Lords Sitting of 13 February 1845

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths,—Sat first.—Baron Stanley (commonly called Lord Stanley).
BILLS. Public,—1a. Service of Process; Service of Process (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Churcham, and Bulley, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Normanby, from Physicians and others, of Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of Medical Reform.—From Protestant Dissenters of Leeds, for Inquiry into the Treatment of Baptists of Bahama Islands, and the Island of Exuma.—By Lord Hatherton, from Proprietors of Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation, complaining of the disproportionate Charges on Railways.

ABSENT DEBTORS
Lord Campbellsaid, a serious grievance had long been permitted by the operation of the present Law of England, which did not allow of any proceedings being taken against debtors unless they were within the jurisdiction of the Court wherein those proceedings originated. Thus, a person who was indebted to others in this country might be living out of the reach of the law, whilst enjoying an income of 10,000 l. a year, and his creditors all the time might be starving in a gaol. The remedy which he had proposed to institute in cases of this description was, that by permission of the Court, obtainable upon a proper representation of the fact, process might be served upon such absent debtors
348
in the foreign countries where they resided, and that then they, being thus made cognizant of the steps taken to recover what was due from them, might either appear and defend the action, or, failing to do so, suffer judgment to be recorded against them. Their Lordships had unanimously approved of the measures which he had introduced last Session to effect this object, and the Bill had been sent down to the other House of Parliament; but in consequence of what took place there, by an unfortunate misunderstanding, it was lost: by the effect of a clause introduced into it after the Bill had left their Lordships' House, Scotland was exempted from its operation, and thus Holyrood would still have been enabled to throw the protection of its precincts over absent debtors. The clause so introduced had not met with their Lordships' assent when the Bill returned to their House, and thus it was lost. He had, however, recently had a communication with his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for Scotland, who had stated to him that the alteration in the Bill arose from a misunderstanding, and that he should not oppose its progress through Parliament. He now, therefore, had great hopes that both Bills would pass without any further opposition. He was sure it would be productive of great good. A Bill was not necessary for Scotland, where a suit to recover debts went on without the necessity of serving the process in the manner prescribed by the Law of England, and therefore, he should confine his efforts to the introduction of two Bills, one for England, and the other for Ireland. The noble Lord then presented a Bill to authorize in certain cases the Service of Process issuing out of Her Majesty's Courts of Common Law at Westminster, on persons resident out of the jurisdiction of the said Courts: and a second Bill to the same effect for Ireland.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that before the noble and learned Lord proceeded with the Bills of which he had given notice, he wished to communicate on the subject with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate.
Lord Campbellobserved, that his noble and learned Friend could take an opportunity of doing so before the second reading of the Bills.
Bills read 1a and to be printed.

RAILWAYS—GOODS AND PASSENGERS' TARIFF.
Lord Hathertonpresented a Pe-

349
tition from the Company of Proprietors of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation, complaining of the disproportion which existed on the different lines of railway between the rates charged for the transmission of goods and those imposed on passengers. The noble Lord said he had given notice to his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade of his intention to present this Petition, as the subject of it had excited great attention amongst the manufacturing and productive classes of the midland and adjacent counties, where the circumstance to which it alluded had occasioned much discontent and many complaints; the persons whose interests were thus affected, stating that the railway companies were carrying on the traffic branch of their trade at a great and certain loss, there being a difference of no less than 1,200 per cent. between the charges imposed upon passengers and those imposed upon goods. When the first Railway Bill was in progress through Parliament, namely, that for constructing the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, not a word was said in the Committee on the Bill respecting the charges to be made for passengers, traffic being the principal object then in view, and so little being known of the matter as regarded the conveyance of passengers. The secret, however, soon became known, that passengers were the first objects to be considered; and their accommodation was the first thing studied, the railway company having from that time the strongest aversion to the carriage of goods. Indeed, it was only in consequence of the engagements they had previously entered into in their original charter, and, in order to conciliate the interests that were involved in the question, that they consented to carry any goods at all, though they did so at a ruinous loss. He had already stated that the disproportion between the charges on goods and passengers was no less than 1,200 per cent. in favour of the former, the charge being 1d. per head per mile for passengers, whilst it was 1d. per ton per mile for goods; and as twelve passengers with their luggage weighed a ton, there was consequently a difference of exactly 1,200 per cent. in the two charges. He doubted whether the carriage of goods was less expensive than that of passengers, the only observable difference in regard to the latter being the greater cost of the carriages used for carrying passengers as compared with that of luggage trucks; whereas, on the other side, there
350
were the expenses incurred by the railways for the keep of horses and carts, and the cost of men for the collection and distribution of the goods, all of which rendered this branch of their business more expensive than the passenger portion of it. Such being the case, it must be a matter of wonder how the railway companies could afford to meet the expenses to which the carriage of goods necessarily subjected them;—they were only enabled to do it by raising the cost of transit to the passengers. It was this of which the canal companies complained. They did not complain of the new rivalry which had sprung up in the carrying trade of the kingdom; but what they did complain of, and with justice, as he (Lord Hatherton) conceived, was, that it was an unfair rivalry, and they certainly did call upon Parliament to devise some means for preventing the railway companies from charging passengers with the losses they sustained by the carriage of goods. The immediate effect of the system to which the petitioners referred would be to make passengers pay the whole cost of the carriage of goods throughout the kingdom, and the next result would be to drive all the carrying trade from the canals. Such being the case, he felt authorized in calling upon his noble Friend opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, to direct his attention to this important subject, with the view of providing a remedy. The complaint made by the petitioners was not a new one. When canals were first constructed, the road-carriers complained of the same system having been adopted by their new rivals; and the Legislature introduced an enactment into the Canal Bills to the effect that the canal companies should not be at liberty to raise their tolls after having once lowered them. They were only to be enabled to do so by the consent of Commissioners appointed to regulate this branch of traffic. The clumsy machinery thus constituted was soon abolished, and another mode of checking the canals was adopted, which had likewise suggested itself to the petitioners in question; namely, of enacting that when the tolls of a railway company were lowered, they should all be lowered equally throughout all its branches. He only threw out this suggestion for the noble Earl's consideration. He knew that the subject would excite the attention of the railway companies and of travellers. He knew, moreover, that the noble Earl's attention had been called to the subject generally; and

351
he hoped he would take the circumstances he had referred to into his consideration.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas by no means surprised at the complaints of the petitioners, nor at their desire for some relief. At the same time, the House was aware the Government had no authority, nor did the Department over which he presided possess any, to interfere in the matter. There were involved in it questions of great importance both to the commercial and productive classes, and also to the travelling part of the community, and the Government would not fail to give it a due share of attention. Beyond that, he was sure his noble Friend would not expect him to say anything.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, in presenting, in pursuance to the notice he had given, the Report of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade on the Kentish and South-Eastern railway schemes, it was not his intention to enter into the consideration of the principles which had guided that Department, in coming to the conclusions which had been from time to time laid before the public. His object was simply to ask their Lordships' permission to lay before them a few statements as to the constitution of the Railway Board in question, and the course of procedure which that Board had adopted. It would be in their Lordships' recollection, that in the last Session a Committee was appointed by the other House of Parliament to make certain inquiries upon the subject of railways. Among the many other important points involved in the question, the Committee took into their consideration the practice of Parliament in respect to railway legislation. He need not recite the various arguments which they advanced in the course of the discussion which followed; but he would content himself with stating, that after a very full review of the difficulties of the subject, and a patient canvassing of the inconveniences and deficiencies in the then existing system of Railway legislation in the House of Commons, and the Committees connected with that House, they had arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable that to some Board in connexion with the Executive Government, there should be committed the task of instituting a preliminary inquiry into the merits of all rail-
352
way projects to be brought before Parliament. The Report of that Committee embodying these views, was adopted by the House of Commons, and, in consequence, the alterations in the Standing Orders necessary to carry it into effect, and for bringing the forms of the House into accordance with the proposed arrangements, were duly instituted, and the matter having been referred to the Lords of the Council for Trade, arrangements were made, by which the Railway Board was formally constituted, for the purpose of performing various duties connected with railways, and of taking into its consideration the details of the various Railway Bills previous to their coming under the consideration of Parliament itself. Their Lordships were aware that there previously existed a Department in connexion with the Board of Trade charged with the supervision of railway matters, composed of a superintendent, an inspector-general, and a secretary. To these were added an assistant-inspector and another secretary; and these gentlemen, presided over by the President or the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, were constituted the new Railway Department of the Board of Trade. The Minute reciting this arrangement had been laid by the Lords of the Council before Parliament. The Board thus constituted immediately proceeded with its duties. He need not trouble their Lordships with the details of their proceedings. They entered into the consideration of the different railway projects laid before them, and had been so engaged up to the present time—notifying from time to time the fact of their decisions; but reserving for the Report to be submitted to Parliament, a detailed account of the reasons which had led them to the conclusions at which they had arrived. Such was a brief narrative of the circumstances which had led to the institution of this Board, and an outline of the course which that Board had pursued. It was necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with these details, in order to introduce the points at which he wished to arrive. From what had passed out of doors, and also from what had occurred in another place since the Session had commenced, it was quite evident that a great degree of misapprehension prevailed as to what was the real jurisdiction of the Railway Board, and as to what was intended by Parliament and by Government—as well as to what was conceived by the Board itself — to be the real authority with

353
which it was invested. He knew that it had been urged in another place, that to constitute a Board of this description, in connexion with the Executive Government, consisting of five gentlemen in the employment of Government, from whom there should issue Reports conclusive and absolute as to the merit and fate of the several railway projects—that to intrust to such a body the power of deciding whether a railway scheme should go on or not—to entrust to such a tribunal the power of directing or distributing enormous amounts of money, exceeding indeed the value of all the property contended for before, and disposed of by all the Judges in Westminster Hall—to give to such a Board such an authority, would be objectionable and dangerous in the very last degree. Then, again, it was maintained, that if the Reports of that Board, connected as it was with Government, were to be adopted by Government as measures of Government—if the Cabinet were to lend to them the whole weight of their Parliamentary influence, thus attempting to convert their Reports into judicial decrees—that the practical effect would be to substitute mere Reports of a Board for positive enactments of the Legislature itself. And if the facts had been so—if it had ever been in the contemplation of Parliament, or dreamt of by Government, or imagined by the Board itself, that any such authority had been, or would be given to it—then, indeed, every objection which he had just recited would be reasonable and just, and no one would have urged them more cordially than himself. But, in point of fact, nothing could have been further from entering into even the imagination of Government, than that their authority should be decisive, and their conclusions absolute. He was at a loss to conceive how any person who had even read the circumstances of the constitution of the Board—how any person who had ever given any attention to public proceedings, could have taken up such an impression as that of the decisions of the Railway Board being absolute. Had it been raised out of doors merely, he should not have deemed himself called upon to notice it; but the question had been raised in the other House of Parliament, and its discussion there had produced from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government a strong disclaimer of the correctness of the views then expressed, as to the duties and authorities of the Railroad Board. But it was still impossible for him
354
to tell whether such an impression might not prevail among their Lordships, and if it did prevail, then it was clear that all Reports issuing from the Board must be received with a jealousy and suspicion which would not exist if the real character of that Board was understood. He had considered it his duty to state, in his place in Parliament, the views entertained by that department of the Government over which he presided, with respect to the proceedings of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. The Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, after the recital of the reasons in favour of the appointment of such a Board, went on to state, in the most distinct manner, that its Reports were, on no account, to be considered as anything but aids to Parliament for investigation, and for the purpose of expressing an opinion whether there were public reasons against the propriety of forming such and such a railway, and which of any two competing lines appeared to be the best suited for public use and convenience. In the Standing Orders, it was stated that the Committee to which railway schemes were to be referred should state what portions they had adopted, and what portions they had rejected of the Reports of the Railway Board — an instruction of course carrying with it the inference that it was in the power of those Committees to reject the whole or any part of their Reports. And when he moved for such alterations in their Lordships' Standing Orders as were necessary for the establishment of the Board, he had expressly stated that the Reports were to be held as nothing more than evidence, and to be dealt with by the Committees as in their wisdom they might think fit. Now, as to the proceedings of the Board, he thought that those parties who had been in communication with it would remember that when on various occasions it was stated by deputations which had attended it, that their Reports would be most influential, and that whatever the decision of the Board of Trade might be, they would implicitly bow to it — he himself had distinctly intimated that they assumed no such authority—that it was for Parliament to say what weight was to be given to their decisions—and that whether they, the Company from which the deputation attended, did or did not go to Parliament, it would make no difference in the proceedings of the Board; that if they did go it would not make

355
them more rigid, or if they did not it would not make them less rigid, in their examination of the claims laid before them. In any case, the representations of a projected company would meet with their best attention. But there was another consideration which ought not, in forming an estimate of the character of the Railway Board, to be overlooked. It was the instruction addressed to it by the House of Commons, that on no account should it enter into the consideration of private interests—but that all such matters were to be reserved for the exclusive consideration of Parliament. Now, how could Reports be imagined to be conclusive and final, in schemes like these, when all matters of private property were excluded from its deliberations? He had only to repeat, most distinctly, that it was never intended by Parliament that the Reports of the Board should be of a conclusive character, but that they should merely be regarded as evidence, to be used in aid of Parliament, and as recommendations to be dealt with by Parliament as in its wisdom it might think just and proper. He would now beg their Lordships' permission to advert to one or two other objections which had been raised, as to the course of procedure adopted by the Board. It had been objected that the tribunal had a secret character—that their proceedings were involved in mystery—that their deliberations were conducted with closed doors — and, in fact, that their whole plan of proceeding was repugnant to the ordinary regulations and spirit of our tribunals. Now, the meaning of all this simply was, that the Board had not been constituted as an open court—that it had not been invested with the power of summoning witnesses, of hearing parties, and going into minute investigation. In answer to all this, he would maintain that if the Board had been armed with such powers, or if it had arrogated such powers to itself, it would have been a grievance to the public, instead of being the possible means of affording useful assistance to the deliberations of Parliament, and would justly have been open to suspicion, and liable to jealousy. If they had proceeded to the examination of witnesses, if they had called parties from a distance, if they had proceeded to cross-examine them, the effect would only have been the production of a vast expense, to be defrayed by the parties interested, in addition to the heavy expenditure already requisite to conduct a Railway Bill. Again, if they had assumed
356
the form of a public tribunal—if they had proceeded as a Committee of Parliament, there might have been just cause for suspecting that their intentions were to usurp the functions of Parliament; and people would be apt to give their decisions as much weight as those given to the judgments of a Parliamentary Committee, and conceive the case already settled, ere Parliament had once interfered. But then it was said, that if they had not done so, at least they might have confronted the parties, and heard the case discussed. Now, their Lordships could not but be aware of the state of feeling existing between contending companies, and he could not think that to bring two such parties together before any authority, would much tend to elicit the truth. They all read the newspapers, and he would, therefore, just ask their Lordships to conceive a case in which the provisional committee of the London and York Line, and the directors of the Midland Counties Railway, should be confronted and called upon to discuss before the Railway Board the merits of their respective schemes. Could any body believe that such a meeting would be calculated to promote the calm consideration of the subject, or perseveringly to elicit facts; or that it would have led to anything like a careful and just apprehension of the real merits of the respective schemes? He apprehended that such a course, if once adopted, would never be tried a second time. But then, again, it was said, if this was not done, at least we should have heard all parties who desired to be heard, one against the other; and it had been urged out of doors, and not only there, but in another place, that they never attempted anything of the kind, and indeed that he himself had admitted that it was physically impossible for them to hear all the arguments and objections of contending schemes. Such language had been ascribed to him; and it was said, improving on the first version, that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had admitted that it was physically impossible to enter on anything like a satisfactory inquiry. Now, with respect to this second edition of the statement in question, he had merely to reply that he had never said any such thing — that he had never made any such admission as that it was impossible for the Board to institute anything like a satisfactory inquiry. As to the former statement, even that did not quite correctly convey what had fallen from him. He begged not to be understood as wishing to

357
lead their Lordships to suppose that there had been anything like intentional misrepresentation. He did not think that there had; but the version of the statement did not convey correctly what he said, and which, as it bore very closely upon the whole of the objections raised against the Board, he would now repeat. It was stated, then, that in reply to a gentleman who attended with a deputation from a railway scheme, on that gentleman expressing the disappointment of himself and his friends that they had not been summoned to state their objections to another scheme, and that he had understood that the fullest opportunity would be given for it, he had stated that such was not the course proposed to be taken by the Board—that from the mass of business before them it was physically impossible for them to attempt any such thing; and the inference drawn from this was, that he had admitted that it was impossible for them to hear the objections to any given scheme. Now no such statement was in reality made. What he said was this. On the gentleman in question stating that they had been disappointed—that they had understood that every opportunity would be given for competing parties to enter into the case of their opponents, and that personal interviews would be given for that purpose, he (Lord Dalhousie) replied that it was physically impossible for them, with the enormous amount of business before them, to receive all deputations—that was, to grant them personal interviews—as often as they chose to apply for them—that they had commenced operations by receiving parties to state their case, but, finding that they applied for interviews two or three times, and then only to say again what they had said before, or to urge anew objections already stated, the Board had on that account been obliged to decline repeated interviews, and to ask the parties applying for them to state what they wished to say in writing; but at the same time they had been told that if on any occasion they had really any fresh objections to urge, the board would still be ready to receive their visits. He had said all this to the gentleman in question, and he added that his own presence as an objector was the best possible proof of the readiness of the Board to receive them. Now, the difference between the two statements was this, that whereas it had been said that they had acknowledged they could not receive parties to make ob-
358
jections, what he really stated was that they were willing to receive them to make objections, but not as often as they pleased to apply. Let their Lordships for an instant conceive the practical working of such a plan of operations as the reverse of this. Let them take the case which he had already alluded to. They were aware that to supply with railway accommodation the district between London and York there were three schemes in the field—the London and York, the Direct Northern, and the Cambridge and Lincoln railways. Had a second interview been granted to the Direct Northern, then the London and York and the Cambridge and Lincoln would have applied; then the Direct Northern would have applied again, followed by the other two, for interviews to be granted again and again. Such a case as he was stating was not an ideal one. It was a representation of many applications addressed to them. The party who came first came again, saying—"You have received such and such a party, we desire to have an opportunity of repeating our Statement." Then the other party in turn would exclaim—"As a second interview was granted to them, we should have one too:" and so on ad infinitum. Such would have been the case with respect to the four Goole lines; such would have been the case with the Syston and Peterborough, and the Swinton and Lincoln schemes, and all the others, each one of which would have thought itself entitled to come and come again—until, if they had ten departments of the Board of Trade, and ten times the length of time which they had, the business could not have been gone through. They must draw the line somewhere, and they drew it here. They received parties to make statements, and then parties applied to state objections. Interviews were granted to such, and objections received from competing schemes; but, on these parties applying for second interviews, they were told that unless they had anything new to communicate, the request must be refused. At the same time, if parties had new objections to make, or urgently pressed for a second interview, they were received. Such had been their rule—a rule which they had acted on throughout. It was quite possible to transact business by written documents, and it was by these that much business had actually been transacted. Their Lordships would judge that there had been no lack of information supplied to the Railway Board, when

359
he told them that, for some time past, they had been receiving at the rate of nine thousand papers a year on railway schemes. Of documentary evidence they had, therefore, abundance. He now came to another class of objections, in regard to which he was desirous of addressing a few words to their Lordships. It had been asserted in various quarters that the Board did not possess the confidence of the public, and that neither was it entitled to that confidence. And it had been asked by way of question, to which it was supposed that no sufficient answer had yet been given, whether certain members of the Board had not a direct personal and pecuniary interest in railroad property, which had occasioned the display of a spirit of favouritism towards certain railway companies, to the prejudice of others; and it had been said, that either gross mismanagement had prevailed, by which information had been obtained previous to the publication of the decision of the Board upon any given scheme which had enabled parties to go to the Stock Exchange, and operate there in a manner highly beneficial to themselves, but unfairly and injuriously as regarded the public generally. Now, had that statement been confined to mere vague rumour, or to the public journals, he should not have considered it his duty to refer to it in that House. No man was more ready than he was to admit that the public journals had a perfect right to scrutinize and comment upon the conduct of public men; and although they might in some instances exceed their privilege in this respect—that that right of scrutiny was in general a useful check against abuse he was not prepared to deny. But the statements that had gone forth as to the conduct of the Board in question and its members, affecting their efficiency as a Board, and their characters, had not been confined to mere vague rumour, or to the columns of the public journals, but had been sounded aloud in the ear of Parliament. The attack had been directed more especially against one gentleman connected with the Board. Their Lordships would believe that had the attacks been levelled only at him (Lord Dalhousie) personally, they would have been utterly disregarded until they were made where he could at once meet them, viz., in his place in Parliament. But the case was different where the attacks were made on one who had not the advantage of a seat in Parliament, where he might meet the charges made against him. He was sure their Lordships would not
360
think he occupied their time improperly while he endeavoured to vindicate the reputation of an able and honest public servant, and that they would require from him no apology for detaining them upon such a subject, when they remembered that he was defending one who had no opportunity of defending himself. Now, it was asked—not directly stated—is it not the case that members of the Board have a personal and pecuniary interest in railway shares? To that question he was in a condition to give an answer—an answer most direct and conclusive. With regard to himself, he did not possess, nor had he ever possessed, any share or shares in any railway scheme; and, with respect to his colleagues, Mr. Porter, General Pasley, and Mr. Laing, they did not possess, nor had they ever possessed, any railway shares whatsoever. Then as to Captain O'Brien, it was true that he had possessed railway shares, but did not possess any now, having ceased to possess them as soon after his appointment as a member of the Board as he could divest himself of them. He (Lord Dalhousie) happened to have been present when his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade offered Mr. O'Brien the appointment, and upon that occasion, he (Captain O'Brien) voluntarily stated that he did then possess railway shares; and he also voluntarily stated that he would part with them at the earliest opportunity. The interview of which he spoke took place on the 26th of July; on the 6th of August he was appointed to the Board, and on the 2nd of September he had irrevocably parted with every and all his interest, whether immediate or contingent, in any railway shares whatever. This was on the 2nd of September. The Board did not attempt to go into the consideration of these railway schemes until the second week in December; so that Mr. O'Brien did not possess a single railway share for three months previous to the meeting of the Board for proceeding with the investigation of any railway scheme. That, he conceived, would be taken as a sufficient answer, by those who were not disposed to reject any answer whatsoever, to the allegations which had been made with regard to the position of the Members of the Board. Then it was said a spirit of favouritism had been shown by this Board to certain railway companies. That allegation, had it remained a general one, he need scarcely have noticed, because when a Board was appointed to decide between competing schemes, however correct

361
their decision might be, it was by no means unlikely that that decision should be complained against as unfair by the party to whose interests it was adverse. Indeed to show this he would mention an instance. The first decision given by the Board was upon two competing schemes—the one proposed by the Great Western Company, and the other by the South-Western; and having pronounced in favour of the former, some gentleman in the country sent him (Lord Dalhousie) a newspaper, having a paragraph, marked with a large black cross to draw his attention to it, stating that the Board were the mere servants of the Great Western Company, and suggesting that one of the badges worn by the porters of the Company should be sent to each Member. He could only say that in his own case the decoration with which the writer proposed to honour him, had not yet arrived. He repeated, that had these accusations been confined to generalities, he should have treated them with that indifference with which they would be met by any man of common sense; but their Lordships would remember that in one instance a special case had been adverted to—he referred to that one, the Report on which he was about to lay on the table. It had been stated that the Board had decided in favour of the scheme of the South-Eastern Company—that Mr. W. O'Brien was the manager of that company—that his brother, Captain O'Brien, was a Member of the Board—and, ergo, that the Board had decided in favour of the South-Eastern scheme, simply because Mr. O'Brien, the manager of the company, was the brother of one of the Members of the Board. He did not see the necessary conclusion which was thus sought to be drawn; but there could be no doubt that it was meant to infer that Captain O'Brien, as a Member of the Railway Board, had been influenced by improper feelings of partiality in favour of the South-Eastern Company, and that those feelings had operated in the decision of the Board. This statement had not been put forward merely in newspapers, but had been stated publicly in Parliament, and therefore it was that he felt it to be his duty, looking at the position he held as Chairman of that Board, not to allow the character of any one of his colleagues to be impugned, and that colleague treated as a knave, while he was in a condition to meet that accusation with a broad allegation of dental, and show clearly that there could be no foundation whatever for the statements which had been put
362
forth to his prejudice. He believed Captain O'Brien to be a man of as pure integrity as any Peer in that House, and as utterly incapable of swerving from the strict line of his duty as any man who sat amongst their Lordships. Captain O'Brien had purposely abstained—so far as his duty would permit him to abstain—from taking any part in the decision upon the South-Eastern scheme, beyond that personal attendance at the Board which his duty required of him. And if their Lordships would but consider the probabilities of the case, they would at once see how absurd the statement was. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. O'Brien had an interest in the South-Eastern Railway scheme, and wished to engage his brother's influence as a Member of the Board to obtain a favourable decision, did their Lordships suppose for one moment that the other Members of the Board, placed as they were directly in the focus of public observation, would have taken upon themselves to become parties to that object, merely because the brother of one of their colleagues was the manager of the company? And if they even conceded this, where could he (Lord Dalhousie) be supposed to be, to permit such a proceeding? Was it to be supposed that he, sitting in the chair of that Board, and responsible to Parliament directly for its acts—being liable to be called upon at any moment to justify and defend all the transactions of the Board—did any sane man suppose that he, setting apart the considerations and feelings by which as an honest man and a gentleman he must be influenced—did any man suppose that, looking at mere prudential considerations, he could have been such a fool as to have allowed the Board to take a course so open to attack, and so liable to observation as that which it had been stated they had adopted? The idea was preposterous. What were the circumstances of the case, the decision upon which had been impugned? The South-Eastern Company had proposed a most comprehensive scheme. Another scheme had been proposed by other companies; on the relative merits of these two schemes he did not then think it necessary to enter, as they were before their Lordships, and open for inspection and observation; but the duty of the Board was to decide upon their respective merits. The South-Eastern Company, adopting the views of the House of Commons of last year, and acting upon their suggestions addressed a letter to the Board of Trade, offering

363
to supply additional advantages if their plan should be sanctioned; to reduce the rate of fares throughout the old as well as the new line, calculating the distance between London and Dover, not on the eighty-eight miles, the extent of their line, but at seventy-four miles, which was the shortest practicable route; they also undertook to make a reduction in the second-class fares, and at the same time to increase the accommodation for second-class passengers; to give greater facilities for third-class travelling, and to provide carriages for third-class passengers, protected from the weather; that they would lay down an electric telegraph along the whole of the line, and go to Parliament for a Bill to enable them to construct a central terminus at Hungerford-bridge, on the Surrey side of the river, which they were willing should form part of a general terminus for all railways on that side of the Thames; and, further, to provide the link which would be wanting, and which was not likely to be undertaken by any other company as a commercial speculation, to complete a continued coast line, which would afford to the Government that which was most desirable for the protection of the coast and an uninterrupted line of railway from the Metropolis to within a few miles of the Land's-end; and they also undertook to place the whole of the old and new lines under the condition of purchase, according to the Act of last year. And the Board having decided in favour of a scheme offering so many and such important public advantages, there were persons who could not account for the decision of the Board otherwise than by suggesting that one of the Members of the Board had a brother who was the manager of the company. The charge was so ridiculous and contemptible, that he should not have alluded to it, but that it might, if not met at once, be sent forth to the public in various shapes, and adopted by them; therefore it was that he felt it due to his colleague, whose character had been aspersed, to make this statement to their Lordships, and to show that there was no ground whatever for the charge which had been made. There was one other point only with which he should trouble their Lqrdships—that was as to the question whether the proceedings of the Board, in reference to their decision on any particular railway scheme, had become known to any party not connected with the Board, as stated, either through carelessness on the part of the Board, or by
364
means of a deliberate communication made by any one of its members previous to the publication of the decision in the Gazette, the effect of which previous information had been, that parties by whom it was obtained had made an improper use of it, turning it to their own account. With regard to that point, so far as the general allegation went, it could only be met by a general denial. With regard to himself, he need not, he was sure, say, that on no occasion, either by implication, word, or gesture, had he given the slightest information of anything that was going on before the Board to any human being; and no human being had received from him the least knowledge or intimation of what was his opinion upon any scheme before the Board not yet decided. And although he was perfectly convinced that he might have made the same statement on the part of every one of his colleagues, without referring to them upon the subject, he had thought it right to call the Board together to lay the matter before them; and he was authorised to say, that each of them asserted, upon his honour, and was willing to repeat that assertion in any more solemn form of adjuration, if any more solemn be devised, that never, directly or indirectly, had he given information or hint of any kind of what was the intention of the Board in respect to any one scheme that had been submitted to them previous to the publication of their decision upon it in the Gazette. He would now pass from this part of the subject, and call attention to the question whether or not it was possible for the intentions of the Board to have oozed out, in some way or another, before it was generally known what their decision would be. Very early in the commencement of the proceedings of the Board, the obligation of secrecy was known to be of the utmost importance. The spirit of speculation that had existed for the last six months in the public mind, in connexion with railway schemes, was apparent; and though it was impossible for the Government or the Board to control it, they were bound in duty to adopt such precautions, so far as they could do so, as should prevent its being unfairly conducted. As he had stated, the Board was not in a condition to enter regularly into the consideration of any of the schemes referred to them until early in the month of December. As soon as they were ready to proceed, their first object was to classify the several schemes, as to their local situation, and

365
the manner in which they bore one on the other. Then they had to consider what course should be adopted in regard to making their decisions known. Two courses were open to them—the one was to reserve altogether any statement of their decisions until they were ready to submit them to Parliament, and then to publish them with the reasons at the same time; and the other, to publish the decisions, from time to time, in the Gazette, as they were made. Against the latter course there were many objections sufficiently strong; but then it was clear the detailed Report could not be published until Parliament met; and if the Board had reserved all declaration of their decisions till Parliament met, the chances of previous revelation of their intentions would have been greatly increased. It was quite clear the decisions upon all the railway schemes could not become to at the same time. Some must be decided upon sooner than others: and when the opinion of the Board upon any particular line became for a long time familiar to its members, the risk was far greater that some intimation of their opinion might accidentally drop out in their communications with the agents of other schemes, and that the information so obtained, might be improperly used. The risk arising from such a mode of proceeding, therefore, would have been far greater than that attending the course the Board had adopted, viz., to take every scheme into consideration in its order, investigate its merits, and decide upon it at once and immediately, and publish that decision in the Gazette; therefore it was that the Board conceived that as the several schemes were taken up and decided upon, they should be made public; taking every care that the decision should be made known to the public and the agents of the parties interested at the same time, but that in no case should it be communicated to the latter, until after the closing of the Stock Exchange on that day on which the announcement should appear in the Gazette, so that no undue advantage should be given. The course of proceeding was this:—When a scheme was taken up, the papers in reference to it were referred to the different officers of the Department, for inquiry as to the public advantages of the line, its local position, its probable traffic, its engineering difficulties, and general character; and upon those papers being returned to him (Lord Dalhousie), with the reports of the various officers to
366
the questions submitted, he considered them, and having done so made a memorandum upon the papers of his opinion upon the scheme in general. This, together with all the information obtained, was circulated amongst the several Members of the Board, each making his own observations upon the scheme, until it had gone the round of the whole of the members, when a meeting of the Board was called. Of course, if during the circulation of those papers, any person other than the Members of the Board had access to them, it would be possible for the intention of the Board to be made known; but to prevent this, every precaution possible was adopted in the circulation of the papers. He (Lord Dalhousie) having examined them and made his memoranda upon them, placed them in a box with a private lock, to which there was but one key (except the master key, which he always carried round his neck); that box he himself placed (together with the key) in the hands of another Member of the Board, who, having examined and made his remarks upon its contents, replaced them, and handed the box and key to another member, and so on throughout the whole of the members, until it came to the last, who, when he had done with it, gave it back into his (Lord Dalhousie's) own hands. Throughout the whole of the proceeding it was never out of the immediate personal custody of the Members of the Board, and it was physically impossible that any access could be had to the documents during their progress in this way from one member to the other. Then as to the mode in which the decisions of the Board were published. The Board assembled to decide on the day on which the decision was to be announced. The minutes were prepared, not in the usual way by clerks and other subordinate officers, but by a Member of the Board itself; and the notices for the Gazette were also prepared by him with his own hand—no other person—no clerk—not even his (Lord Dalhousie's) private secretary was informed, or could be aware, of the decision of the Board in any case until it was published in the Gazette. It might be supposed that when the notice was placed in the hands of the editor of the Gazette the Board would consider that their responsibility ceased. But it was not so. Even then they took every care that the intentions of the Board should not be made known beforehand to any person, so as to

367
form the basis of speculations. They took care that the notice should not be placed in the hands of the editor on the day of publication, until it was so near to four o'clock that if he were disposed to communicate the information, and started at once for the Stock Exchange, he could not possibly by any conveyance reach it before it would be closed for the day. He submitted to their Lordships that if human precautions could do anything, those which the Board had adopted, and which he had detailed to their Lordships, were sufficient to ensure the necessary secrecy. But then it was said, "Large speculations have been recently made in railway shares, and it is singular that since the appointment of the Board large purchases have been made at various times on the speculation of a speedy rise, which rise, on the appearance of the Report, has taken place." But it by no means followed that that speculation was the consequence of previous intimation made to the parties by any person connected with the Railway Board, as to what might be their probable decision on any particular line. It was competent for any man of ordinary shrewdness, and acquainted with such matters, who read the Report of the House of Commons made last Session, and examined the first two or three Reports of the Board, to form a tolerably correct judgment of which was the most likely to meet with the favourable consideration of the Board and Parliament,—he would be able to do this from observing what were the principles on which they had decided in those cases. No doubt this was possible; many newspapers and other publications had put forth speculations and prophecies as to what would be the decision of the Board upon particular lines, almost before they were submitted to it; which speculations and prophecies had turned out to be correct. But that resulted from the tenor of the decisions generally, and the principles upon which they were based being generally perceived, and not from any information furnished to them to which the public generally had not access. He believed he had now adverted to all the points upon which it was necessary that he should trouble their Lordships. As to the efficiency of the Board, or the competency of its Members to discharge their duty, it was not for him to say a word. The Report he should now have the honour to lay on their Lordships' Table, and the other Reports that would follow, were the do-
368
cuments which must decide that question. If it should appear from them that the Board had been guided by sound principles, and that the facts upon which their decisions were grounded were correctly stated, and that they had decided on reporting in favour of those schemes that offered the greatest amount of public advantage, then let those Reports receive the consideration to which they were entitled at the hands of the Committees on the Bills; but if, on the other hand, it should be found that they had been influenced by narrow and feeble views—if their reasonings were unsound and unsatisfactory, it would be for Parliament to treat those Reports, as he should do in such a case, as a mass of worthless waste paper. All he should venture to say in regard to the Members of the Board was, that having had imposed upon them a task of great labour and oppressive responsibility, they had endeavoured to discharge it with diligence and honesty, without favour and without fear. Throughout the whole of their proceedings they had steadily and uninterruptedly kept in view one principle, viz.—regard being had to local and national interests—to report in favour of that railway, or combination of railways, which appeared to them calculated to give to the community the greatest attainable amount of public advantage.
The noble Lord having laid the Report on the Table,
Lord Brougham, said, he considered this one of the most important subjects that had of late years occupied the attention of Parliament, connected as it was with that class of Parliamentary subjects on which, for the public good, it became necessary and expedient from time to time for the Legislature to adopt measures, and to adopt a course that unavoidably led to an interference with private interests. Before he sat down, he should further illustrate the bearing of that remark on the present subject as connected with the Board of Trade and its system; but he must beg leave, in the outset of the few remarks he should make, and which were extracted from him by an anxious and deep consideration of the very great interests involved in the question—he must beg leave at once not only to acquit his noble Friend (Lord Dalhousie) who had made so candid, so luminous, and so able a statement of his case, but also to acquit his colleagues of all blame whatever. Indeed, he

369
had never so much as heard until that night—when he heard his noble Friend defend them from it—that any charge had been made against them. He (Lord Brougham) had no connexion with any railway company—God forbid—he had no stock—his noble Friend had thought it fit to exculpate himself from any suspicion of being influenced by sinister motives; he (Lord Brougham) might do the same, and assure their Lordships that he had never possessed one farthing's worth of stock—except, indeed, as he might hold it as a trustee or executor—and, therefore, he was as entirely disinterested on this question as it was possible for any one in or out of that House to be. But now he came to express his surprise that his noble Friend should have gone further, and having disclaimed sinister motives, that he should think he had vindicated the Board from all possibility of pronouncing effective decisions upon the questions submitted to them, and from all shadow of suspicion of influencing decisions elsewhere. Said his noble Friend, "How was it possible that their decisions could be effective, or have any weight? For they did not decide—they did not act judicially, but, as it were, ancillary to Parliament—to examine the case, to speak their minds upon it, and report upon it to Parliament. They had no desire to prefer one railway to another, or cry down one scheme and cry up another. They were not Parliament or a Court of Law. All they did was to examine, decide and report; and having done so, they left the parties to go to Parliament, and Parliament would no doubt vote upon the scheme, as Parliament should be advised." Then he would suppose himself for a moment a party in some one railway. He went to Parliament as a director of that railway, and the very first thing he heard was the question, "What is the use of throwing away your money and your time, and making yourself anxious about nothing? Do not you know that you are reported against—that the Board have decided against you? The Board have examined into the whole case—the parties to the competing lines behind their back, and you behind your back—in secret. It is not known upon what data they have pronounced their judgment, but that judgment is embodied in a Report, and meets you on the Table of either House of Parliament." Let him ask what chance had be under such circumstances to pass his
370
Bill; could he get rid of the Report, and convert it to mere waste paper? Could any man suppose that the Report being before Parliament, that Parliament would so treat it? He would venture to say that the probability, nay the absolute certainty, in all human understanding and in all common calculation of accidents, was, that that Report would be followed to the letter by both Houses of Parliament. Why, the Government were pledged by one of its Members beforehand; the opinion of the Government was already taken upon the question. [Lord Dalhousie: "The opinion of the Government is a different thing."] No doubt the opinion of the Government was different — the opinion of the Board was not the opinion of the Cabinet, but it was that of a part of the Cabinet. His right hon. Friend who had lately resigned was a Member of the Cabinet, and, therefore, before the right hon. Gentleman's inexplicable resignation—which it was very difficult to understand before it was explained, but after the explanation became involved in total darkness—he being at the head of the Board, as well as a Member of the Cabinet, the Government were pledged to the course reported for by the Board. [Lord Dalhousie: "No, no."] He knew that formally it was not so; but we were not living in Utopia, where Parliament was independent of the Government, and Government of the Parliament—when the strictest line was drawn between the Executive on the one hand, and the Legislature on the other, and when the Executive might pronounce an opinion to both Houses, which should bind nobody in either House. That was not the sort of world in which their Lordships lived. They knew well that when the Government had made up its mind upon any question, if it continued a Government, a majority in Parliament must go with it. But no, these were not decisions of the Government, they were told, but they were the decisions, the published opinions of an important Member of the Government, a colleague of the Government, if not in the Cabinet; and he should like to have a Return, for which he would move at the end of the Session, showing how many of the Reports of this Board of five Members acting under the President of the Board of Trade—a colleague of Ministers, though not in the Cabinet—how many of those Reports had been reversed

371
by Parliament. He would venture to predict, arguing on his own experience in similar matters, that it would be found as certain at the end of the Session as though they had now all the Railway Acts of Parliament before them that should be passed, that, speaking generally, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, perhaps in ninety-nine cases out of 100—or, perhaps—and this he thought the most likely—in 100 cases out of every 100, there would be a strict and literal coincidence between the decisions of the Board reported to Parliament, and the decisions of Parliament reported to the country. He had as confident and as decided a guess what the decision of Parliament would be in these cases, as he had when he predicted to their Lordships, some years ago, what would be the decision of any Election Committee, the members of which were taken equally from both parties, when he knew the political opinions of the Chairman. He never used to look to either side, but only to the Chairman, and he was generally pretty certain as to how the decision would go; and he spoke now with equal confidence as to the decision of Parliament on the Reports of this Board—not merely from past experience, and the results of that experience—not merely because he could hardly conceive bow it could be otherwise—not merely because he was arguing with all the probabilities on one way, and none on the other—but why he was so sanguine on the result of his opinion in this matter was, that he had listened attentively not only to the first, but also to the last part of his noble Friend's speech, and the whole of that last part was a demonstration unmistakable of what he now laid down. For observe, the letting out the slightest hint beforehand of what the decisions of the Board would be was reckoned by the Board gross negligence or culpable treachery; the utmost precautions were taken and properly and justly taken (but ineffectually, as he should presently show), to prevent the least whisper from going abroad, by which the probable results of the inquiry might be conjectured out of doors. First, the papers were denied their usual refuge of the cabinet-box, because it was possible that a key might be forged, the box opened, and its contents exposed to profane eyes. Therefore, a special box was made, with a peculiar lock, and a key that could not be forged—all the Bramahs of
372
the day were put into requisition in order to obtain an unimitable key to an unopenable box. Then the Report was taken by a special messenger—the ordinary messenger, of course, could not be trusted—and taken just a quarter before the particular hour when the Stock Exchange closed, that it might arrive at the Gazette office too late to reach the Stock Exchange that night—and the Gazette man was the only man confided in—as the editor of the Gazette was the only person who was entrusted with the Report for this quarter of an hour, and the only human being who could dream of what the decisions of the Board would be. But why all this multiplying of precautions to prevent the most faint whisper getting out before the decisions of the Board were made public, if the decision of the Board was to have no effect upon the final result, but were merely to be taken as the opinions of the five gentlemen who had taken the subject out of the hands of Parliament to prevent Parliament having the trouble of deciding? If the Board were only ancillary to Parliament, and its decisions not influencing Parliament in any way, why all this secrecy? Why they might as well publish the opinions of the Board before hand at Charing-cross, for whoever acted upon them would have themselves only to blame, if they burnt their fingers by speculating on the Stock Exchange. But every body knew that the decisions of the Board would not be a mere dead letter, but that they would influence the final decisions of Parliament on all the railway schemes. Out of this state of the case two observations arose. There were three schemes of railway in competition before the Board. Two of the three must be unsuccessful, and the question was, which one should have the opinion, the confidence, and the support of the Board, and which two shall be condemned. The Board examined the three schemes. His noble Friend appeared at first to say, that the Board did not examine evidence, that they had not power to do so. [Lord Dalhousie: They have not time.] No, but each party came before them with the best case he could get up; the Board examined the parties themselves in favour of their own scheme, but without calling witnesses, which they could not do, but having before them the best information they could obtain, on that they decided. Their decisions were published in the Gazette, and in that decision

373
they condemned two out of the three schemes, and approved of the third. Condemn was not the expression, certainly, but in the Report they recommended one and rejected the others. The Report, then, let it be supposed, was against two of the competing lines, and in favour of one. What was the consequence,—the first and immediate consequence? The moment that this Report was heard of, the moment that even a whisper of it reached the Stock Exchange, instantly every body who had stack in the two lines decided against was anxious to sell out, and every one tried if possible to get a little of the stocks of the third. The consequence was, that the funds fell with respect to the two, and they rose as to the third. That was the necessary, the inevitable result. With the existing regulation such a result could not be avoided. It might be expedient, it might be indispensable, that there should be some regulation as to these things. He admitted that readily; but then the only thing to be regarded was, whether this Was the best way, whether they should not have some regulation which at the same time would provide for the safety, the benefit, and the good of the public, and that should be as little pressing as possible upon the property of individuals. Though his noble Friend himself never speculated is these things, yet if he made up his mind to expend 5,000 l. in railway shares—though this he had never done, nor had any connexion of his ever done—yet if he had, or if any connexion of his had expended 5,000 l. in a railway that was reported against, then he said in that case he should feel most bitterly vexed and grieved by finding, through the means of a sentence published in the Gazette, a sentence, too, With regard to which all possible precautions had been taken; for it was not of that he would complain; but what he would complain of was the publicity, and that by that publicity 5,000 l. in shares would lumble down to be worth perhaps not 500 l.; perhaps not worth 50 l. This he would complain of; whereas, on the other band, he admitted he would feel very much obliged, if it happened that he was the lucky holder of shares in a railway which had been so fortunate as to have a sentence published in the Gazette in its favour, and instead of his shares being Worth 5,000 l., made worth five times 5,000 l. These were matters of very great importance—these were matters that had
374
a very great effect upon trade. Immense capital was involved in them—an immense amount of property was embarked in them; and here, then, was the Board of Trade, which, by publishing a single line, could sink or raise the value of that property—could do that which might ruin one man, and make the fortune of another. Now, this might be all necessary. He did not deny it; but then, let not noble Lords run away with the idea that this was all plain sailing; that no principle was interfered with, that no oppression had been done, and no injustice had occurred. It was very probable that very great injustice might be done, and very great oppression might be inflicted if they did not guard carefully, sedulously, and jealously the operation of such a plan as this. Another observation occurred to him—there was here an opportunity given to two, four, or five individuals, not of telling people that which they had done, or were about to do, but of buying or selling themselves. The opportunity was given to them—he did not say that any one had availed themselves of it; but their Lordships must perceive that this was a very delicate matter, and what he had humbly to suggest to them was this, if it were not absolutely necessary to intrust such a matter as this to none but those who were sworn Privy Councillors, or to a Minister of the Crown, and if they could not have all the benefits of four or five individuals to assist them, yet to have them as witnesses in helping them to come to a proper judgment? He would much rather have the determination of such a matter vested in responsible hands—in those that held a high position in Parliament, that stood high in the estimation of the public—in the hands of those who were, for instance, the sworn Ministers of the Crown—of men who could not betray their trust, because if they did, they would be liable to impeachment. He said he would much rather see the matter in such hands, than left to those who might buy or sell stock, and who, in doing so, could not be subjected to the slightest penalty. If these persons chose to do so, they were subjected to no penalty; they were liable to no punishment; they were not sworn; they were not even bound by the moral obligation of an extra-judicial oath. There was nothing to control those persons in making private speculations. Then there was another mode that might have been

375
adopted. The persons appointed to make these decisions—that is, they might have persons of great public station and responsibility, persons in high rank in public affairs and in Parliament. Perhaps it could hardly be said that any position could be so high or so responsible as that which was connected with the discharge of the duties of such a Board. He conceived, for his part, that it was not necessary to have recourse to any persons, however respectable, who did not fill the responsible situations of advisers to the Crown, or who, as Privy Councillors, were sworn to the discharge of their duties. He wished, however, to guard himself from any uncharitable construction being put upon the language he had used. He already repudiated the notion that he intended to make any observations against the Gentlemen who were on the Committee of the Board of Trade; he believed them to be most respectable; he believed that none could be more respectable. He did not know more than one of them, General Pasley; and he said a more honourable man there could not be—a better informed man could not possibly be. He did not know the others, but he took the description of them from what had been said of them by his noble Friend. He took that description from what had been said by his noble Friend, and he believed implicitly in it; but then referring to the charge which had been made, and of which he had never heard before that evening, with respect to Mr. William O'Brien, the chairman or manager of a railway, and Captain O'Brien, the Member of the Board—his noble Friend had said that Captain O'Brien was present, but did not take any part in the decisions that had been come to. He (Lord Brougham) did not see the necessity of his being present, when the matter under discussion was connected with the railway in which Mr. W. O'Brien was interested. The Board might have come to a decision without his being present. At the same time he did not charge Captain O'Brien with influencing that decision. His noble Friend mistook the matter at issue, when he entered into the details he had done. The question was not whether the Board was right or wrong in making a Report; but the question was, whether Mr. William O'Brien, the brother, knew that they were going to make a Report. He understood the fact to be, that Mr. O'Brien
376
was unacquainted with what the Board was going to decide, although he had the opportunity of getting at the fact.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas understood to say that it was absurd to suppose that an unfavourable decision was come to on a particular scheme, because Mr. O'Brien had a brother a Member at the Board.
Lord Brougham: If a person had a near relative interested in a particular scheme, and if he were not an honourable man, as Captain O'Brien certainly was, he might have given information; of course, Mr. William O'Brien had not bought stock at the time, nor about the time—he took that the matter was so. Besides, it did not follow that one gentleman was to lose, as connected with a railway, because he had a brother a member of the Committee of the Board of Trade. He had no doubt that it was all right and all proper, and that not the shadow of a suspicion could rest upon the worthy and injuriously-commented-upon individuals. What was or could be a proper regulation of the system to be adopted, or the practice to be pursued, it was not for him to suggest. Happily, it was still open for Parliament to determine it. He rejoiced that its attention had been so early called to it; and before any further mischief could be done, it was open for Parliament to make further regulations. It would not do to deny that the Board must have great influence upon parties and the public—he was sure that their Reports must influence them much. It would not do merely to say that these men were honest and honourable men, and that they never had divulged any secrets of the Board. He was sure that they never had divulged them. They saw that great precautions had been taken—they saw the nature of these precautions to prevent the secret from getting out. They saw that all this had been done ineffectually, whilst the secret itself was of the most important nature—of such delicacy and such importance, that the knowledge of it was certain to inflict the greatest injury upon one, and to confer the greatest benefit upon another. This, then, he said, was enough to make it the bounden duty of Parliament to devise every check and guard that they could possibly conceive and suggest, to prevent the possibility of allowing publicity being given to a secret which would admit of malversation; they should not

377
merely do this, but they should devise a plan, in which they might have an entire and absolute confidence that it would be impossible that any malversation could take place.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved that, from the great multiplicity of transactions connected with railways, it was obviously a matter of the greatest importance that Parliament should have the advantage of some preliminary inquiry respecting them. He certainly did not know, and he was not then prepared to say, that the course suggested as to the construction of the Board was essentially wrong; at the same time it might be a question hereafter whether that construction might not be, in some degree, amended. He must do the noble Earl opposite the justice of saying that he had stated at the time this question had been under the consideration of Parliament, that the decisions of the Board were not to be held as binding upon Parliament. It certainly was not stated that their decisions were to be binding, although a contrary idea might have gone abroad. The object of this Committee, or whatever other tribunal was appointed, was to consider which plan proposed to them was the most perfect, and that their decisions being known, might be a warning to parties, to prevent them from exposing themselves to unnecessary expense, and enable them to withdraw from a contest which might ultimately prove unfortunate. He confessed he did think that purpose had been forwarded by the course which had been pursued by the Board, by their promulgating an authentic decision through the medium of the Gazette, without annexing to it the reasons that had induced them to come to such a decision. It was obvious that parties would be prejudiced in favour of their own scheme; that scheme they would be disposed to imagine had been rejected upon insufficient grounds; they would presume that they had good grounds for being dissatisfied with it, and that their own reasons, when they came to be known, would overpower those of the Board. If the reasons were stated to the public, with the decision as to the grounds upon which it had been come to, then it would afford at the same time useful information to all parties that were interested in the fortunate scheme that had been determined upon; and it might also assist other parties in coming
378
to the conclusion whether or not they would persist with schemes analogous in their nature to that which had been rejected. He could not conceive any objection, unless it was one of a technical nature, which could have prevented the Board from annexing their reasons to each particular decision. He threw out for the consideration of the noble Earl, whether, in making his Reports—if he made them at all—he should not have them made by the Board as fully as possible, because it appeared to him to be the only way in which they could have those advantages which were proposed in the appointment of the Board. He merely rose for the purpose of throwing out this suggestion, and not for the purpose of pronouncing any definite opinion as to the constitution of the Board. Such a Board ought to be constituted and upheld hereafter, or Parliament would never be able to do justice to the treat mass of materials which were cast before it, connected with this one subject. He did not wish to enter at present into the great and grave considerations which were connected with the question of railroads, and their effect upon the general property and the private property in this country. The questions and considerations connected with this subject were of the utmost importance, and must force themselves hereafter, and that, too, at no distant period, upon the attention of Parliament.
Lord Stanleytrusted that a few observations would be pardoned from one who had so recently the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House. It was, because he was so recently a Member of that House—it was, because he had so much later experience of the mode of proceeding in the other House of Parliament than his noble and learned Friend, that he ventured to correct a misapprehension into which he had fallen, and which, if permitted to go uncontradicted, might have an injurious effect upon the mind of the public. His noble and learned Friend had stated that he intended to move, at the close of the Session, for a return of all the Railway Bills which shall have passed through the House of Commons; and then, because the Reports on Railways had come from Members of a Committee connected with the President of the Board of Trade, and a Member of the Government, that not only nine out of every ten, but ninety-nine out of every hundred, of the decisions

379
of the House of Commons, would be in support of that which had been already come to by the Government. He thought it extremely likely that such might be the result. In the main, he believed, that the opinion of the Legislature would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Board. He believed, that this would be the case; but he could not concur in the conclusion which his noble and learned Friend would seem to draw from that circumstance—that they would be affirmed, because of the support of the Government. If his noble and learned Friend had the later experience which he had of the proceedings in the House of Commons, he would have been aware that since railways had come under the consideration of that House, there had not been one instance in which a single Member of the Government had, directly or indirectly, ever exercised the slightest influence on the votes of Members of the House of Commons upon any single railway scheme. There was not any Railway Bill on which Government had ever taken any part; and if his noble and learned Friend would examine the Records of the other House, he would find that in the great majority of such measures, the Members of the Government had abstained from voting — that in most instances they absented themselves; and that when they were present they voted constantly on different sides; and he might add that the Members of the House of Commons never had been sought, and never would be asked by Government to vote in favour of, or against, any particular branch of railway. With this explanation his noble and learned Friend would assign a different reason from that which he had suggested for the House of Commons coming to the same conclusion which the Board had deliberately arrived at—that Board consisting of highly honourable and highly intelligent individuals, who had been appointed under its own sanction—who had every opportunity of examining calmly and dispassionately into the circumstances of each case presented to them—and who, in their deliberations and investigations into the matters in their charge, were free from the interference of counsel—no small advantage in his opinion—and from the excitement of public proceedings, and who, there was every probability to support the belief, came to
380
their decisions, not because the Board of Trade was a constituent portion of the Government, but because of the advantage which they deemed they could procure for the country. His noble and learned Friend, therefore, combated a proposition which was never enunciated by his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade. What his noble Friend said on that occasion was, that it was likely the Legislature would come to the same decision as the Board of Trade in the majority of instances; and he agreed with his noble Friend that it would stultify the proceedings of the Legislature if it did otherwise, appointed as the Committee of that Board has been under its own sanction; if it did not, it would be, as regards their proceedings, only time thrown away, and trouble taken in vain. The noble Marquess had stated, and stated truly—that an essential portion of the duty of the Board of Trade is to avert the expense of fruitless proceedings on the part of those persons engaged in prosecuting railway speculations; but his noble Friend seemed to think that it rather neutralised the effect of this portion of their duty not to publish the reasons on which they came to the conclusions contained in their Reports. His noble Friend had stated the reasons why these decisions had been published. It was conceived that it would be better they should be known at once, lest they should ooze out in any improper manner, and unduly obtain publicity. [The Marquess of Lansdowne asked why the reasons had not been published in the Gazette?] His noble Friend asked why the Board had not made their Reports in the Gazette. They were required to report to Parliament. It was impossible for them to make their reports before Parliament met. They gave the result before the meeting of Parliament, because their decisions might ooze out, and much speculation and great jobbing might have been the consequence of the secret oozing out. It was for that reason the decision was published at once, and without waiting for the Report. But then his noble Friend said, that advantage might have been derived from the Report being known, as it might be the means of saving parties from great expense. He thought his noble Friend argued without foundation. He understood that a recent order had been made in the other House of Parliament, by which time was to be extended to parties concerned in railways, and this for the purpose of

381
parties not involving themselves in expense. It was not three weeks after the decision was known, but three weeks after the reasons on which the decision was founded were known, that were they required to proceed. Parties then would have the full benefit of that time for consideration. They would have that time for determining whether, after hearing the statement of the Board of Trade, they would incur any more expense; whether they would employ counsel, and engage themselves in a strife, by battling in a Committee, often bringing with it an expense of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. Parties then would have the opportunity for three weeks, not subsequent to the decision, but to the opinion of the Board of Trade, to consider what course they might deem most proper to pursue. He could not, however, help thinking that whatever objections might now be made would have been much better urged at the time that the appointment of the Board was under discussion. He could not, too, but think, that after the reasons of the Board had been submitted in detail to the parties interested in these projects, that they would tend to save litigation; that the result would be to diminish greatly expenses that otherwise would have been incurred; to induce shareholders, influenced by the opinions of the Committee of the Board of Trade, to withdraw from plans which they might otherwise have regarded with favour. That they would induce them to withdraw, and, in many instances, from the satisfactory reasons assigned, not further to involve themselves in loss; to influence them in not opposing the most useful schemes, and that thus the most deserving of the support and the favour of the country would have the opportunity of being carried into effect, without the loss of being exposed to useless and unprofitable litigation—and that by the satisfactory reasons of the Board, there would not be that depreciation of property which his noble Friend deplored; and thus there might be avoided that unnecessary expenditure of money in the payment of agents and counsel, and all that expensive machinery which had hitherto been employed in getting forward with Railway Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowneexplained. It was quite obvious, that when the Board came to a decision, and had formed an opinion, they could as easily communicate
382
their reasons, as the result of those reasons. As to the order which had been stated by his noble Friend, as having been suggested by the other House, he thought it was very proper, and one the effect of which would be of immense importance in preventing a large portion of the capital of the country being wasted in useless speculations.
The Earl of Dalhousie, in explanation, also said, that it would have been quite as acceptable and quite as easy for the Board of Trade to assign their reasons for the several decisions to which they had come, at the period of their publication as, subsequently, to Parliament; but having been constituted by Parliament, and being accountable to Parliament only for the course they had taken, they were obliged to reserve their explanations for that body. The Board, indeed, would prefer to have reported their reasons and their decisions at the same time; but for the cause he had stated they felt called upon to report them at separate periods.
Report ordered to be printed.
House adjourned.