§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would remind the House that at the beginning of the Session a Committee had been appointed to consider a subject not the least important, and perhaps the most difficult, that could be referred to a tribunal of that nature. The Resolutions he had now the honour to bring forward had met with the unanimous approval of the Select Committee on Railways. At the beginning of the Session the House had to deal with no less than 167 Railway Bills. Of those eighty-two involved combinations of interests between different companies. In order to understand the magnitude of those interests, he would quote only one or two examples. An arrangement was contemplated on the part of the London and North Western Railway Company, which involved a capital of 60,000,000l., and an annual revenue of 4,000,000l. It also involved the possession of 1,200 miles of railway, and the possession of the whole of the communication between all the towns north of the Thames. The case of the Great Western Railway Company was one involving the question of the different gauges, as well as many other important questions. In Scotland, again, among other questions raised, was one, whether the two lines which connected Edinburgh and Glasgow should be entrusted to different companies, or whether a combination of interests should be sanctioned by Parliament. In Ireland a question was raised whether the Great Midland Railway Company should become the purchasers of the great canals in that country, and, by being such, become possessed of all the inland water communication between the city of Dublin and the west of Ireland, as far as the Shannon. The House felt that it would be improper to refer questions of this nature to Select Committees on separate Railway Bills, from which conflicting decisions might not unnaturally be expected to flow, and therefore it appointed a Committee particularly to consider the whole subject, and recommend such a course of action as should to them appear advisable for the House to adopt. He had not the honour at that 1201 period of being a Member of the House, and was not therefore present when the discussion upon those subjects took place; but it was since his duty to conduct the deliberations of the Committee appointed to inquire into those questions of railway amalgamations. That Committee found that they were dealing with questions involving no less than 250,000,000l. of raised capital, and with an annual revenue of 15,000,000l., which was gradually increasing. They considered also that the convenience, the freedom, and the economy of all classes of the community were in a great measure dependent upon their decisions, as it was shown by the returns before them that there were no less than 85,000,000 of persons removed within the year from one place to another by means of railway communication. The Committee also felt that they were dealing with the question involving the internal transit of goods from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. Amongst many other subjects which they had to consider was that affecting the great body of landed proprietors, which gave rise to complicated and difficult questions, requiring the most anxious and careful attention of Parliament. But, above all others, the Committee felt that they were dealing with the great question of the public safety, and were to consider how those lamentable accidents that unfortunately too frequently occurred could be averted or diminished by prudent legislation. Whatever might be the opinion of the House, the Committee were unanimously of opinion that, as an inquiry of this magnitude had devolved upon them, they were bound to deal with it, and carefully, diligently, and deliberately to investigate this important subject to the utmost—that they should neither come to any hasty conclusion, nor forget this—that whatever private interests were involved upon one side or the other, there was but one interest paramount for them to consider, namely, the community at large, the interests of which were involved, not only in the whole question, but in every part of it. They had had elaborate arguments addressed to them by able and competent men, representing the different interests concerned. On the one side they had heard arguments in favour of a greater combination of interests, and of more extensive amalgamations; and on the other, apprehensions entertained of the danger arising from Parliament precipitately giving up any of its powers in respect to rail- 1202 way amalgamation. The first great name in history by whom this question was considered was Mr. Huskisson. That eminent man dealt with the case by the application of one general principle—namely, by the limitation of the profit to be derived from tolls to 10 per cent. The application of that general principle, however, failed, because the mode and manner of managing those great undertakings turned out to be totally different to what was anticipated when it was propounded. At a subsequent period this duty of dealing with the case devolved upon an able man, of great courage and sagacity—he meant the Marquess of Dalhousie. That noble Lord did not seek to adapt any general principle to the case of railways, but laboured to obtain information upon all the details of each particular railway. His Lordship's operations, however, did not meet with that success to which their great merit was entitled. Such was the question which, at the beginning of the Session, was submitted to the inquiry of a Select Committee. He (Mr. Cardwell) now thought that the time had arrived at which it was absolutely necessary to decide upon what the House ought to do with the Bills for railway amalgamation, which were waiting for a second reading. After giving the most patient consideration to the subject, the Committee were unanimously of opinion that they could not ask the House to part with any of its powers in respect to those amalgamations, and that all such Bills should be postponed until next Session. There was another question which they had had necessarily to consider—namely, the new works going forward in various localities, and which were promoted by persons interested in the neighbourhood, and earnestly desiring to increase the advantages of railway communication. The Committee had been most anxious to meet that wish, and to interfere with it as little as possible, or not at all. There was another class of Bills—namely, those generally called "fighting Bills"—projected by persons who had no intention of completing them, by speculative solicitors and engineers who sought to obtain the sanction of Parliament to a Bill, and then put it up to auction among the companies already in existence. The Committee felt it their duty to take care, pending inquiry, that no such Bills should he permitted to proceed. They were determined to put a stop to those Bills, in case the parties refused to give any evidence of the 1203 sincerity of their purpose for the prosecution of their proposed lines. They, therefore, would not advise the House to allow any of those Bills to proceed proposing the construction of lines which had merely an existence on paper. It was obvious, however, that upon those subjects there was a logical territory outside which those principles could not apply. The Committee meant to prevent amalgamations, but they did not mean to prevent the execution of new works. What, then, was to be done in respect to new works of importance, which were to be done by companies united for that purpose? In such cases the Select Committee did not propose that those principles should apply absolutely: but that each case of that kind should be subjected to the investigation of a Committee of five members appointed in the ordinary way. In regard to Ireland, the case differed materially. England was already traversed by numerous railroads, while Ireland had very few. And those fighting or fictitious lines, which were used as a means of offence or defence in England, did not exist at all in Ireland. On the contrary, the difficulty there was to obtain capital to make local lines. That being so, the Committee thought proper to exempt Ireland from the operation of the second resolution. They were desirous of bringing before the House at the earliest possible period the result of their inquiry. The first Resolution contained a recommendation to the House not to part with its powers over any incorporated companies. The second Resolution went to prevent any more speculative lines obtaining the sanction of Parliament, when it was evident that it was not intended that such lines should ever be constructed.
§ The First Resolution having been read,
MR. WHALLEYsaid, whatever might be the merits of the Resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, there could be no doubt that they would interpose a serious check to railway enterprise; but his object in rising was to urge upon the Government the necessity of a change in the mode of dealing in that House with this most valuable class of interests. On a former occasion he took the liberty of suggesting whether it was not desirable to refer to a Select Committee the inquiry whether the course adopted with regard to other classes of private business might not be resorted to in the case of railways. It was totally impossible so to constitute the Committees of that House as to make them 1204 tribunals that would give confidence to the promoters of railways, or even such as could carry out the great objects involved in those undertakings. Nothing would be a sufficient remedy that did not include the appointment of a Board regularly constituted, for the purpose of originating, by local inquiries, such measures as ought to be sanctioned, and otherwise carrying out the powers intrusted to it by the House.
§ MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he differed entirely from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, when he stated that Committees of that House were incapable of dealing he these questions. For nine years he had been connected with Railway Bills passing through that House, and the difficulty which he found existing in all those cases was, not that the Committees were incapable of dealing with these questions, but that they had acted without particular instructions. He hoped the time was come when the Committees would be dignified with instructions embracing general directions as to the principles on which they should act. He would not oppose the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, but must take the opportunity of saying that there was an omission which he viewed with some concern in the fourth Report of the Committee. He found no allusion to the immense depreciation which railway property had experienced. On this point he might state that the capital of forty English, nine Scotch, and thirteen Irish railways, exclusive of all guaranteed shares, loans on mortgage, and leased branches, amounted to 132,222.000l. This enormous property was selling in the market for only 109,849,000l., being a depreciation of upwards of 22,373,000l. Now, twelve French railways cost a sum of 21,244,000l., and their present value was 40,170,000l., an increase of 90 per cent. He asked them if it were not desirable to regard with extreme caution any measures that might have the effect of driving capital from this country to be embarked in foreign investments of the profitable character to which he had just referred? There were at present schemes presented to the public of foreign and colonial enterprise, embracing sums of not less than forty millions of money, to be spent in railway construction, and chiefly under a guarantee of a fixed annual interest secured by the Governments in whose territories these railways were to be constructed. He hoped the time had arrived when, 1205 by the assistance of the distinguished Members who composed the Committee, whose Resolutions they were about to adopt, the outlay of capital would be as much encouraged, and as beneficial, at home as abroad.
§ MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, whether advantage would or would not be gained to the public from these Resolutions, there could be no doubt that great disadvantage would accrue to a great number of railway undertakings. There were many cases in which all the arrangements had been made by railway companies for going before Select Committees of that House, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a strong measure when he took all such cases out of the hands of Select Committees, in order that he might hereafter dictate to them what they were to do. Again, the House had no promise that the railway companies should know what they were to expect from the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had had before him the best evidence that could possibly be procured; but, notwithstanding that, he could not make up his mind exactly what he had to do in the case of amalgamation. It was his misfortune to be chairman of a railroad, the value of the shares of which would be materially affected by the question of whether there was to be an amalgamation with another railroad or not. He was prepared to show that that amalgamation would be a great public advantage, and he was prepared also to accept the amalgamation subject to future legislation. Considerable expense had been incurred with the view of bringing the matter before a Select Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman came clown to the House, and, without knowing anything at all about the case—or at least having heard only one side—told them they would not be heard, or be allowed to bring the case before Parliament. He protested against such a course. They ought to be allowed to go on as they were doing till something better was proposed, but he protested against being told not to go on at all. As to the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was chairman, he must say he did not think they had any peculiar fitness for the duty which they had undertaken. Indeed, one of the qualifications for the Committee seemed to be that the Members should have no particular knowledge of railway matters.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he felt it only due to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee to say that he 1206 preferred the statement made by him, and the recommendation made by the Committee, to the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. L. Ricardo). He should regret very much if these Resolutions were hostile to the interests of railway companies; but he was warranted in saying that on the whole the railway interest was satisfied with the course which the Committee had recommended. It must be obvious to the House that they had arrived at a great crisis in railway affairs, and that it was necessary, if they would do their duty to the public, and to railways also, not to allow those undertakings to take their chance before Committees of that House. The question of amalgamation was one that the House must deal with one way or another. Matters were going on in such a way that if a check was not provided, they might soon see the whole of the railways of this country combined under one system; and the effect of such a combination upon the public interest it was hardly possible to over-estimate. It behoved the House to consider well the effect that would be produced on the communications of the country before they sanctioned a state of things that could lead to such a result. The matter was altogether too important to be left to the haphazard decision of Committees of that House. He would support the Resolutions, which he believed would be for the benefit of the railway interest as well as that of the public.
§ MR. D. WADDINGTONsaid, he was of opinion that the Resolutions were of a highly conservative character, and that they were worthy of a favourable reception by the House. He was persuaded that the recommendations of the Committee would prove of the highest value to railway property, and to the safety of the public. There could be no doubt that there were such beings as speculative attorneys and speculative engineers, who, in suggesting aggressive proceedings against companies already in existence, were influenced less by a desire to advance the interests of the public, than by an anxiety to promote their own aggrandisement; and he believed that the Resolutions would have a salutary effect in restraining the mischievous proceedings of such persons. He believed that the course adopted by the Committee, though startling at the first glance, would eventually give stability to railway property, and contribute to the security of the public.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, he thought it would be unpardonable in the House to run the risk of sacrificing large railway interests for the sake of particular or individual interests that might stand in the way. He was sensible that parties might be subjected to inconvenience by the adoption of the Resolutions, but he was equally sensible that hitherto the great evil had been that too much attention had been paid to private and individual questions, while the public interests had been completely lost sight of. It was very much the result of their legislation that railway property was now in the position described by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. James M'Gregor), and that railways on the other side of the Channel had such an advantage over ours at the present moment. He admitted that, as a means of trying individual questions and individual interests, nothing could be more effective than Select Committees of that House; but, as the means of promoting the public interest, nothing could be worse. He hoped the result of the Committee's deliberations would be to promote an improvement in the constitution of those Committees, and that during the recess the Government would be able to prepare a measure on the subject.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would remind the House that there were a great number of railway schemes in existence—a great portion of which had entailed large costs upon the promoters in order to bring them before the House. It appeared to him that as regarded the second Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, it would amount to an ex-post facto law.
§ MR. GLYNsaid, he cordially approved of all the Resolutions, and was particularly anxious that the "compounding clause" should be retained. He observed, however, with regret, one omission from the report of the Committee on a question which related very intimately to the safety of the public. He alluded to the question of "mixed gauges"—a question which assumed additional importance from the fact that several of the Railway Bills which were now on their passage to Select Committees asked for the power to have a mixed gauge. The highest engineering authorities in England had given it as their deliberate opinion that no more ingenious method could be devised for adding to the insecurity of railway travelling than to have a mixed gauge. He could have wished that the Committee had considered the question and sent instructions 1208 on the subject to the Select Committees who would have to consider the various Railway Bills now before the House.
§ MR. CARDWELL,in reply, said that the question of the mixed gauge, although an important one, had not been brought so prominently before the notice of the Committee as to justify them in giving any special instruction to Select Committees upon the subject.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ The remaining Resolutions were then put from the Chair, and agreed to.