CALEDONIAN, EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW, AND SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAIL. WAY BILL.—SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 February 1861)

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill, for amalgamating these railways. The Bill 394 was essentially the same as that before the House last Session. But, inasmuch as the Select Committee by whom it was consisidercd last Session, rejected it on the ground that they could not find in it any advantage to the public, the promoters this year had made very material reductions in the rates which they proposed to take. The Bill, however, was to be opposed by several powerful interests, and he thought it was for them to show on what grounds they took the unusual course of opposing it on the second reading. The opponents of the Bill were the Corporation of Edinburgh, who, as the lion. Members for Edinburgh well knew, could make a very bitter opposition, the Corporation of Glasgow, and several large towns. Their argument was, that the Bill had already been thrown out, and that it was not reasonable to put the opponents to the expense of opposing it Session after Session in Parliament. But this Bill differed in several respects from the various other Bills that had formerly been before Parliament; and, as to expense, some expense must always be incurred, and he had no doubt it would appear that the expense incurred by the opponents was much greater than it need be.

§ MR. BLACK
said, he would admit that it was not usual to oppose private Bills on the second reading, hut there were precedents in favour of such a course, of which several occurred in the year 1848. The ground of the rejection was, that it was not reasonable to harass private individuals by introducing the same Bills Session after Session. Not one of these cases was half so had as the present. Amalgamation was not the proper word for this Bill. Under the name of amalgamation the promoters sought to establish a monopoly; for, if the Bill passed it would give them a monopoly of the whole traffic between England and the north and west of Scotland. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire admitted that this Bill was substantially the same with that of last Session, which was unanimously rejected by the Select Committee of the House. It was now opposed by every chamber of commerce, and almost by every merchant in Scotland, who all felt the danger to which they were about to be exposed by this gigantic monopoly. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. DALGLISH
said, he should oppose the Bill, as it was founded, upon a principle of injurious amalgamation. The same Bill was last year for fifteen days before a Committee, and that Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill was not proved. All persons in the districts through which this railway passed were opposed to the Bill.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
said, that as a resident on the line, he could say that he was not opposed to the Bill; and he knew many others who were not. The Bill would give great facilities to the public, and prevent travellers journeying to the north from being detained four or five hours, as they now were, at the various junctions of the different lines.

§ MR. INGHAM
stated that he was Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Amalgamation Bill of last Session, and that the Committee were so thoroughly convinced that the scheme was not for the benefit of the public, that they rejected it without calling upon the opponents to state their objections. The Committee were much impressed by the number of bodies representing the mercantile community of Scotland who opposed the measure.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, the House would put the people of Scotland at the mercy of the railway companies if they sanctioned the proposed monopoly. The Bill had been before private Committees, and had been most carefully examined. If there had been anything about it of any value it would not have been rejected, and he called upon the House not to sanction these pertinacious applications when the sense of Parliament was clearly against the object sought to be obtained.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, he did not think that the Bill ought to be taken out of the category of Private Bills and passed by discussion of that House. He objected to such a precedent as that being established in the present case. There was nothing about the Bill which could not be settled in the usual way. The promoters only sought to have confirmed by Parliament advantages that had practically existed for some time past, by which the public were as much benefited as themselves. These points a Select Committee ought to determine, and, there- 396 fore, he should support the second reading of the Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
remarked that when the Bill was considered last year by a Select Committee it was opposed by a large number of persons who represented the public; and, so far as he knew, it was not supported by a single petition. The promoters of the Bill had come to Parliament this year in pursuance of an agreement to do so for five years, until they carried the Bill. The House, therefore, would only be doing justice if they told those railway companies that, though they might agree to come to Parliament, as against the public, year after year, yet that it did not necessarily follow that the public would have to bear the expense of opposing the Bill.

§ MR. CAIRD
said, the amalgamation would bring together nearly half the railway capital in Scotland. It was the seventh time the application had been made, and, unless the House put an end to it now, it might go on for years longer. Every large town on the different lines was opposed to the monopoly, and he hoped the House would reject the second reading.

§ MR. HADFIELD
briefly spoke in favour of the second reading, and deprecated the feeling which seemed to have been excited by the statement that the object of the Bill was the establishment of a monopoly. Every railway in the kingdom was as much a monopoly as the Bill before them sought to establish.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that the Board of Trade has been invited to make a special report previous to the second reading of the Bill; but that, after consideration, they did not think that this was an occasion on which they ought to depart from their usual practice, which was not to make their reports at that time. The Board did not wish to express any opinion either in favour of or adverse to the Bill, but desired to leave the matter entirely in the discretion of the House.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, he did not think any sufficient reason had been shown for taking the Bill out of the ordinary rule by which a Bill was read a second time, in order that it might be examined by a Committee. If it were laid down that questions once referred to a Committee should never, under any circumstances, be re-opened, the House would not long retain the jurisdiction over private business which at present it guarded so jealously. But when any opposition was made to the 397 second reading of a private Bill, the opponents were bound to make out a case that was absolutely conclusive. Amalgamation might be beneficial in some case and injurious in another; but to pronounce in the abstract that railway concerns should never be consolidated under a central management was one of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
stated, that having a strong personal interest in the question, it was not his intention to vote.