SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL. (Hansard, 13 February 1851)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that that Bill was one of so novel and unprecedented a character, that he felt it was his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject. It was not a Bill for granting certain powers to a railway company in the usual acceptation of that term, but for conferring those powers on four individuals who were to be allowed to add indefinitely to their numbers. He did not think it necessary that he should then enter into the details of the measure, but he should observe that it contained many provisions which appeared to him to be of a highly-objectionable character. Under these circumstances, he had caused a communication to be made that morning to the agents who had charge of the Bill, and he had let them know that he felt very much inclined to recommend them to postpone its second reading for a limited period, and that if they did not do so, he should probably deem it his duty to advise the House to reject the measure. The agents had told him that it would cause the greatest inconvenience and expense to postpone the second reading; and they assured him that, if he would, offer no opposition to the second reading, they would not consider that he was in any degree 504 pledged to the support of the principle of the Bill, and that he should be at liberty to oppose that as well as the details in the Committee. He had, upon that understanding, consented, so far as he was concerned, to the Bill passing the second reading; but at the same time he felt bound to state to the House what was the principle of the Bill, and to point out to them the extreme care and vigilance with which its provisions should be examined before it received the assent of the House.

§ MR. WILSON PATTEN
concurred with Mr. Labouchere that the Bill was one which should be assented to by the House with the greatest caution. He was decidedly opposed to its provisions from what he had seen of them. He believed that the best course was for the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade to take the Bill into consideration, and see whether it was possible to pass the Bill in any form whatever, and with what alterations. If the Bill remained in its present form, he thought the House would find it its duty to reject it.

§ MR. HUME
said, he thought that a Railway Board of a very opposite character to that which formerly existed should be appointed to see that no objectionable proceedings should take place. If the Bill in question were of the objectionable character referred to, he thought that Members should be allowed time to consider whether the Bill should be allowed to pass its second reading or not.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that under the system adopted when the Railway Board was in existence, breviates stating the nature of the Bill would have been in the hands of every Member, and he had endeavoured to supply the absence of that information in the best way he could.

§ MR. SPOONER
thought that it was incumbent on the House not to adopt the principle of the Bill. He thought that the promoters of the Bill and the landowners, whose property it was proposed to take, should not be subjected to the expense of appearing before the Committee. If the principle of the Bill were so bad, it should be postponed. He moved that the second reading should be postponed to that day week.