SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY (CANTERBURY AND WHITSTABLE, ETC.) BILL. (Hansard, 14 July 1853)

The EARL, VERULAM
moved the Third Reading of this Bill, and stated that a clause had been added to the Bill to give the company power to run steamboats in connexion with the railway between Folkestone and France. It was the duty of Parliament to procure for the public the maximum of comfort with the minimum, of cost. He believed that that object would be attained by this Bill. The company had been forced to run steamboats between some of the English and French ports. They were found to be a great convenience to the public; and they had been so well conducted, that although they had conveyed a vast number of passengers backwards and forwards, not one accident had occurred. As there was a doubt as to the legality of this proceeding on the part of the railway company, they now asked Parliament, by the passing of this 160 Bill, to give its sanction to the undertaking.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
said, that the Bill involved a great public question, to which the attention of their Lordships ought to be especially directed. There were ten petitions presented against this Bill, one of which represented seventeen large steamboat companies, and another fifteen. With regard to the latter, the petition represented the opinions of persons who were interested in about 100,000 tons of steam shipping, and who were working a capital of about 4,000,000l. They comprised the British and Foreign Steam Navigation Company, the Liverpool and Dublin Steam Packet Company, the Levant Steam Navigation Company, the British and North American Steam Navigation Company, the Bristol Steam Navigation Company, and several other important steamboat companies. They rested their opposition to the Bill on two grounds. The first was, that it gave to a railway company an entire monopoly over the steam navigation in the harbours at which the company had termini. The second ground of objection was, that it would give to this particular railway company the power of establishing a steamboat monopoly, with limited liability—a privilege which Parliament had invariably refused for a long period of years to any steamboat company. In 1847 the Railway Commissioners had reported against such a principle. In 1848 there was a joint Report of the Board of Trade and the Railway Board to the same effect. Under Lord Derby's Government a somewhat similar application was made on behalf of the British and North of Europe Company, and the then Board of Trade refused to give its sanction to a limited liability. In the case of the Dublin Steamboat Company, an application for an Act of Incorporation was made. This incorporation, he admitted, constituted a grant of limited liability. But the case of this company required further examination before it could be quoted as a precedent. Their capital was 500,000l. Although a concession of limited liability was made to that company, it was specially declared that such a concession to that company was not to be taken as a precedent. Therefore, when they came before Parliament on a subsequent occasion for power to extend their capital, the application was refused, on the ground that Parliament would not grant a limited liability in relation to the new capital sought to be raised. Under 161 these circumstances, he (Lord Monteagle) thought that it would be the height of injustice, after refusing to grant limited liability to so many other parties, to grant it in the case of the present Bill. A Royal Commission was at present engaged in an inquiry into the law of partnership, expressly including the question of partnerships with limited liability—yet without waiting for the Report of that Commission their Lordships were now asked by the promoters of this Bill to grant this favour to their particular company. If ever there was a case in which it would be dangerous to grant such a favour, it was the present one. Parliament had often found it necessary to interpose their power against the grasping monopoly of railway interests. If on general principles be were indisposed to grant this favour to an ordinary steamboat company, he would be still less disposed to grant it to such a company in connexion with a railway. The Chester and Holyhead Railway Company was an exception to the general rule, because the late Sir Robert Peel was anxious to make a sacrifice for the purpose of securing a better communication between England and Ireland. Practically speaking, the terminus of this communication was rather Dublin than Holyhead. It should also be recollected that that company had contributed a sum of 200,000l. towards the construction of the harbour at Holyhead. The Brighton Railway Company were refused powers to establish steamboats between Brighton and France. The late Duke of Wellington, who took a great interest in the question of Channel communication, in 1848 drew a distinction between a Railway Bill to enable a company to make a railway, and a Bill to enable them to build steamers, with the construction of which he conceived a railway company had nothing to do. It was admitted by the South-Eastern Railway Company that they had acted illegally and contrary to a well-recognised principle, in establishing their steamboats: however, after having done so for many years, they had now the boldness to come forward with the present application to sanction and to legalise their violation of the law. Their Lordships should not be led away by the argument that by giving this company these powers Parliament would enable them to run good boats across the Channel. This was contradictory to another branch of their argument, for the case the petitioners endeavoured to make out was that, without 162 this Bill, they had already embarked a large capital and employed good boats in those very harbours in which the company now asked Parliament to give them a monopoly. He had no objection to granting the company all the other powers they asked for; but he hoped that their Lordships would not lend themselves to such an injustice as to grant a special favour to one company which they had already refused to so many others. He would, therefore, move to omit those clauses of the Bill which proposed to give the company those powers to which he had objected on behalf of the petitioners whose interests he represented.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, this case had been sent before a Select Committee as an opposed Bill. Different opposing companies were heard against it by counsel, agents, and witnesses, and the Committee, after all, came to a resolution in favour of the Bill; and it now appeared before their Lordships for a third reading. He strongly recommended their Lordships to pause long before they departed from the principle of giving their confidence to the reports of their Committees acting impartially, and he would say judicially, on the questions referred to them.

§ The EARL of HARROWBY
said, that the principle was not to give persons the advantages of limited liability except in cases of such magnitude as should make the risk too great to be undertaken without such a privilege. In the present case no such amount of responsibility had been shown; he, therefore, hoped their Lordships would not pass the Bill. The present was merely an attempt on the part of a steamboat company to obtain an advantage over a competitor, by acquiring certain privileges under the cover of being connected with and forming part of a railway company. He saw no reason why their Lordships should depart from the principle which they had usually followed in reference to such cases, which was, not to give one party an advantage over other competitors, which advantage was not at all requisite to the carrying out of their undertaking.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he did not think it was quite fair to apply the same principles which regulated the steam navigation of this country with foreign nations, to such a description of steam navigation as, that which was con- 163 templated by this Bill. There was a great difference between the steam navigation which carried on the trade between all parts of the world, and that which conducted trade between local ports. In the present case the steamboat company was rather a branch of the railway company, than an independent body. So far from its being the fact that there was no instance of Parliament having given its consent to a similar undertaking, he believed there was hardly any case in which a similar application was refused. The principle laid down in the Report of the Committee of 1848 was, that it was not politic to grant a charter of limited liability to any persons undertaking a private enterprise, and that such charter should only be granted when the undertaking was of sufficient magnitude to make it of national importance. But the Report drew a distinction which appeared to be applicable to this case. They thought that under circumstances similar to those which here existed, a limited power might be granted. If a minimum of fares were established, and if certain regulations were adopted, it was their opinion that the powers now asked for might be granted. He did think that, such having been the recommendation of the Committee under the peculiar circumstances of the case, their Lordships ought to grant the powers now asked for. The course pursued by their Lordships' House, and by the other House of Parliament was, when such matters were referred to a Committee, and that Committee reported that it was desirable that the power asked for should be granted, to concur with the recommendation of the Committee; and he thought that much stronger reasons should be adduced than had been advanced by the noble Lord (Lord Mont-eagle) before their Lordships should depart from that principle by refusing to pass the third reading of this Bill.

The EARL of WICKLOW
thought their Lordships ought to have better evidence before them previously to their coming to decision upon the Bill. He would, therefore, recommend that the third reading should be postponed until the Report of the Committee was printed and laid before their Lordships.

§ The EARL of GALLOWAY
opposed the Bill. The object of it could not be carried out without a great outlay, which outlay could not be met without granting preferential shares; and he knew that many of those who were now interested 164 in the company were opposed to granting any preferential shares.

§ The EARL of POWIS
opposed the Bill. The present was altogether different from all previous cases in which the privilege of unlimited liability had been granted to railway companies working steamboats. This was not the case of a steam ferry, but that of a railway company working boats for sea voyages. If they granted the privilege sought in this case, they would be asked by every other railway company, whose undertaking terminated at a seaport, to grant them the privilege of working steamboats to ports beyond sea, with the great advantage, as compared with their competitors, of unlimited liability.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
said, that he should much prefer that the House should consider the case with the evidence before them; and if therefore his noble Friend (the Earl of Wicklow) would move the postponement of the third reading until the evidence was printed and laid before them, he (Lord Monteagle) would withdraw his Amendment.