§ Viscount Howickwished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the 1317 Vice President of the Board of Trade, to an advertisement which appeared in several of the papers a few days past, as follows:—
"Kentish Coast Railway.—The promoters of this undertaking beg to inform the shareholders and all parties interested in the line, that the Report of the Board of Trade, published in last night's Gazette, has come upon them with the greatest surprise, inasmuch as they were awaiting an appointment (according to an arrangement with that Board) for a personal interview by deputation, for the purpose of presenting and explaining certain essential documents, and without which appointment, and in the absence of which documents, the Board have decided.
"The promoters do not for a moment desire to cast the slightest imputation on the Board of Trade, the oversight on whose part in omitting to make the expected appointment, they believe to have arisen in the great pressure of business, and the lamented indisposition of a Member of the Board, with whom communication had previously been held.
"The promoters have, however, the satisfaction to state that they have to-day had an interview at the Board of Trade, and they have the pleasure to announce that the line, with the full information of the documents referred to, will be forthwith submitted to the fullest consideration of the Earl of Dalhousie and the Board of Trade, not with a view to any further notice in the Gazette, but to a Report to Parliament.
"The promoters beg to acknowledge at the same time the polite consideration shown them at the Board at their interview to-day, and in the expression of regret which they received at the unfortunate occurrence referred to.
"EDWARD RICHARD,
Secretary.
"New Broad-street, Tuesday afternoon,"
From this statement it would seem that the Board of Trade had decided upon this railway without having had before them all the documents prepared by the promoters of the Bill, and without that interview by deputation which they had been led to expect. What he wanted to know was, whether that statement was true, and whether the Board of Trade had so decided? and were they now about to reconsider their decision?
§ Sir G. Clerksaid, the terms of the advertisement to which the noble Lord had referred, did not contain a correct account of the circumstances connected with this railway. If any mistake had arisen with regard to the announcement of the decision of the Board of Trade on the subject of that particular railroad, it must have arisen entirely on the part of the railway 1318 company. It was not the practice of the Board of Trade to request personal interviews with the promoters of railways; but the system pursued had been this: The Board required the parties promoting a railway to send in the fullest documentary evidence, detailing the advantages to be derived from the scheme of which they were the promoters. In a great many instances these parties had requested to be allowed to have a personal conference with the Board of Trade, for the purpose of elucidating many points which documentary evidence could not fully and clearly explain. The Board of Trade had always expressed themselves ready to receive all parties; and he believed the promoters of this railway applied for a personal interview on the 6th of January last. They were, however, informed, that upon that particular day it was not convenient for the Board of Trade to have a conference with them; and a subsequent day, he believed the 22d of January, was accordingly named. On the 21st of that month, however, the solicitor for the promoters of this scheme called at the Board of Trade, and stated that it was impossible for the parties to attend on the 22nd; but that gentleman did not, at the time, make any request to have any further day named, or the Board of Trade would have been perfectly ready to receive them. The Board of Trade waited till the last moment before giving its decision, but no subsequent application for an interview was made by the promoters of this line. It would be remembered that the Board of Trade had intimated to the House and the public that they should be prepared to give their decision upon the majority of railway schemes before them by a particular day. The House would recollect that the Board of Trade had all the documentary evidence which the promoters of this scheme considered essential to their case before it; but it appeared from the advertisement that they had some further documentary evidence, which the solicitor had not presented to the Board of Trade, thinking that it would be asked for by the Board before they agreed to their Report. The Board of Trade, however, had had sufficient facts before it to enable it to come to a decision upon the question; and the result of its decision was announced in the Gazette of last Friday. Subsequently, the solicitor called at the Board of Trade, and expressed his regret and 1319 surprise that the Board had not had an opportunity of considering certain documents. There was no doubt the solicitor was informed that the fullest consideration would be given to these documents if he deposited them with the Board; and he had not the least doubt that if these documents contained important information upon the question—which, however, was not very likely, or they would not have been held back—his noble Friend at the head of the Railway Department, and the Board itself, would not only give them the fullest consideration, but, if they contained sufficient grounds to induce the Board to alter its decision, the Board would not have the slightest hesitation in doing so. But he must candidly tell the House that he did not think these documents would disclose such information as to induce the Board of Trade to come to a different decision to that which had already been announced. If any misapprehension had arisen, it was on the part of the promoters of the railway, and not on the part of that Department of the Board of Trade. Nor could they complain that no intimation had been given to them that further evidence was required; because it was left to them to request an interview, which they had neglected. It was clear, therefore, that no blame could be attached to the Board of Trade. The Report, detailing the reasons upon which the Board of Trade had come to a decision in the case of this railway, would be laid upon the Table of the House in the course of the present week; and it would be for the House or the Committee to judge whether that Report contained sufficient reason to justify the decision of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Duncombebegged leave to ask a question upon this subject. It was this: He would wish to know if the decisions of the Board of Trade were the decisions that were gazetted? and if they were, were those decisions final? The reason he asked the question was this—if any new information should be acquired upon any line so announced as decided upon, and that the Board of Trade should find that information of such a character as to induce it to alter their opinion, would there then be a new announcement in the Gazette?
§ Sir George Clerkhad not the least idea that the Board would make any alteration in its decisions; but, at the same time, 1320 he could say that the Board of Trade would, as an act of justice, alter the whole bearing of the announcement made in the Gazette, if the additional information were of such a nature as to demand that course.
§ Mr. Laboucheresaid, the impression surely could not be intended to be conveyed by the right hon. Baronet, that it was the practice of the Members of the Board of Trade to announce their decisions in the Gazette before their minds were finally made up on the subject before them.
§ Sir George Clerksaid, certainly not. The Board of Trade did not come to any decision until it had given the fullest consideration to the subject. It was not possible to conceive that parties would have kept back back material documents for two months, without giving the Board any intimation of their existence.