HC Deb 20 April 1858 vol 149 cc1376-401

MR. LIDDELL, on moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the delay in the construction of railways in India, said, he did not claim any special knowledge entitling him to the attention of the House, but his motive at least in bringing forward the subject was not unworthy or an interested one. He believed that the causes of the defects in the railway system in India were so apparent, and the difficulties which had attended them so easy of solution, that they only needed discussion in that House to ensure their removal. The most remarkable features of our national industry were the energy and perseverance with which we were generally accustomed to encounter and overcome difficulties in the prosecution of a favourite scheme. Our engineers, manufacturers, and merchants were not in the habit of brooking obstruction in their great operations, nor was delay the normal condition of British enterprise. But delay had, from the commencement, attended our construction of railways in India. As far back as 1841 this question was brought officially under the notice of the Indian Government, by that great man, Sir M'Donald Stcphenson, to whose persevering energy he wished, in passing, to pay a humble tribute of admiration. The Great East Indian Railway Company was formed in May, 1845. Sir M'Donald Stephenson and his staff of engineers went out in the July of that year, and the survey of the route to Delhi, by Miizapore—which was the original plan—was completed in April 1846. Mr. Simm's Report, giving required information to the Court of Directors, was received in July, 1846. Sir M'Donald Stephenson returned home in June of that year, and Sir George Larpent, then chairman of the company, wrote to the Court of Directors, expressing the company's readiness to enter into the contract, and form the necessary arrangements for carrying on the work from Calcutta to Delhi. All sorts of difficulties were raised by the Indian Government at home, whoso conduct in these negotiations was marked by hesitation, and if the scheme had been taken up with the earnestness which its importance demanded, much unnecessary delay would have been obviated; but difficulties were multiplied, and the Indian Government appeared averse to entering into the requisite arrangements, as to the guarantee and other matters, so that at one time the dissolution of the Railway Company seemed almost at hand. Then came the crisis of 1847–8, when, commercial credit being shaken to its foundation, money could not easily be obtained. Still, in spite of these difficulties, the Bills for the Indian trunk lines were passed through Parliament in 1848, owing, in a great measure, to the praiseworthy exertions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), at whose absence that evening he might be allowed to express his regret. About the cud of 1850 an experimental line was sanctioned, from Calcutta to Raneegunge, and the work was commenced in the beginning of 1851. They had now arrived at the year 1858, and yet only about 300 miles of railway had been opened through the whole of India. The last report furnished by the East Indian Government showed that the mileage now open was thus distributed between the three Presidencies:—121 miles in Bengal, 87 in Bombay, and 91 in Madras. He had been informed that evening, though he could not vouch for the accuracy of the statement, that within a very recent period a portion of the section of the Great East Indian line from Allahabad to Cawnpore had been opened. He should, however, be wanting in candour if he did not explain that the assertion that only 300 miles had been completed was not altogether a fair representation of the progress of these works; for, pari passu, there had been executed, or were in course of execution, several hundreds of miles in the different Presidencies. One great cause of delay, in regard to the Great East Indian line, arose from the direction of the railway having been changed at the instance of the Government. It was originally proposed that the line should run straight to Mirzapore; but, after being duly sanctioned, the direction was altered, so as to pass through Rajmahal, by Patna, and up the valley of the Ganges. Then came the Santhal rebellion, which obstructed the prosecution of the works. The existing mutiny had also greatly interfered with the completion of the great trunk line. He believed, however, that the mischief caused to the works by the insurgents was not very material, and that when peace was restored to that unhappy country, this great project would be carried rapidly forward. In the Great Indian Peninsular scheme, which was being executed in the Bombay Presidency, there was the natural difficulty of surmounting the ghauts to encounter. The carrying of this railway over the Bhore Ghaut would be one of the greatest engineering feats which the world had, perhaps, ever seen. The lines in Madras could he more readily constructed. Another obstacle was that, whereas the lines were generally carried along the course of the rivers, the affluent streams must be crossed in most cases at their broadest points, thereby rendering the bridging works very arduous. But, if such were the difficulties which presented themselves, it should be remembered, on the other hand, that there were many important facilities offered to railway enterprise in India. In the first place, the country was generally flat in its character, so that engineering difficulties would be few; and, secondly, labour was extremely cheap. The services of as many men as they pleased could be obtained for 3d. per day, and those of women and children for 2d. Again, the calculation of the cost of railways was something under £10.000 per mile for the whole of India, and over a great portion of that country they were being constructed at £6,000 or £7,000 per mile. The average cost of the 8,000 miles of railway which intersected England was £33,000 per mile. In order, however, to consider the subject in all its bearings, it would he necessary to inquire into the exact relations between the Government and the railway companies. Every one surely would allow that England owed railways to India, in return for the very large revenue which she derived from the country. We were bound to confer on the millions over whom we ruled those blessings of rapid and casy communication which every civilized menarch was now endeavouring to extend to his subjects. The Government, however, had neither the money nor the means for constructing railways itself, and therefore it had wisely banded over their execution to private enterprise. But capitalists were averse to investing their resources in the carrying out of such schemes without the sanction and encouragement of the State; and it was not unreasonable that the Government, in return for their guarantee, should insist upon exercising a certain amount of supervision, to protect themselves from an undue or extravagant expenditure on the part of the companies. The conditions into which the Government and the companies mutually entered were, that the latter should find the money and construct the lines where the Government liked, when the Government liked, and as the Government liked. In other words, the Government selected the direction of the line, and altered it, if it saw fit; it could force on the works, or retard them at its pleasure, controlling their execution, and supervising those by whom they were carried on. On the other hand, the Government gave the land, and he believed that the estimated value of the land was about £1,000,000 sterling; and he might say, in passing, that he should be rather curious to hear on what basis that calculation had been arrived at. He should like to know how much had been paid to the ryots in compensation for the land given up. The Government, as he said before, agreed to guarantee from 4½ to 5 per cent. on the amount of the capital expended, and, in order to protect themselves from undue expenditure in the works on the part of the companies, they claimed under the contract a very large amount of supervision and control. There were other agreements to which it was hardly necessary for him to allude—such as that the companies might at any time surrender the works of the Government, and the Government were bound to take them, or the Government might at particular periods —at the lapse of 25 or 50 years—take the works into their own hands, paying the price for them, calculated on three years' value of the shares; and in case of mismanagement, or of a company failing in the construction of the works, the Government might take possession of them, repaying the cost of construction. He was aware that these conditions could not be altered in regard to the works with respect to which they had been entered info; but, looking forward to a very large extension of railway enterprise in India, he thought it quite worthy of consideration whether the terms of contract might not be in future with advantage materially modified. It. was clear that the whole question lay in the mode in which, and the extent to which, the Government supervision was exercised; and it was to that point, they should mainly apply themselves. The extent to which the Government supervision was exercised might be understood from the section of the contract, which stated that the railway companies and their officers should in all things be subject to the superintendence and control of the East India Company, as well in India as elsewhere, and that no by-law or contract should be entered into unless sanctioned by the East India Company, &c. So much for the power of control; and he would quote instances of the effect of this system, which he maintained was naturally productive of delay. He was not going in this matter to speak without book, or to make vague charges against individuals, for it was of the system alone that he complained, and what he stated he would state on reliable authority—published railway documents, open to all the world. As an illustration of his argument, he would confine himself to the Presidency of Madras, to which the rebellion had never extended. The first great cause of difficulty and obstruction was, he believed, in most instances, if not in every instance, the consulting engineer, who was the person intrusted by the Government with the control and supervision of the works. This engineer was a military man; and while he wished to speak with all possible respect of the scientific branches of the army, he humbly thought that a military man, however skilful in the construction of a fortress or the defence of a position, was completely out of his sphere in reference to the construction of railway bridges, tunneling, or embankments. Taking the reverse of the case, let them suppose an eminent civil engineer, appointed by the caprice of the Government to control a military engineer engaged in arduous military duties, and to have a veto on all his operations, was it not probable that such a course of proceeding would involve loss and disaster to the country? It was not surprising then that a civil engineer was naturally vexed at finding a military engineer controlling him in his proceedings, and this consequently led to a want of that unity of operation absolutely essential in the conduct of great works. It might naturally be supposed that a railway company, intrusted with the construction of a great work, would be left at liberty to select its own staff of engineers and inspectors, to form its own contracts, find its own materials, and obtain its own stores from home or elsewhere in the best and most expeditious way it could. So far from this being the case, not one arrangement with respect to these matters was allowed to be made without the direct sanction of the Government. With respect to the inspectors, he need not remind the House that their duties were of a very delicate nature, which it required a skilful person to perform, especially as a great part of their functions consisted in the instruction of unskilled labour; yet the Government would not allow the railway authorities to select their own agents for this office, and forbad them to obtain them out of the country, though they were not to be obtained in the country. With respect to contracts, he was informed that the Natives in many parts of India did not, strictly speaking, understand the nature of contracts at all, and frequently threw them up just at the very moment when it was important that they should be carried on. He was told that the best mode of obtaining certain supplies was by simply paying ready money, and procuring the article on the spot at the lowest price; but against this system the Government absolutely set its face. He was informed that in some parts of India great difficulty was experienced in obtaining timber. He had heard of a case in which the railway engineers had requested the Government to sanction the purchase of 3,000 sleepers. It so happened that a portion of these sleepers were composed of a description of wood which was not included in the authorised list, and the consulting engineer refused his sanction, insisting that the botanical name of the wood should be given. A long correspondence took place on the subject, and it turned out that the wood, which was most durable and serviceable, and stated to be so by the railway engineers, was known in the part of the country where it was to be used by a different name from that which it bore in the place where it was produced, and it was eventually accepted under its new name; a considerable period had elapsed, however, before this was done, and the correspondence occupied several pages of the railway report. It frequently happened, from the circuitous mode in which the correspondence between the local Governments and the railway companies was carried on, that when stores were required from England, so much delay occurred in obtaining the sanction of the Government in India and at home for their purchase that they were not received until the lapse of some sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen months after they were ordered, and when they were obtained the necessity for them had not unfrequently ceased to exist. He had actually read of a case in which the Governor in Council had entered into a discussion with the railway authorities as to the proper position for a water-closet in one of the stations. But without troubling the House with minute details, if hon. Members would picture to themselves every conceivable interference in frivolous and vexatious matters of detail they might form some idea of the railway system of construction, and the aggregate of which details formed the sum of the delays complained of. A similar system of obstruction and interference was carried on when the line was opened for general traffic. As soon as a line of railway was completed, the consulting engineer obtained the control of the locomotive and traffic departments, and until within a recent period, he had the power of preventing the traffic manager from despatching special engines even when they were required for the public service. Nor was this all, for, great as were the obstructions in India, the system pursued at home, with regard to the construction of Indian railways, was just as productive of the most tedious delays. He might mention, for instance, that the scheme for the Bombay and Baroda line of railway was first submitted to the consideration of the Indian Government in 1853, and in August of that year the survey was authorised. On the 20th of September the surveying party left England, and in April, 1854, a report and survey were furnished to the local Government for 1,114 miles of railway; but it was not till April 1855, that the sanction of the Indian Government was obtained for the construction of a portion of that line, which happened to be the portion that would be the least advantageous and remunerative, for it terminated at Surat, a port closed by the monsoons for four months, and only suitable for small boats at the best. It was not until after three years' pressure that the Homo Government, in November last, had sanctioned the extension of the line to Bombay. He observed in the Report of the Indian Government last year a paragraph in which they claimed credit for the rapidity with which railways had been constructed in that country; but he would ask the House to compare the progress which had been made with regard to railway communication in India and in the United States. Since 1830 no less than 26,000 miles of railway had been constructed in the United States, or on an average nearly 1,000 miles per annum, while in India only 300 miles had been completed within a period of eight years. He should not trouble the House at much greater length, but there was one feature of the subject which he must present to them before he sat down. He need hardly say that he alluded to the effect which a more complete system of railway communication would have produced upon the recent military operations in India. If there was one lesson more than another which late disturbances taught us, it was, that it was impossible to rely on Native troops, and it was necessary to employ Europeans to a greater extent than heretofore. They must have more European troops, and as the lives of European troops were too valuable to allow of their being stationed in unhealthy places, the power of concentrating our soldiers on any given point at the shortest possible notice was of the utmost importance, and this could only be done by an extended system of internal communication, Colonel Kennedy, who returned to this country in 1852, had made a report on the military occupation of India, in which he calculated that a most important reduction might be made in the numerical force of our Indian army if such a system were in existence— a reduction which would effect a saving of something like £2,500,000 per annum, of military expenditure, representing a capital at 4 per cent. of nearly £60,000,000 of money, or almost twice the amount now estimated as sufficient to complete all the lines of railway sanctioned by the Indian Government. On commercial, on military, on economical grounds, therefore, it was the absolute duty of the Government to forward the extension of railways to the utmost of their power. He had endeavoured to show the cumbrous and intricate system by which it was proposed to construct the lines of railway, and, looking forward to a large and rapid extension of railways in India, he thought it absolutely necessary to change that system. It was not for him to propose a remedy; but if the Government were to have all plans and surveys laid before them, to institute an audit of the accounts at particular periods, and, if necessary, tie down the railway companies to complete the construction of the line within a given period, leaving them to find their own labour, their own materials, and the means of carrying out the works, he believed those works would be constructed much more rapidly and efficiently. All that he had said, and more, he could prove before a Committee if it were granted him, and he would now, therefore, move for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes that have led to the delay that had occurred in the construction of railways in India.

MR. CRAWFORD

seconded the Motion for the purpose of showing that the companies charged with the construction of railways in India were ready and willing to submit themselves to any inquiry it might please the House to proscribe. He reminded the House that he had intended himself by notice, given at the close of the last Session of Parliament, to bring the matter before the House; but as the hon. Member had given notice of his Motion, and he had found on communicating with him that their views were in many respects identical, he thought it better to content himself with supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member founded his Motion on the delay which it was supposed had taken place in the construction of these railways. The delay charged might have proceeded from two causes— one over which no one could exercise any control, the state of the country—the other from default, either on the part of the companies or the Government. Now it was not till 1830 that the first great railway was opened in this country, whilst it was not till 1833 that the royal assent was given for the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway; and the Bills for the construction of the Brighton and South-Eastern lines passed in 1836 and 1837. Shortly afterwards the subject of railways in India attracted the notice of Mr. Stephenson, now Sir Macdonald Stephenson, and another gentleman, Mr. John Chapman, who went to India to investigate the question and to make the necessary surveys. Sir Macdonald Stephenson returned from India in 1844, and forthwith published a well-considered and digested scheme. He formed an association, the East Indian Railway Company, and in 1845 the chairman of that association placed himself, for the first time, in communication with the Directors of the East India Company, who on the 7th of May framed a minute, in which they laid down the views they entertained on the subject. They stated that they could not agree to railways being constructed in India until they had received the report of an engineer whom they proposed to send out. Accordingly, in the same year, Mr. Simms went out for this purpose. On his return, the Directors of the Company lost no time in digesting, considering, and submitting to the Board of Control a proposal for the introduction of a railway system into India. It was to that Board, and not to the last India Company, that, in this as in many other instances, the whole blame was attributable for the delay in the progress of railways in India. The proposal of the Government was, that two large sections of railways should he made in Bengal, one in the Upper and one in the Lower Provinces; that £5,000,000 sterling should he laid out upon them; and that 4 per cent per annum should he guaranteed to companies who would undertake this project upon the principle of a lease of the line for ninety-nine years. The Board of Control overruled this proposal, and called upon the Court of Directors to propose a guarantee of 4 per cent for fifteen years. Now, it was one of the terms upon which the railway companies undertook these large functions and responsibilities that they should he secured a certain adequate annual return for the risk they ran in embarking their property in an enterprise so remote from this country, and so far beyond the immediate control of any governing body here. These companies, therefore, were obliged to decline the proposal made to them. Subsequently, interviews took place between the directors and the companies, in which the matter was discussed, and the result was, that a dividend of 5 per cent was asked for, and was eventually accorded for twenty-five years. The Court of Directors, in a communication which was highly creditable to them, had informed the Board of Control that the more they considered the subject the more they were convinced that it was incumbent upon the Government of India to adopt measures to insure the early construction of one or more experimental lines in the Bengal Presidency; hut they stated at; the same time that unless more favourable terms were offered to the railway company the great object in view would fail in accomplishment. So it proved to be. In the same year certain terms were agreed upon. It was understood that the railway company should be empowered to construct a portion of a line in Bengal, and in order to give a substantial character to the company, they were required to pay into the treasury of the East India Company the sum of £100,000 in three months. Everything seemed to be progressing satisfactorily; Mr. Stephenson, with an adequate staff of officers, was again despatched to India, when the great commercial crisis occurred in August. The result of course was, that great difficulty was experienced in getting the money within the specified time, and the arrangement fell to the ground. Nevertheless a proposal was made to the Court of Directors that the time should be extended for a further period of three or four months; but, although a Bill was presented to Parliament in the beginning of the following year, in order to secure to the railway company those immunities without which a public company could not be expected to carry on business, the negotiation with the Court of Directors terminated unsuccessfully by reason of the continuance of the difficulties in the commercial world, in consequence of the revolution in France. Those engaged in the negotiation, however, were not discouraged, but again had an interview with the Court of Directors, the result being the completion of an agreement for the employment of £1,000,000 in the construction of an experimental line in Bengal. Differences again arose with respect to the terms of the contract which had been entered into, and after some further correspondence, including an abortive attempt to enter into an agreement with the Great Indian Peninsula Company, the Board of Control, in 1848, yielding to a strong pressure from without, and after having received an influential deputation from Manchester on the subject, placed itself in communication with the gentlemen engaged in the formation of railway companies, and ultimately consented to the terms which now formed the basis upon which the Indian railways were managed. The principle was acknowledged that the railways should be constructed by private individuals, and not by the Government departments; that the Government should find the land, and that in consideration of that, as well as the pecuniary advantages to be conceded to the railway companies, they should be subjected to the supervision of the Government in respect to the selection of route, the mode of construction, and the practical working of the lines. The question of dividend was settled in this way — the Court of Directors declined to guarantee a dividend upon the capital funds of the railway companies, but undertook to pay a certain annual interest upon a fixed sum, and gave the shareholders the power at any time, or whenever the annual payments might be insufficient to secure to the shareholders that return which they were entitled to expect, of throwing the railways upon the hands of the Government. Another condition was, that the Government should be represented in the railway Boards by an ex officio director, and it was entirely owing to the judgment, temper, and discretion evinced by Sir James Melvill that anything like success had attended the labours of the railway directors. No sooner, however, had that eminently practical man taken his seat at the railway Board than a difficulty arose which he believed had been the cause of nine-tenths of all the embarrassments which had since occurred. It was understood at first that Sir James would act as a plenipotentiary, empowered to consent on behalf of the Government to all the measures proposed by the Boards; but it was soon ascertained that he was bound to report the proceedings of the Boards to the Court of Directors, and to take the opinion of the latter upon them. The House could hardly be aware to what an extent the jealous feeling of the Board of Control influenced it in its proceedings towards the company over which he had the honour to preside. He held in his hand a return showing the number of the Board meetings of the Company since the date of its first sitting, and he found from that document that, while it met once a week the record of its proceedings had in each instance to be submitted to the Court of Directors, and that it could act upon no Resolution which it might come to until it had received the concurrence of the East India House. He found also that the time which elapsed before that concurrence was signified, and before the Board, therefore, could take any steps in accordance with its own decision, generally embraced a period of six weeks. That, he must contend, was a monstrous state of things, and one which ought not to be permitted to exist in the case of a body charged with such important business. He might add that the railway company could not communicate with its own agents in India without the sanction of the Court of Directors. For this sanction they hrd often to wait four or five months, and the result was that a considerable delay in the management of the affairs was occasioned. It was only lately, indeed, that the company had been placed in a position to purchase a single item of railway materials for the construction of its railways without the authority of the Court of Directors signified in writing. In India the state of affairs was, he regretted to have to state, almost equally open to objection. Those gentlemen who were charged in that country with the approval of all the acts of the railway officers, however, he felt bound to say, prevented to some extent the confusion which the system under which they acted was calculated to create, by the conciliatory manner in which their duties were discharged; but the amount of obstruction caused by the mode in which the servants and engineers of the railway were fettered by the necessity of perpetual reference to the Government officers, was hardly to be credited. It was only that very day that he had received a letter from Mr. Turnbull, the chief engineer of the company — a gentleman of great experience in his profession, to the company's agent at Calcutta, in which the writer described as most lamentable, the situation in which he was placed. He stated that he had not the power to appoint a man to do any work under him, even at a salary of £2 a month, without making a formal representation to the constituted authorities of the grounds upon which his services were required and obtaining their assent. On one occasion—so far is the system carried—some of the railway engineers who were staying at a place during the construction of the works, required the construction of a bungalow, little better than a hovel, for their shelter, but before this could be done a reference had to be made to the East India Company's consulting and controlling engineer at Calcutta, who would not grant the permission until he had been furnished with full information as to the reason it was required, and the probable cost of the erection of all similar erections required over a line 300 miles in length. Again, the agent of the Company at Calcutta, being in need of timber, and happening to be thrown in the way of merchants with whom he was anxious to contract far its purchase, sent in a requisition to the Government officers upon the subject; but inasmuch as they required, before they gave their assent to the proposal, to know the special use for which the timber was intended, its quality, and various other particulars with respect to it, the opportunity for a satisfactory arrangement for its supply at the proper moment was lost. With respect to the question of the diversion of a line of railway to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as another cause of the delay which had occurred— he did not mean to say that the Valley of the Ganges would not eventually be the best course for the Government, the country, and the company. But he believed that if the original plan had been carried out we should have been able to send our troops by railway to Mirzapore at the time of the mutiny. The present line was one most difficult of construction, for it was carried over the alluvial soil of the Ganges, along a range of hills, from which in the rainy season torrents flowed down over a constant succession of watercourses and rivers which required the construction of an immense number of bridges, one of which was three times as long as London Bridge, having thirty-two arches of 50 feet span each. And yet, under all these disadvantages, the East India Railway Company, over which he presided, carried on its operations with a vigour and celerity that would bear comparison with those of railway companies more fortunately situated. As a proof of this he would ask the House to compare what had been effected in India with what had taken place in the case of the North-Western line. The Act of Parliament for the construction of that line had been passed in 1833, but four years had elapsed before it had been finally opened for traffic; while in the case of the East India Railway Company, it was not until the month of August, 1851, that their line was determined upon, and not till March, 1852, that they had obtained possession of the whole of the land which they required; yet not quite three years had elapsed before they had opened for traffic a line of railway 122 miles in length perfectly equal, according to the Report of Mr. Rendell, the son of the eminent engineer, who had lately inspected it, in point of structure and durability to any railway in this country. In dealing with the subject the House must not lose sight of the fact that the difficulty of obtaining the requisite materials in India. In England we could get labour, iron, timber, lime, or anything else, whenever and wherever they were wanted. In India, if they were required, you might have to send 500 miles for them. And yet, notwithstanding this difficulty, in addition to those to which he had already alluded, the railway companies had in active construction, at the time of the outbreak of the mutiny, no fewer than 1103 miles of railway. Let hon. Members think of the magnitude of the work represented by that fact, and they would be very far from coming to the conclusion that the companies had been remiss. The East Indian Railway Company had constructed 123 miles, besides a further portion of similar length leading to the Upper Provinces, from Allahabad in the direction of Cawnpore, which had already been found most valuable for the conveyance of troops and munitions of war whilst forty-five miles more were ready for opening in the Lower Provinces. It must be remembered that every locomotive and every piece of iron had to be sent from this country. During the last five or six years the railway company with which he was connected had sent out 122 locomotives and 220,000 tons of railway materials. That enormous amount of freight had been sent out at a less cost for conveyance than would have been charged for sending the same articles from Manchester to London. If any delay had occurred, the fault was not attributable to the railway companies, who would have progressed more rapidly in their operations had they not been hampered by the ridiculous regulations of the Government. If Sir James Melvill was authorised to act on behalf of the Government, and greater freedom of action were given to the railway engineers, the works would proceed at a much greater rate of speed. At present an engineer in India requiring certain articles had to make a requisition, which passed through five or six Departments before it was sanctioned, and the same course had been followed in this country until within a month or two, when the East India Company had the good sense to adopt a more simple and reasonable plan. He thought he had shown that the system under which railways in India were now managed was susceptible of great improvement, and the consequences of any delay which might arise from continuing the present absurd arrangements must be visited upon those who permitted it, and not upon the railway companies.

MR. BAILLIE

was not surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), should have brought this subject before the House if he believed, as no doubt he did, that the construction of Indian railroads had been obstructed by the Government. The question was of great importance to the interests of the people of India as regarded the development of their resources and industry, and of great consequence to the Government in a political and military point of view. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion, that if the great trunk line from Calcutta to Lahore had been finished when the late outbreak occurred many of our disasters might have been avoided. Even the knowledge that the Government could in a few days transport troops from one end of India to the other would have prevented many of those outrages on the part of the Sepoys, which were encouraged by the hope of impunity. Therefore it was the interest of the Government to have the Indian railways completed as soon as possible, and if his hon. Friend could show that, cither through mismanagement or neglect, obstructions had been thrown in the way of these works, the censure which his Resolution implied would be deserved; but he thought he should be able to show the House that there was no real ground of complaint against the late or present Government, and that the delays which had occurred were inherent in the vicious system which had prevailed. He would not enter into the early history of the mismanagement either at the Court of Directors or the Board of Control with regard to the proposals for these lines between 1836 and 1842. He saw no advantage which would result from such a discussion. It would have been better if the Indian Government had adopted the French system of constructing the permanent ways and then leasing them out to companies, and if those ways had been made upon the cheap American instead of upon the expensive English system, which was hardly adapted to a poor country in which such immense distances had to be traversed. Had that system been adopted, the railroads would have been constructed in one-third the time, and at one-third their present cost. However, these were questions which it was now unnecessary to discuss. The first railroad was sanctioned in 1851, and the system under which that and all subsequent ones were undertaken was this: — There was no agreement with the Government as to the length of time which should be occupied in the construction of the line. The spirit of the agreement was simply that the railway company should forthwith commence and diligently proceed with the construction of the line, should open portions of it when completed, and that if they made default in the execution of the works, the East India Company should have possession as a remedy. The extent of railroads under- taken to be constructed was immense. The Great Indian Railway was to be 1,400 miles long, the East Bengal 130, the Madras 740, the Great Indian Peninsular 1,280, the Scinde and Punjab 350, and the Bombay and Baroda 330; making altogether 4,230 miles. The amount of capital to be raised was estimated at £28,000,000, but he believed that the amount actually required would be much larger. Upon the whole of this sum the East India Company had guaranteed interest at the rate of 5 per cent, which made it necessary that they should exercise that active supervision of which both the hon. Members who had addressed the House had so much complained. The fact was, that the parties interested in the amount expended upon the construction of these lines were not the railway companies who would receive interest at the rate of 5 per cent upon all the money they spent; but the East India Company, which guaranteed that rate of interest. In addition to this, however, there was a provision, in virtue of which, if the lines turned out very bad concerns, the companies might turn them over to the Government and claim an indemnification for all that they had expended upon them. Now, it would readily be understood that this supervision on the part of the Government would of necessity frequently bring the officials of the railways and the East India Company into collision; but he did not see how, under the circumstances, this state of things could be altered. He would illustrate his proposition. Suppose, for instance, an engineer went out to India at a salary of £2,000 a year, made his surveys and commenced the lines. As soon as he found that his services were essential to the company he might write home to say that unless his salary were increased by £500 or £1,000 a year he would throw up his employment. The Company would then come to the Government and say that they must consent to this increase or the works would be stopped. If the Government objected to the proposal, they would be brought into collision with the company; and if they agreed to it, a great job would be perpetrated, because the man had agreed to go out for £2,000 a year and had no right to any more. This was a sample of cases which were constantly occurring, and which rendered necessary the active supervision of the Government. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, and the defects of the system, however, the progress of Indian railways had been astonishing. He was surprised that, under all the circumstances they should have got on so well. Of the Great Indian railroad 170 miles were open, and a great portion of the remainder of the line was in a forward state. Unfortunately there had been a difficulty in obtaining bricks, and this had led to a great delay in the completion of the works. The railway company led the Court of Directors to believe that the portion of the line between Burdwan and Rajmahal would be opened in 1858, but on the 25th of September, 1857, a letter was received from the secretary announcing that, owing to the want of bricks, that part of the line could not be opened for six years. That the House might form some idea of the magnitude of the works to be performed, he would state that one bridge contained fifty-five arches of 150 feet span, and would cost £300,000. He believed that was one of the bridges, the construction of which was interrupted by the failure of the supply of bricks; and, in consequence, the engineers had to change their plans, and send to this country for iron girders. In spite of all this, 170 miles of that railroad bad been opened. Then, of the Madras line eighty-five miles were open, although the land was only obtained in 1853; fifteen miles more would be opened on the 1st of May; 200 miles, it was thought, would be opened in 1859, and 400 would probably be completed in 1860. That was nearly as fast as English railroads were constructed, in spite of all the difficulties incident to the construction of railways in India. His hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) had complained of the great delay which had taken place with respect to the portion of the line from Bombay to Baroda. The reason of that delay was this. When a scheme was submitted to the Government, they were obliged to send that scheme over to the Government of India, who had a department for the very purpose, of which Colonel Baker, a very distinguished officer, was at the head, for their opinion upon the subject. The Company, in this instance, wanted the Government to decide before they received a report upon the scheme from India. Of course the Government could not do that, and hence there was some delay. Of course all those railroads had to be sanctioned in India, and he could not doubt that some delay had unavoidably taken place in procuring that sanction in consequence of the vast increase of the business which devolved on the local Government. He really did not see that any great advantage would be derived by submitting all these questions to a Committee. The matters which had occurred at an early period could not be made the subject of inquiry now with any profit, nor was it likely that the mistakes made between 1836 and 1846 would be repeated, while at the present moment the Government was proceeding in this work as rapidly as the difficulties which environed it would permit. Under existing circumstances it would be impossible to give up the present system of supervision exorcised by the Government, though he hoped it might be relaxed to some extent, if possible; and as this Motion would virtually imply censure on the past conduct of the Government, which he did not think was deserved, he regretted to say he could not consent to it.

MR. AYRT0N

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) had done a great service both to the railway interest and the public in bringing forward this Motion, for undoubtedly there were many errors, if not grievances, in the manner in which the Government had conducted itself towards the railway companies. Unquestionably the contract which the railway companies entered into with the Government had been one of great embarrassment to both parties; and he might be permitted to say that, when the Government reserved to itself the absolute power of controlling those companies, it could not have been intended by the Government, and certainly was not expected by the companies, that that control should be exercised in the manner it had been by a daily interference in all their proceedings in detail. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Bail-lie) had adverted to the circumstance of the companies being liable to forfeit their undertakings in the event of their failing to complete them. That was so, but it ought to have been stated at the same time that in that event the Government was liable to repay to them all the money they had expended without any deduction. That might be said to be a reason why the Government was entitled to a still larger degree of supervision. It was, however, melancholy to think that when civil engineers of great knowledge were sent out to India and gave the people there the benefit of their experience, and when they were aided by the counsel of men of the highest eminence in this country they should be subjected to the, control of some younger military engineer in India whose profes- sional education had been of the most limited kind. It was certainly not desirable to encourage such a state of things as that. The hon. Member (Mr. Liddell) only proposed an inquiry into the delay in the construction of railways. That delay had been caused by the system of complication, doubt, and hesitation which the Court of Directors and the whole Government of India had generally displayed in the whole conduct of their affairs. Plans of railways had been sent from England to India for consideration, and they had been sent from one Presidency to another, and kept in one instance by a Governor General for a year before any decision was come to upon them, and years had passed away in some cases before the Government determined what lines should be constructed. He did not, however, think that at present there was any great cause for complaint. Several lines had been sanctioned which would employ capital and labour to a sufficient amount for several years, while for his part he would now rather call on the Government not to proceed with too much rapidity in the construction of lines lest the labour market should become disturbed and they commenced works which they might not be able to complete without interruption. The hon. Secretary appeared to think it would have been desirable from the first to place the construction of railways in India in the hands of the Government. He (Mr. Ayrton) had no doubt, if the Government had undertaken the work, there would not have been at this moment 100 miles of railway constructed or even in the course of construction. The Government had signally failed in almost every undertaking in which they had been engaged, and the delays which had taken place were known to every one. As a specimen of the mode in which the Government carried on public undertakings, he might state that in 1849 he spoks to the secretary of the Governor General in India with reference to a project for the construction of an electric telegraph, when he was told not to trouble himself about the matter, as it would be undertaken by the Government. Now, though the wires might have been put up and the telegraph in working order in twelve months from that time, it was several years before the work was accomplished. That was only one sample of their mode of doing business. Again, the hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of the Government to encourage cheap railways. Now, he must say that this question of cheap railways had been thoroughly discussed by scientific men, and he believed that the conclusion to which they had come was, that the Indian railways were conducted precisely upon that medium system which was neither extravagant in its first cost, nor yet so cheap and undurable as to swallow up the whole of the profits in repairs. The American railways, to which the hon. Secretary had alluded, were constructed under entirely different circumstances; for instance, timber was abundant in America, while in India timber had to some extent been imported from this country for sleepers. He believed, however, that that was in a great measure owing to the Government mismanagement of the forests in India. The hon. Secretary also seemed to think that the railway companies had no interest in this question, because the Government had given them a certain guarantee for their returns. That was a new view of the question to him, who when in India had devoted so much time and attention to promote the introduction of railways that he had been laughed at for wasting time in attempting to compel the Government to do their duty. True it was the shareholders were guaranteed, and the Government were bound to repay them the cost of construction. But did the hon. Gentleman forget that the shareholders were also entitled to half the surplus profits, and, when the Government charges were paid off, to the whole? The hon. Gentleman shook his head as if there would never be any profits on the Indian lines. But the Bombay line, according to the last half-year's report, had realized a net profit of 5 per cent on the average cost of construction of the line now open, and week by week that profit was increasing. When the lines were carried out to their full extent, if they were not too much interfered with by Government, he believed they would realize profits enough to repay the Government, and to leave besides a substantial advantage to the shareholder. He thanked the hon. Member for Northumberland for having brought this subject before the House; but he would recommend him not to press his Motion, as he did not think it could, under present circumstances, be attended with any practical utility. They would not have these delays much longer. The present system must soon come to an end; and if the new Government of India did not discharge their duty better than the present had done theirs, the House would know how to bring them to a sense of their duty. They could not censure any one connected with the Indian Government. The Government of India was a myth—to search out by whom any act was done was like playing at hunt-the-slipper— there was no getting at it, and anybody who attempted to follow it would find himself "in wandering mazes lost." He would be sent from Leadenhall Street to Cannon Row, from Cannon Row to Calcutta, from Calcutta to Bombay, back again to Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row, till his time and his patience were both exhausted. But, as the present Government of India could not last long, it would be better if the hon. Member for Northumberland would wait to see the course taken under a new and improved system of Indian Government.

MR. MANGLES

said, it was an old proverb that "threatened men live long." The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) told them that the East India Company was to be slain on an early day; but, that body corporate must be something very vivacious since it required two Bills and a series of Resolutions to deprive it of life. He had some hopes, therefore, that it might yet survive, and that his own existence might still be protracted. He could not help observing that the condition of the House that night afforded a very instructive commentary on the amount of attention which affairs of importance connected with India might be expected to receive at the hands of Parliament under the new system which they were promised. There had been three discussions in the course of the evening—one about the port of Dublin—another upon a question to which nobody in the House attached any real importance, connected with the duration of Parliament—a mere flash in the pan—and yet there were 300 Members present to hear these debates. The third question was one of vital importance to India, and yet the House was on the point of being counted out; for when an hon. Member moved that the House be counted there were not twenty Members present. This was the system which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets desired to see established for the Government of India. Why, he had sometimes addressed more Directors of the East India Company, when the number of Directors was twenty-four, than there had been Members in the House of Commons that night during a great part of the debate. He wished to express to the hon. Member for Northumberland his sense of the fair and candid manner in which he had brought forward this subject; and to thank the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) for having relieved him from the disagreeable duty of apportioning the degree of blame that lay upon the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. He would only say on that point that he had no wish to shift from his own shoulders any degree of blame that belonged to him. The hon. Secretary of the Board of Control spoke of the vicious system of railways in India, and said that the East Indian Government ought to have constructed them themselves. That opinion was scouted by another hon. Gentleman, who thought that the Government had neither the money nor the means of constructing railways in India, But it would have been just as easy for the Government to borrow the money, as to raise it upon their guarantee. He admitted that the question was one upon which much might be said on both sides; but, in his opinion, the present system was the better of the two. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who had never a word to say that was not in disparagement of the East India Company, said that all the operations of the Company had been failures, and that they had never succeeded in any great industrial work. But had the hon. and learned Gentleman never heard of the Delhi Canal, which extended irrigation over a tract of country 900 miles in length; and, was, the greatest work of the kind ever constructed in the world? The hon. and learned Gentleman's next illustration was singularly unfortunate, for he alluded to the electric telegraph as having been a failure. The energy of the Marquess of Dalhousie was admitted and respected by all; but in no single instance had it been more marvellously displayed than in the support he gave to Sir W. O'Shaughnessy in the erection of the electric telegraph. The Court of Directors also deserved some credit in this matter. The Marquess of Dalhousie sent home a proposal for a scheme of electric telegraphs connecting all the Presidencies and great stations of India. The Court of Directors sent an answer by the next mail approving the scheme, and made immediate preparations for sending out the materials. Such despatch was used that 3,000 miles of electric telegraph were constructed in India within the year. The result might be found described in the eloquent and graphic letter of The Times own correspondent, which appeared in The Times of that morning. By means of the system of electric telegraph inaugurated by the Marquess of Dalhousie, and carried out by Sir W. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Russell said in his letter that no sooner had a General made his march than the electric telegraph followed him step by step, and was erected at his very tent door. The House might judge of the accuracy and justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's charges against the Company by this instance. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control complained that the East India Company had not adopted the American system of railways, which he said would have been much cheaper. But the hon. Gentleman was wrong in stating that that system would have been cheaper. The American lines cost, upon an average, £9,000 a mile, while the Indian railways were constructed for £8,000. The price of the land for the construction of the 2,500 miles of railway in India was calculated at £1,000,000, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government paid a fair price for it; for he assured him that land could not he got in India, any more than in England, for nothing. As to the superintendence of the home and the Indian Governments over the railways, he would frankly admit that the superintendence from home had been the cause of great delay—delay which he would have been very glad to prevent if he could. He was ready—nay, he was anxious — to have that whole question probed by a Committee, and he had no doubt that the Court of Directors would come clear out of the investigation. With regard to the engineers employed, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution spoke of them as mere military men; and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) sneered at them as young gentlemen who were only concerned in the construction of bastions. But he was satisfied that no men would speak slightingly of the engineers of the East India Company who knew either them or their works. He believed there was not a finer or an abler body of men in the world than the engineers of the three Presidencies. It might be interesting to state that that great work to which he had already al- luded—the Ganges Canal—was constructed, not even by an engineer, but by an artillery officer, though he too had been educated at the Military College of Addiscombe. He might also mention, as a further instance of their ability, that great building, the Mint at Calcutta, the finest work of that description in the world. So high was the reputation of General Forbes, by whom it was constructed, that when the Government at home were contemplating alterations in the Mint of this country, they applied for the advice and assistance of General Forbes, and leave of absence was given to that officer, enabling him to come to England for this special purpose. It was therefore a mistake to speak of the engineer officers of India as mere military engineers, for they had much more employment, in point of fact, in a civil than in a military capacity. The hon. Gentleman who had brought the Motion forward had referred to the obstruction which the authorities in India threw in the way of the engineers. That was perhaps true of Madras, where the officers of the Government and the engineers seemed to be perpetually thwarting each other; but it was hardly true of the other Presidencies. In the latter he believed that, both on the part of the Governments and their officers, there had been the utmost desire to give the fullest assistance and co-operation to the East Indian railway companies. It was, however, essential that a due supervision should be exercised over their proceedings; for, let the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets say what he might, the interest of the Government was stronger than that of the shareholders. It was true that the railway shareholders had a contingent remainder in all profits above 5 per cent, and he trusted they would receive a return for their investment in this shape. The Government, however, had given their guarantee, and was responsible for the expenditure, and, with very few exceptions, he believed their superintendence had been exercised in a fair and liberal spirit. It was said that they might fully trust the railway engineers; but the railway engineers in India wore not a whit more responsible than the railway engineers in England, and no one doubted that lines in England might have been much more cheaply constructed. Instructions were sent out last year earnestly enjoining on the authorities the utmost co-operation with the railway officers consistent with a watchful and jealous supervision while the works were in progress, but leaving the whole management to thorn when the lines were opened. He again thanked the hon. Member for having brought forward the Motion, which he entirely approved, as he was desirous that the utmost light possible should be thrown on the subject.

MR. AYRTON, in explanation said, he had nothing to do with the date of any letter sent home recommending the establishment of the electric telegraph. When he was in Calcutta be was told that the Government of India intended to construct a telegraph, and it was not until years afterwards that it was constructed.

MR. LIDDELL

replied. As regarded the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) he wished to observe that he bad not attributed delay to the railway companies, but solely to the Government. The hon. Secretary to the Board of Control said the delay in the case of the Bombay and Baroda line arose from the necessity of sending out to India for the sanction of the Government there. Now, it so happened that the sanction of the Indian Government was obtained in November, 1854, while the assent of the home Government was not given until November, 1857. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the present system was a vicious one, and that was a sufficient justification of the Motion. He did not wish the inquiry to be retrospective or to censure any one; but it should be remembered that only 300 miles were open, and that 3,000 miles of additional railway had been already sanctioned. Attaching, as he did, great importance to inquiry, he should take the sense of the House on the Motion.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, ''to inquire into the causes that have led to the delay that has occurred in the construction of Railways in India."