THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEpresented a Petition of the Inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Portumna, against this Bill. The noble Marquess said the Bill involved matters of the greatest public importance, as it was a proposition for the amalgamation of two railway companies, which engrossed the whole west and south of Ireland, with the Grand Canal, which was the only other means of accommodation for a considerable portion of country lying between the two railways. Although the Bill was a private one it involved a matter of the greatest importance to Ireland. There would be found in their Lordships' library many Acts of Parliament by which the public money had been advanced to the Grand Canal Company. The grants specifically for the inland navigation of the Shannon amounted to £133,100. There was a share of a grant of £1,000,000 for public works amounting to £54,649; and a share of another grant of £250,000—so that he was within the mark when he said that £200,000 of public money had been spent upon the navigation of the Shannon, which by this Bill was coolly proposed to be transferred to these railway companies. A large district of country lying between these railways was entirely dependent on them for communication; but this Bill would place the public altogether at their mercy. It would be said, perhaps, that clauses could be introduced by which tolls and rates might be fixed; but there could be no security that the railway companies would not take off the steamboats and bring the whole of the west, the centre, and the south of Ireland under their control. It was absurd to leave such a Bill to be dealt with in a Select Committee, and he should therefore oppose the Bill when it came before their Lordships.
THE EARL OF LUCANbegged to thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to this Bill, which affected the interests of a large portion of the population of Ireland. The Bill came before the House under a 6 false title. It was called a Railway Bill; but its object was to throw the navigation into the hands of the railway companies. It was most objectionable that any canal should be in the hands of any railway company—so much so that, two years ago, a Bill was passed requiring railway companies to come to Parliament before purchasing any canal whatever. The objection was much stronger in this case, where the canal was to be held by the two principal railway companies in the country, who claimed as their territory the whole of the west, north-west, south-west, and centre of Ireland. The Bill would be most mischievous in its operation. Had this amalgamation Bill passed five years ago, they would never have got a railway from Athlone to the west. This was not a mere Private Bill, but involved a question of public principle, and he thought the House should not allow it to go before a Private Bill Committee.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEconcurred in all that had been stated against this Bill. The measure ought not to be dealt with as an ordinary Private Bill, for it was really a Public Bill of a very dangerous tendency. An attempt of this character was made sonic years ago; but it appearing to the Board of Trade that it was directly contrary to the public interests that such a measure should proceed, the Board gave notice to oppose it on that ground. He hoped that the same course would now be taken. He thought, it a sufficient argument against allowing this Bill to pass that he had not heard a single opinion in favour of this Bill from persons connected with Ireland.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, this Bill was one of a class which very strongly impressed upon his mind the necessity of having a Department in this country to watch over these matters. The traffic of the country, as conducted by railways and canals, required supervision. Some years since a Railway Board had been established in connection with the Board of Trade, but it had since been discontinued. Besides the powers for purchasing the canal, this Bill contained other powers known as "working arrangements." A Bill of the same kind, promoted by the London and North Western and Great Northern Railway Companies, had been rejected last Session; but it was again before Parliament. All the House could do in this case was to allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee. The Board of Trade 7 proposed in such cases that the tolls allowed to be taken should be such that the canal might always remain fairly open to traffic. It was evident that some authoritative council was needed; for although the Board of Trade had been at great pains in these matters, it was impossible, constituted as the Board was, that it could take the lead in protecting the public interest in such cases. The business coming before the Board was so multifarious that matters were handed over from one officer to another, and no one knew how they were dealt with. The railway interest was always strong enough to overbear the interference of the Board of Trade. He wondered that the railway companies had not arrived at the conclusion that the more they accommodated the public the more they would benefit themselves. By the Orders of the House this Bill after being read a second time would go before a Select Committee. It would come before the House again on the third reading; but the House would probably not be disposed to reverse the decision of the Committee. He had nothing to suggest as to the course to be taken on this Bill; but he thought it highly desirable that the Government should adopt some means whereby they might exercise control over the plans promoted by great railway companies, and which seriously affected the public interests.
THE EARL OF SHELBURNEbelieved that the railway interest would be extremely benefited by the creation of such a Department as had been referred to by the noble Lord who spoke last, either in connection with the existing Board of Trade or in the establishment of an entirely new tribunal. He thought that such an authoritative body would be of great assistance to those who sought to carry out great works of public utility, as well as to the populations these were designed to accommodate.
§ After a few words from the Marquess of WESTMEATH,
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that a Government Department for the regulation of railways was no doubt desired by many of the railways and also by the public. In the first instance, the action of such a Board would be beneficial; but that which had happened before would happen again. Parties would complain of the decisions of the Board, the department would not be supported by the public and its influence would thus be weakened. 8 The Bill, at the first view, seemed to deprive the public of the advantage of the competition they at present enjoyed. That circumstance would be one of the elements for the consideration of the Select Committee, and if they thought that the powers asked by the company deprived the public of the competition they ought to have they could act accordingly. He saw no reason why the general course should not be followed in this case. Let the Bill be referred to a Select Committee and let them decide whether it was one of those cases in which it was desirable to affirm the amalgamation.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the public would not be represented at all before the Committee. As a question of inland navigation, this case went far beyond that of a common canal; and he now gave notice that he would object to the third reading of the Bill unless it was altered in some way by which the public would be guaranteed against the mischiefs that he apprehended from it.