HC Deb 11 March 1845 vol 78 cc633-9

On the Order of the Day being read for the House going into Committee for the further consideration of this Bill,

Lord G. Somerset

said, he trusted that every word and every line in these clauses might not be made the subject of discussion, as they had hitherto been. Unless he had the confidence of the House, he must at once give them up altogether, for they would not be enabled to pass them before Easter, and then the main object for which they were intended would be utterly defeated. He did not say this for his own convenience at all; but he did feel that it was quite useless for them to meet there every morning, if the Bills should not pass before Easter. He did not, of course, wish to put a stop to the discussion of any principle; but that every clause should be discussed, word byword, did appear to him to be quite unnecessary. He should be governed in the course that he should hereafter pursue by what should occur that morning.

House in Committee.

On Clause 44, which related to the crossing of footways,

Lord G. Somerset

stated, that he had prepared an Amendment, which he proposed to insert in the place of that clause, and which, he trusted, would meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, who at their previous sitting had recommended the introduction of the word "highway," instead of "carriage-road," so as to include both footways and bridleways. The following was the substance of what he proposed to insert, viz.— If the railway shall cross any highway other than a public carriage-road, the company shall, at its own expense, and at all times, maintain convenient ascents and descents, and other convenient approaches, with handrails and other fences, and shall, if it be a bridleway, make and maintain good and sufficient gates; or, if a footway, good and sufficient gates or stiles.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 53, which provides that the works should be constructed under the superintendence of the company's engineer,

Mr. Pakington

wished to ask, whether something might not be done to compel the company to employ a sufficient police force, to prevent disturbances in the neighbourhood, and to preserve property through which the railroad passed. It was quite notorious that in many cases where a large number of unmanageable men were employed upon a railroad from all parts of the country, the depredations and disturbances which arose in consequence of there not being any sufficient power to keep them in awe were shocking to contemplate.

Lord G. Somerset

said, the subject had not escaped his attention; but he was not able to see how properly to carry it out, and he had on the whole thought it would not be advisable to introduce any clause on the subject; but he was open to suggestions from any hon. Member.

Mr. F. Maule

thought that the case was completely met by the Railway Police Act, which was passed a Session or two ago; and in conformity with which a railway company was compelled, on certain demands being made, to appoint a police force to protect the district.

Lord G. Somerset

, before discussing the matter more in detail, would examine the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) had referred, and which he believed would quite meet the case.

The Clause agreed to.

Clause 58 prohibiting companies from any right to any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals, under any land purchased by them, except only such parts as should be necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of the works.

Mr. F. Maule

said, it appeared to him that this clause would act injuriously to the public, and in this way:—Suppose a railway going through a high hill; if they found no stone or other valuable material there, they would make a tunnel through it, which would not much deface the property; but if it contained valuable stone for their bridges and aqueducts, they would in all probability make an immense open cutting, instead of a tunnel, in order to get at the stone, to use "in the construction of their works." That would quite destroy the appearance of the ground, and ought, in his opinion, to be guarded against.

Lord G. Somerset

did not think that the case which the right hon. Gentleman had made out was one of great hardship; because it was quite clear, by other clauses of the Bill, that if the company took stone, or anything else from the land, they must pay for it.

Mr. Darby

could hardly conceive the possibility of a company undertaking to make a tunnel, if a cutting would by any means answer the purpose; for every one knew that the expense of tunnelling was much greater than that of excavating, under ordinary circumstances. He regarded the clause as a safeguard to the landowner; who was, by it, entitled to any minerals found under the soil, even after he had unwittingly sold it to the company. He suggested, however, that the words "carried away" should be omitted, because the company might choose to carry a whole mine away.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that to speak of compensation in such a case as this was all a farce. No doubt the Legislature would next allow these marauding engineers not only to go into a gentleman's cellar and tilt his wine, but actually to run away with the bottles.

Lord G. Somerset

said, if the Committee would allow the clause to pass as it then was, he would look at it again, and would take care that it should not convey more than it was intended to do. The intention simply was to reserve to all parties the right to the minerals under their land.

The clause conditionally agreed to.

On Clause 66, It shall be lawful for the company to use and employ locomotive engines, or other moving power, and carriages and waggons to be propelled thereby, and to carry and convey upon the railway all such passengers and goods as shall be offered to them for that purpose, and to make such reasonable charges in respect thereof as they may from time to time determine upon, not exceeding the tolls by the special act authorized to be taken by them.

Mr. Stansfield

thought that it ought to be made imperative on the companies to carry passengers and goods, after the great powers with which Parliament had invested them with a view to the accommodation of the public. He should move, therefore, the insertion of words which would make the first part of the clause read thus—"It shall be lawful for the company or their lessees, and they are hereby required to use."

Lord G. Somerset

did not see what good end would be served by the insertion of the proposed words. It was not at all likely that a number of men would combine to make a railway simply for the pleasure of making a railway. Beyond a doubt profit was their ultimate end, and they could not hope to make any profits unless they carried passengers and goods.

Mr. F. Maule

said, that lines had been made without the slightest intention on the part of the promoters that they ever should be worked. Suppose an existing trunk line of some length: a new company proposed to make certain new and shorter lines from, town to town, which if carried would materially interfere with the traffic of the main line. Then the old company seeing this also started sundry new branches, simply to compete with the other new ones, and if they succeeded in beating the new lines out of the field that was all they wanted, and they did not care even to construct their own new lines.

Lord G. Somerset

asked the Committee seriously to consider what would be the effect of acceding to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. If they said that the company must take every person who should offer himself upon the line, they must be prepared to say that if a million of passengers wanted to go on the line, the railway company was bound to carry them all. He certainly conceived, if it were intended to secure the rights of the public by a peremptory clause of this sort, that this was neither comprehensive enough nor stringent enough for the purpose. That, however, was not the object of the clause. Besides, he could not conceive that it would be just to compel railway companies who had started with hottest intentions, but had found that they could not afford to carry passengers, to continue, when instead of being remunerated, every train that was started proved a dead loss to them.

Mr. Gill

opposed the Amendment. Unless it were much more comprehensive, the companies might constantly evade it. They might, for example, run only one train, and that at so inconvenient an hour, and at so slow a rate of speed, that no one could go by it.

Mr. Aglionby

should vote for the Amendment, to put an end to the scheming and jobbing intentions with which railways were often started.

Mr. Darby

put the case of a railway made without being intended ever to be worked, or of a railway which was not remunerating the company—what would be the effect if, in such a case, a clause was inserted in this Consolidation Bill, compelling the company to work that line? Why, the public would be in danger of having the line worked when it was in a state of very imperfect repair; instead, therefore, of advantage accruing to the public from the adoption of the Amendment, he contended that very great danger both to life and limb would be the result.

Mr. Gladstone

objected to the Amendment. He was of opinion, that the difficulties which had been alluded to by different hon. Members in the course of the debate might very easily be obviated, if the Private Committees would exercise due caution and discretion. They might, for example, in the first place, not sanction any line where there was not proof of a sufficient traffic existing to induce the company to work the railway for the sake of profit. Another thing which he should suggest to Private Committees would be, to guard and watch very particularly all applications for the amalgamation of companies, or for giving one company control over the line of another company. And again, if a company applied for new branches he should take care to provide that those branches should be worked as long as the main line was worked. He did not see, however, how the proposed object could be carried into effect by a general rule. To compel a company to work a line when it was no longer remunerative to them, appeared to him to be contrary to every principle of justice. He hoped that the Committee would not attempt to enact, in these general Bills, clauses which it would be impossible to carry into effect.

Mr. F. Maule

said, that no doubt his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment if the noble Lord would give a promise to reconsider the clause.

Mr. Aglionby

suggested, that a Standing Order, requiring Private Committees to attend carefully to this matter, and to report to the House upon it in every case, might be found to answer the purpose.

Lord G. Somerset

said, that he had already given his best attention to the subject, and he did not, see what else he could do with it. He would prefer dividing, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in having a division, in order that the Committee might decide upon it at once.

Mr. Stansfield

said, he should press his Amendment.

The Committee divided: — Ayes, 17; Noes, 31: Majority, 14.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Allix, J. P. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Arkwright, G. Plumptre, J. P.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Rolleston, Col.
Busfeild, W. Sibthorp, Col.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Wawn, J. T.
Douglas, J. D. S. Wodehouse, E.
Forbes, W. TELLERS.
Henley, J. W. Stansfield, W.
Horsman, E. Aglionby, A.
List of the NOES.
Baring, rt hon. W. B. Lowther, Sir J. H.
Beckett, W. Marsham, Visct.
Brotherton, J. Martin, C. W.
Buckley, E. Mundy, E. M.
Buller, E. Pakington, J. S.
Clayton, R. R. Parker, J.
Colquhoun, J. C. Patten, J. W.
Craig, W. G. Rice, E. R.
Deedes, W. Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.
Egerton, W. T. Smollett, A.
Entwisle, W. Somerset, Lord G.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Thornely, T.
Fuller, A. E. Trelawny, J. S.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. Whitmore, T. C.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. TELLERS.
Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Gill, T.
Legh, G. C. Darby, G.

Clauses to the 70th exclusive, were agreed to.

The House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned till five o'clock, and then resumed.

Back to