrusted him with a petition, signed by 700 of the most respectable inhabitants of Tamworth, in favour of the bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) that a person in that right hon. Gentleman's position in that House ought not to interfere with a private measure, unless it involved some public principle. Although he was only a private individual, yet from his long connexion with office, it might be supposed that he possessed some influence with a part of the House, and he therefore abstained on the same principle as the right hon. Gentleman from interfering in private measures. But the interest which his constituents felt in this bill obliged him, as their representative, to state his reason for giving it his support, assuring hon. Gentlemen at the same time that he had never attempted to influence the vote of any individual upon the subject. The proposed railway had several recommendations. In the first place it would connect the two important termini, London and Liverpool, with the inland counties, by a communication nine and-a-half miles shorter between Manchester and Liverpool, and thirty-nine and-a-half miles shorter in the line with London, the gradients on the new line were much more favourable than on the old line, and of course it was a competing line as regarded so much of the London and Birmingham line, and so much of the Grand Junction line as extended from Rugby on the one hand and Stafford on the other. It professed to make a new line along the valley of the Trent, which was the most judicious line, taking into consideration the features of the country. Now, the average of the gradients on the present line were one in 545, in a length of fifty and-a-half miles; the average of the gradients on the proposed line were one in 650, in a distance of thirty-nine miles, effecting a saving of nine and-a-half miles, and obtaining much better gradients by taking the valley of the Trent, which was the proper line of level. The subject had been before previous committees of that House, and he trusted they would not now sanction any further delay. A great portion of the same line was before the House in 1839, and it was met in this way, 459 objections of a trivial character were raised before the Committee of Petitions, and only forty-six of these objections were referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and after four days discussion the Standing Orders Committee dismissed them all. The House would bear in mind that the bill was in committee for sixty-two days, and the battle fought was a battle of delay. Five members chosen by the committee of selection, who had no local interest in the matter, were placed on the committee. They heard the whole of the case, and the whole of the five selected Members, consisting of gentlemen who had no local interest, were in favour of the bill, and came to a resolution to the following effect. It was a very singular one, and only justified by the nature of the opposition the bill had received:—. That the committee, after an inquiry unusually protracted, had come to a resolution in favour of the bill, and in case the late period of the Session at which their labours had terminated, would render the parties unable to submit a bill to the other House of Parliament, they advised the House that every facility should be afforded to the promoters of the bill in a future Session, that the rules of the House permitted. Now, he did not mean to deny that the present was an important competitor to existing lines. It was a formidable one from its very nature. They could not save nine and a-half miles between Liverpool and London, or between London and Manchester. They could not have a line without tunnels and very favourable gradients without making it a formidable competitor to the existing lines. But was it right that these great monopolies the House has created should have the power of crushing every rival establishment, on the ground of an interference with their interests. What became of the interests of the postmasters and the canal companies, when these railways were first established? Was it not said that these interests must give way to the convenience and advantage of the public? and now these monopolists turned round and told the House, that it must have a regard for vested interests, and that it must on no account interfere with the monopoly of the existing railway companies. If the House of Commons refused inquiry into a proposal like the present for a competing line, they would be perpetuating one of the completest monopolies that ever was established. If the opposing party said that they were a small establishment, making very small profits, and that their success was yet doubtful, there might be some ground for the present opposition. But what was the fact with regard to the London and Birmingham Railway? He could assure the House that 20,000l. had been offered to the promoters of the present scheme to induce them to withdraw it, and the London and Birmingham Company were well able to make such an offer. What were these profits. They had divided ten per cent, upon their paid up capital. They had made that of profit, and therefore he thought they had no right to come forward and oppose the establishment of another undertaking. There was one objection to this railway, and only one; he did not wish to hide it from the House, the proposed line was intended to join the two other lines at two points of existing railways. The question for consideration was, would the public safety be compromised by such junction—would the saving in point of time exceed the delay which must necessarily take place in consequence of the precautions requisite for the public safety? That was a fit subject for consideration, but it was for the consideration of a committee; let them send the bill to a committee, and let them call Sir F. Smith before the committee, and inquire fully into the merits of the whole case. A fair case had been made out for sending the bill to be considered in committee, and after the opposition which the company had met with, he trusted the House would not permit an effectual opposition to be made to it in that stage. He appealed to the gentlemen of Ireland, and the gentlemen of Scotland—they were deeply interested in the matter, and, with their assistance, he trusted the bill would be fairly considered in a committee up stairs.

Lord Stanley

said, that whatever might be the decision to which the House might come, he hoped that they would not be led away by that argument to their own impatience which his right hon. Friend had addressed to them, because, although it might be very convenient for Gentlemen who were tired of a discussion, to say that it was not a subject fit for their consideration, there was no place where it could be so well considered as in that House. At the same time time, although questions might often be very conveniently considered in committee, yet such a plan was often attended with great expense and other disadvantages. If the House had a reasonable doubt whether there was sufficient ground for considering the matter in committee, they ought not to consult their own convenience, and subject parties to unnecessary expense and unnecessary waste of time. If he did not mistake, his right hon. Friend had lately stated to the House that the parties interested in this railway had already lost a sum of 9,000l. or 10,000l. in discussions and conflicts as to whether the undertaking should be continued or not. If his recollection did not deceive him, his right hon. Friend had suggested that with a view to get rid of the expense and inconvenience of referring the matter to a committee, the matter should be submitted to the decision of Sir Frederick Smith, who was to be consulted as to the propriety of sanctioning the project. For his own part he had interest, direct or indirect, in the transaction, and he had no communication with any of the parties concerned in it since the commencement of the Session. If he had any interest in the matter, it was, that as he travelled very frequently backwards and forwards on the Grand Junction Railway, his journey should be accomplished as rapidly and as economically as possible. He had, therefore, no other interest in the matter than that which must be felt by the hon. Members for Manchester, or the hon. Members for Scotland or for Ireland, to whose feelings his right hon. Friend had appealed in the latter part of his argument. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had, as it appeared to him, thrown an invidious objection in the way of the motion of the hon. Member for Carlow. His right hon. Friend had said that he had seen the opinion of Sir Frederick Smith privately, and that that opinion could not materially affect the question. Now he had been given to understand that Sir Frederick Smith in commenting on the best, the cheapest, and most rapid line of communication between London and Edinburgh, and London and Dublin, had expressed an opinion that the saving of ten miles to be accomplished by the proposed railway might be counterbalanced by the loss of time at the new terminus, and the fact of a change of engines being unnecessary. He would refer for a moment to the question of time. He quite agreed that many of those questions to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth had adverted, were questions for the committee, and not for the consideration of the House; but if it should be made clear to the House that no great saving would be accomplished, and that there was no great reason to apprehend that there would be any competition whatever, and moreover that this saving of time was to be accomplished by an expenditure of national capital, amounting to 1,300,000l., or 1,500,000l., then the House ought to pause before it came to such a decision. The Grand Junction Company made their arrangements in conjunction with the London and Birmingham Railway, and they so timed the arrival of the trains in Birmingham, as to leave no greater interval for stoppage than was necessary to proceed from one train to the other. When they arrived at Rugby, they had to wait till the train came in from Birmingham; Gentlemen might prefer waiting at Tamworth. They must wait till the train arrived from Birmingham, to carry them on to London. Therefore, although Gentlemen might suppose that there would be somewhat less time occupied in the actual operation of travelling, between Liverpool and London, or Manchester and London, yet it was his firm conviction that not even the saving of a single ten minutes as between Liverpool and London would be effected by the proposed expenditure of 1,300,000l. His right hon. Friend who had just sat down had said that he would not attempt to conciliate any interest on the other side by denying that there would be a formidable competition. He did not seek to gain support on that side of the House when he declared that, in his opinion, there would be no competition whatever. The argument of his hon. Friend, the Member for Chester, was a correct one; that if the plan had been to carry on the line to Man- chester, instead of merely to Rugby, then there would have been competition, because then there would have been an independent terminus. But what did this line propose to do? His right hon. Friend had said, with all the ingenuity and art with which he knew so well how to dress up a statement for that House, his right hon. Friend had said, look at the important termini of this railway—you have London on the one side, and Manchester, with the manufacturing districts, and Liverpool, on the other, and if you look to further termini, if the expression of a terminus beyond a terminus be allowable, you have Ireland as a terminus on the one side, and Scotland as a terminus on the other. Now, with all respect to his right hon. Friend, he (Lord Stanley) must be excused for saying that this statement was entirely a mistake. The termini were the highly-respectable but certainly not very important or opulent towns of Rugby on the one side, and Stafford on the other; and there was no other terminus whatever. Go where they would, travellers by this road must join the Grand Junction at one end, and at the other the London and Birmingham, and those railways might in consequence crush in the bud any infant competition. If the object was to produce competition, it should be a competition of independent lines, but to expect any advantageous competition from inferior and dependent lines, needed not the experience of the North of England and Midland Railway to prove an entire delusion. These shorter lines must always regulate their movements by the greater lines; terms of agreement would be come to between them, and whoever entertained a hope that an inferior and dependent line could successfully enter into competition with a larger and independent line would inevitably be disappointed. He was obliged to the House for the kindness with which they had heard him, and regretted exceedingly that any vexatious delay had been interposed in consequence of the Standing Orders last session. He never had been and never would be a party to such vexatious delay. He thought the hon. Member had better consent to withdraw his amendment, and take the sense of the House upon the plain question, whether in their judgment a sufficient case had been made out of saving of time and expense, of reduction of fares, and an increased public accommodation, to sanction the expenditure of 1,500,000l., besides the enormous expenses and vexatious delays which, to the great benefit of lawyers and agents, but of no other persons, inevitably attended the subjecting of any Railway Bill to a Parliamentary investigation.

Mr. Gisborne

withdrew his amendment.

The original question was again put, that the bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Wilbraham moved that the bill be read a second time in six months.

The House divided on the question that the Bill be now read a second time, Ayes 94; Noes 134: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn. G.R.	Mathew, G. B.
A'Court, Captain	Maule, hon. F.
Ainsworth, P.	Miles, W.
Baillie, Colonel	Milnes, R. M.
Bewes, T.	Murray, A.
Blackett, C.	Nicholl, J.
Boldero, H. G.	O'Brien, W. S.
Brotherton, J.	Oswald, J.
Bruce, Lord. E.	Paget, Lord A.
Buck, L. W.	Parker. M.
Buller, E.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Campbell, Sir. J.	Phillips, Sir R.
Chalmers, P.	Phillpotts, J.
Cholmondeley, hn. H.	Pigot, right hon. D.
Copeland, Alderman	Planta, right hon. J.
Craig, W. G.	Polhill, F.
Dennistoun, J.	Rawdon. Col. J. D.
Divett, E.	Round, C. G.
Egerton, W. T.	Rundle, J.
Ewans, Sir De L.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Fielden, J.	Seymour, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T.	Smith, B.
Gladstone, W. E.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon, H.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Greg, R. H.	Steuart, R.
Grey, right hon. Sir G.	Stewart, J.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Stuart, Lord J.
Grote, G.	Stock, Mr. Serjeant
Hastie, A.	Style, Sir C.
Hawes, B.	Tancred, H. W.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Thomas, Colonel H.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Trench, Sir. F.
Hindley, C.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Villiers, hon C. P.
Hodgson, F.	Vivian, Major C.
Hodgson, R.	Vivian, J. H.
Hope, hon. C.	Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Hope, H. T.	Wakley, T.
Humphery, J.	Warburton, H.
Irton, S.	White, A.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Leader, J. T.	Wood, Colonel
Lowther, J. H.	Wood, B.
Maclean, D.	Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.
M'Taggrat, J.
Marsland, H.	TELLERS.
Martin, J.	Phillips, M.
Marton, G.	Egerton, Lord F.

List of the NOES.
Alston, R.	Grimsditch, T.
Antrobus, E.	Handley, H.
Baines, E.	Harcourt, G. G.
Baldwin, C. B.	Harcourt, G. S.
Barnard, E. G.	Harland, W. C.
Barneby, J.	Hawkes, T.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Hawkins, J. H.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Hayter, W. G.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Hector, C. J.
Bethell, R.	Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Blake, M	Hogg, J. W.
Bodkin, J. J.	Hollond, R.
Botfield, B.	Holmes, W.
Brabazon, Lord	Houldsworth, T.
Bradshaw, J.	Hutt, W.
Bramston, T. W.	Hutton, R.
Broadley, H.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Broadwood, H.	James, W.
Brocklehurst, J.	Jones, J.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Kemble, H.
Busfeild, W.	Knight, H. G.
Byng, right hon. G. S	Langton, W. G.
Cayley, E. S.	Law, hon. C. E.
Chapman, A.	Lemon, Sir C.
Chetwynd, Major	Lockhart, A. M.
Chute, W. L. W.	Lygon, hon. General
Clive, E. B.	Lynch, A. H.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Mackenzie, T.
Collier, J.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Courtenay, P.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Crawford, W.	Master, T. W. C.
Dalmeny, Lord	Maunsell, T. P.
Dalrymple, Sir A.	Miles, P. W. S.
Darby, G.	Morgan, O.
Dashwood, G. H.	Morris, D.
Davies, Colonel	Neeld, J.
De Horsey, S. H.	Neeld, J.
Dick, Q.	Ord, W.
Duff, J.	Packe, C. W.
Duke, Sir J.	Pakington, J. S.
Dunbar, G.	Parker, J.
Duncan, Viscount	Parker, R. T.
Duncombe, T.	Patten, J. W.
Duncombe, hon. W.	Pattison, J.
Dundas, C, W. D.	Pease, J.
Dundas, F.	Pechell, Captain
East, J. B.	Philips, G. R.
Easthope, J.	Pigot, R.
Eaton, R. J.	Plumptre, J. P.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Pollock, Sir F.
Ellis, W.	Praed, W. T.
Estcourt, T.	Protheroe, E.
Evans, G.	Pryme, G.
Evans, W.	Pusey, P.
Farnham, E. B.	Richards, R.
Feilden, W.	Rickford, W.
Factor, J. M.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Filmer, Sir E.	Rushout, G.
Fitzalan, Lord	Salwey, Colonel
Forester, hon. G.	Sandon, Viscount
Gaskell, J. M.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Gladstone, J. N.	Scholefield, J.
Gordon, R.	Scrope, G. P.
Graham, rt. hn. Sip J.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Greene, T.	Sheppard, T.

Shirley, E. J.	Thompson, Alderman
Sibthorp, Colonel	Turner, E.
Smith, A.	Verney, Sir H.
Smith, G. R.	Villiers, Viscount
Smith, R. V.	Wall, C. B.
Somerset, Lord G.	Welby, G. E.
Sotheron, T. E.	Williams, W.
Standish, C.	Winnington, H. J.
Stanley, E.	Wrightson, W. B.
Stanley, Lord	Yates, J. A.
Staunton, Sir G. T.
Strickland, Sir G.	TELLERS.
Strutt, E.	Wilbraham, G.
Surrey, Earl of	Gisborne, T.

Lord Stanley

begged to say that he was incorrect in stating that he had had no communication with any person on the subject, as he now recollected having spoken to a gentleman respecting it.

Bill put off for six months.