Lord Broughamsaid, that he had been intrusted with a petition to which he must beg the attention of the House. It was the petition of five individuals who were the creditors of certain turnpike trusts in England, and the prayer was, that Parliament would make some provision for the protection of their interests, as in consequence of the introduction of railways, the securities on which they had embarked their money were daily becoming depreciated in value. No less than 8,000,000l. were embarked in the different turnpike trusts in this country, 500,000l. in Wales, and about the same in Scotland, making altogether an aggregate of not less than 9,000,000l. sterling; and the misery which had been occasioned by the depreciation of this property was alarmingly great. In one instance which he would mention, in the course of one year, the receipts from the trusts had fallen from 1,800l. to 800l. He had before him the two Railway Clauses Consolidation Bills, the Bill for England, and the Bill for Scotland. In the Scotch Bill there was a clause giving compensation to the owners of this description of property, but there was no clause of the kind in the English Bill. He envied the Scotch the success which they had obtained in this respect; but he trusted this same measure of justice would be extended to England. There was another case relating to the oppression of landowners by railway companies, which he would mention to the House. He would only mention this one case: in fact, he received so many cases of this description, that he was obliged to make a selection from them. Two ladies, and a gentleman who had married the third sister, were the owners of an estate in Essex of 200 acres, which was a flourishing concern. A railway already run through it. Of that they did not complain, for it might perhaps be a benefit; but now came six other railways—the first railway had taken to itself six others more wicked than itself, and then these petitioners 844 were under the dread of having seven or eight railways passing through their little estate—at the rate of two to each lady, and one over. These seven or eight railways were to cut through this unhappy farm of 200 acres, and to cut it up into pieces about the size of the table at which he was standing. How was the farm to be managed? How could any farming operations be carried on? He did not make any charge against the Railway Board, for that Board, he believed, had reported against several of these railways; but the projectors said, "We do not care for the Board, we will beat the Board in the House of Commons, which will pass our Bills." There might be some truth in this, for the House of Commons might be called the "Railways" House as well as the "Commons" House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the petitioners came to the House asking for protection. Railways were encouraged on the ground of the public good; and if they were all established voluntarily, and not oppressively and tyrannically, let them all succeed. But that was not the case. Nothing could be more advantageous to the people than good farming, and above all, the support of agriculture; the increase, and certainty, and abundance of food. He should always support his noble Friends in their reasonable demands—their reasonable demands. Much depended upon the construction put upon the word "reasonable." He was encouraged to try an experiment himself, seeing how easily Railway Bills got through Parliament. He would establish an Agricultural Joint-Stock Company, with all the customary machinery of proprietors, shareholders, directors, chairman, and deputy-chairman, surveyors, and a number of practical farmers as assessors. He would be very liberal of shares to their Lordships. In some parts of the country the farming was abominable; nine-tenths of it were not properly cultivated for want of that capital and skill which a company could apply. His company, therefore, would be a public benefit, because it would improve agriculture and increase the stock of wheat out of which the people were to be fed, and thus give them cheap bread. What would signify the interests of a few landowners? Were they to be allowed to keep possession of land which they farmed badly—land which, properly speaking, was public property, and not 845 the property of the individual? Ought they not to be compelled to give up the land to a company which would apply more capital and industry to it, and produce a great deal more food for the sustentation of the people? He was certain he should have all the friends of humanity on his side as well as all the agriculturists, certainly all those whom he should put in his schedules, for he would have schedules with the names of the parties, and the description of the land, whether arable, pasture, or meadow. He should call upon some of his noble Friends to part with their lands for the good of the people. If they did not part with it voluntarily, he would say, as was said in the case of Lady Georgiana Fane, which he mentioned the other night, "it will be all the worse for you, for I shall treat those the worst who venture to oppose me." And if you talk about compensation, he would say, "you must take what I choose to give you after I have got my Act of Parliament passed." This may be very oppressive to some hundred individuals—to some few individuals—but what is that in comparison with the interests of the public at large?—and the benefit which would accrue from the employment of capital, and the application of an improved system of agriculture, and of better drainage to the cultivation of the soil? More wheat will be produced, and what signifies the driving a man away from his family mansion? The railroad is the point, and these things are every day done by railway companies. But to speak seriously, he must express his deep regret that this matter had not been taken up many years ago. The Government should have laid down the great lines that they meant to have—one to the north, one to the south, one to the north-east, and so on. These private companies might be afterwards permitted to bring in bills in conformity with the great lines laid down by the Government. In concluding, he should say that the statement of these petitioners who affirmed that they were able to prove their case before their Lordships' House, ought to be taken into consideration. There was another subject which he wished to mention. If a man went into a Court of Law and proved his case, he obtained costs against the wrong doer, and he (Lord Brougham) thought that the same principle ought to prevail with regard to railways. And he should, therefore, beg 846 to lay an Order on the Table of the House which would compel railway companies to pay costs to the parties aggrieved, who came before the Committees of Parliament to establish their rights. This was a third additional Standing Order, and he should now lay it on the Table of the House for future consideration.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that he entirely concurred in the observations which had been made by his noble and learned Friend. It was now impossible to remedy the evil with regard to English railways, but, with respect to Ireland, they had a carte blanche. The Government, if they chose, might point out what lines would be most advantageous for the country, and they might thus prevent that system of gambling which had been so injurious not only to individuals, but to the public. He hoped also, that the Government would not compel parties in that country, who proposed a railway which was likely to pay to a certain distance, to carry it on to a terminus where it was sure not to pay.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that though he was as anxious as his noble and learned Friend to put an end to this gambling mania of which he had made so much complaint, yet he trusted that he would not, as he proposed, throw an obstruction in the way of forming railways. He had several years ago suggested that Government should follow the course then recommended; but the reason why this was not done was the fault of Parliament itself, as it did not contemplate the vast speculations which were now under their eyes, and which so deeply affected the property and means of communication throughout the country. He repeated, that at an early period he had expressed an opinion that Government should indicate the several lines; but for various reasons this course was not taken, and the railways were allowed to go on to an immense extent without control. With respect to what had fallen from his noble Friend who spoke last, he could hardly think that the state of Ireland was the same as England on this subject, for before one railway was formed in Ireland he had moved an address for the appointment of a Commission, composed of the most able and eminent men, to investigate the subject, so as to point out which lines were the best. These gentlemen had made their report, and although it 847 did not receive the sanction of Government, still it had been so generally accepted by both Houses of Parliament and the public, that all the railways in Ireland had been adjusted in reference to the principles laid down in the Report. As for the Standing Order suggested by his noble and learned Friend, that all costs of proceedings before a Committee on a railway should be paid by the company, it would be nothing more nor less than a bounty on litigation. He also thought that, as in France, the framers of a railroad should only have a temporary and not a perpetual tenure of it. He thought that it would have been only fair that at the end of a certain period the railroads should become public property. This was the casein most of the Continental nations, and no difficulty was found in raisins capital for their formation. He would not mention any particular period, but some of the lines in France were held for ninety or seventy years, while one was held only for forty-five years. It was now too late to do so with existing lines, but they should make regulations with respect to future lines.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he only proposed the payment of costs should rest on the discretion of the Committee.
§ Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.