THE NEWCASTLE RAILWAYS—LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 31 July 1849)

§ MR. FOX MAULE
, after tracing the history of the progress of these Bills through both Houses of Parliament, moved that the Amendments of the Lords be taken into consideration that day three months. He reminded the House that at the' time when Railway Bills were introduced in considerable number, a Committee appointed to consider the subject of amalgamation had reported that, while the amalgamation of continuous lines might be of public advantage, the House should look with great jealousy upon any proposal to amalgamate lines running at right angles. These Bills were for that purpose; and they had passed through their stages without any opportunity being given for the introduction of clauses protective of the public interest; or for the proprietors of parallel lines to state their objections to the measure. Upon this principle the Commissioners of Railways had recommended the House of Lords to reject the Bills rather than pass them without protective clauses; but the clauses inserted for that purpose by the House of Lords were insufficient for the purpose, and now the commissioners were precluded by the Standing Orders from amending the Bill in any way so as to protect the public interests. It was the duty of the House to protect the public; and he thought that the circumstances warranted the rejection of the measure.

MR. HEADLAM
contended, that after the Bill had run the gauntlet of Committees of both Houses, it ought not, except upon the very clearest grounds, to be rejected at this stage. To do so would be a great hardship upon the parties whose interests were concerned. At the last moment the Lords had introduced a compulsory audit clause in both Bills; but although that was very objectionable to the parties, they preferred having them with that clause to having no Bill at all. The measure had been fully considered by all the parties concerned, and he hoped that the House would not now concur in a proposal for its rejection on the application of its opponents.

§ SIR J. GRAHAM
hoped that the House would permit him to make one observation personal to himself, before speaking on the question before the House. He had hardly ever thought it his duty to take any part in the conflicts of the adverse interests of competing railways in that House. He had never held, and did not now hold, a single share in any railway. He had therefore no personal interest whatever in the matter, and in the opinion he was about to give be was actuated solely by a sense of what was due to the public interests, particularly in that district in Cumberland with which he was more immediately connected. This was simply a matter of competition between two great parallel lines of communication between the metropolis and Edinburgh and Glasgow, one going eastward through Derby and Berwick, and the other westward by the Trent Valley to Glasgow. It was obviously for the public interest and for the promotion of competition, that the traffic on the line communicating between the two seas should be left to flow perfectly free, east or west, as public convenience might dictate, and that there should be no interruption by high rates and fares as regarded either passengers or goods between Newcastle and Carlisle, and the coal and the manufacturing districts. But if this power were placed in the hands of the directors of the eastern line, they could fix what rates and fares they chose on the Newcastle and Carlisle line, and thereby the traffic would be thrown into a circuitous route. It was highly important, therefore, that the Newcastle and Carlisle should be kept a perfectly independent line. Mr. Hudson had evidently thought that it would be highly advantageous to the line with which he was connected to get pos- 1144 session of the line which crossed it at right angles, for he had made a communication to the shareholders of the eastern line, when he proposed the amalgamation, which sufficiently disclosed the real object of this Bill, and showed the effect it was to have. The right hon. Baronet here read a passage from the document he referred to, and which was to the effect that "the directors were precluded by obvious considerations from giving publicity to all the details, and the various circumstances from which the conclusion must be drawn, that the control of these lines from Newcastle to Carlisle, and from Carlisle to Maryport, would be of vital importance to the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Company. The inclosed map showed how protective to the eastern route would be the possession of the line from Newcastle to Carlisle." Nothing could be more expressive and intelligible than this. It would enable the directors of the eastern line to obtain a complete monopoly, and debar the western line from all communication with Newcastle and the east. He found that the Railway Board had been desirous of inserting the necessary protective clauses, but that the railroad speed with which the promoters of the Bill proceeded, had deprived them of the opportunity, and before they could effect that object the Bill had passed. Under these circumstances, those who thought that the public interests on the western coast were at stake, were driven to a course which he admitted was unusual, that of rejecting the Lords' Amendments at the last moment. He would not now go into the question of the audit clause, as it would be a waste of time if the Amendments were rejected. He had formed the most distinct opinion that the public interest would be best consulted by the rejection of this Bill, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that the opinions he was about to express were those of himself alone, and were not to be received as those of other Members of the Government. The inconvenience of transferring questions of this kind from Committees to the House at large, had been frequently urged, and his decided opinion was, that the precedent of that House taking upon itself to reverse the decision of its Committees, would be most dangerous. It must be a very clear and strong case indeed which could induce him to vote as a private Member of Parliament in a manner adverse to a previous opinion of 1145 a Committee of the House; and he could not give a better proof of his sincerity than by the vote he was about to give against his right hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Perth. He had no doubt that had he been a Member of the Committee he should have voted against the Bill; but to set the Board of Railways as an authority above that House, was not placing that board in the position in which it ought to stand. It was the duty of the Railway Board to furnish the Committees of the House with details and information, and the decision of the Committees should be final. Therefore, although as a Commissioner of Railways he was against this Bill, much on the same grounds as those stated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, yet, upon the principle laid down as to the practice of the House not to reverse the decisions of its Committees, and also thinking that injustice would be done to the parties by the rejection of this Bill in its present stage, he should vote for agreeing to these Amendments.

§ SIR J. GRAHAM
asked whether it was not the intention of Earl Granville, on the part of the Railway Commissioners, to move two clauses—the equal rate and running clauses—and whether he was not prevented by the rapidity with which the measure was passed from moving those clauses, which, it seemed, could not now be added?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it was quite true that it was the intention of the Railway Commissioners to suggest some clauses—he did not say these two—which they thought would have been desirable, though not absolutely necessary.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that he had been, almost from the commencement of that undertaking, interested in the London and North-Western Railway, and he had also the honour of representing the interests of the town of Liverpool. In referring to the manner in which the Bill had been carried through the other House, he considered that after the powerful manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth had stated the merits of the case, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any further details; but having the honour to represent there no inconsiderable portion of those interests on the western side of the island, he had a right to protest against their—under shelter of a mere technical error—interfering to consign the link between the eastern and western sides of the island to one 1146 party without the benefit of equal running clauses, and thereby, for the mere sake of a technical objection, building up a wall stronger than a wall of brass between the free communication between the port of Newcastle and the port of Liverpool.

§ MR. T. GREENE
said, there was a considerable degree of principle involved in the course the House was about to adopt; and although he felt he should incur some unpopularity by his vote, he felt bound to resist the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments would be good upon the second or the third reading; but after the promoters had gone to enormous expense, he objected to advantage being taken, at the close of the Session, of a ground of opposition which had failed before. Let the Amendments be considered one by one; but to throw out the Bill upon its merits at this stage, was a step he should be sorry to see the House take.

§ MR. FOX MAULE
explained that if it had been practicable for him to have taken the Amendments in detail, he would have done so; but there were technical objections which compelled him to adopt the course he had.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
inquired if the two clauses referred to were necessary in consequence of the Amendments made in the Bill by the Lords; if so, the House ought to support the view of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon; but, if not, he did not think they would be justified in reversing the decision of the Committees of both Houses.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
replied in the negative, adding that the running clauses could have been advantageously introduced if the Bill had been unaltered.

§ MR. SPOONER
, as an ordinary rule, thought the decisions of Committees ought to be supported by the House; but where an amalgamation had taken place, by which a monopoly might, as had been shown, be created without running clauses and equal rate clauses being inserted, the case was otherwise. The best course would be to throw out the Bill, for the House had no right to inflict injury upon third parties.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
explained, in reference to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that equal running clauses had frequently, but not universally, been introduced into Railway Bills.