Sitting of 25 March 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1°. Destitute Poor (Ireland); Coroners (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Aldam, from Inhabitants of the Village of New York, for Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir G. Strickland, from Preston, in favour of a Ten Hours' (Factory) Bill.—By Mr. Bateson, from Guardians of the Magherafelt Union, for Alteration of Poor Law (Ireland).
House met at Twelve o'clock.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY. AMALGAMATION BILLS.
LORD DALMENYmoved the Second Reading of the Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Scottish Central Railways Junction Bill.
MR. F. MAULEhoped that his noble Friend would not press the second reading of that Bill at present. He was not opposed to it, but merely wished it to be delayed until the Report of the Committee that had been appointed to inquire into all Amalgamation Lines of Railway should be received.
LORD DALMENYbegged to remind his hon. Friend who had intimated that he was not opposed to the second reading of the Bill, that he had given a notice of a

69
Motion to read the Bill a second time that day six months; therefore he had every reason to believe, that it was the intention of his hon. Friend to oppose the Bill in all its stages. He hoped the House would allow the second reading, so that the merits of the Bill might be gone into in Committee, where he would be prepared to meet all the objections that his hon. Friend might there make to it.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, his opposition to that Bill was purely upon public grounds, and he believed he might with safety state, that it would be opposed to the interests of his own constituents of the city of Perth. He was opposed to it because he did not wish to see the entire communication between the north and south of Scotland bcome a great monopoly by being thrown into the hands of one particular body, which the amalgamation of these two lines of railway was calculated to effect. When he had given his notice of Motion that the Bill should be read that day six months, he was not aware that his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) had given notice of the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of proposed Amalgamation Bills; and as that was the case, he did not intend to proceed with the Motion for which he had given notice, but merely intended to move in place of it that the Bill should be read that day six weeks, which would allow sufficient time for the Report of the Amalgamation Committee to be received. He would therefore move as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read that day six weeks.
MR. W. PATTENwas of opinion that the Committee had nothing whatever to do with the second reading of that or any other Bill; and he would recommend with regard to the second reading of that Bill, that the discussion should take place upon its merits without waiting for the Report of the Committee, whose duty it was to inquire into a different matter, which the second reading could not possibly interfere with.
VISCOUNT DUNCANwas delighted with what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Patten), who was Chairman of the Classification Bill; and he would recommend his hon. Friend to follow his example. He was opposed to postponement. His hon. Friend wished to obtain time to bring down his forces, and oppose the further progress of the Bill.
MR. F. BARINGwas favourable to the
70
suggestion that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed till the Report of the Amalgamation Committee should be received, as, in case the Bill was then read a second time, and allowed to go into Committee, and afterwards that it should appear that the Report of the Amalgamation Committee was against its further progress, and it should then be thrown out, an unnecessary and useless additional expense would have been incurred; therefore, he was of opinion, as the House had appointed the Committee, that it would be much better to postpone the second reading of the Bill until the Report was received.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, that the House having appointed a Committee to inquire into all the proposed amalgamations, he thought it would be very inconsistent in them if they did not adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire, for the suspension of all Amalgamation Bills. He would suggest that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth for the postponement of the second reading of the Bill then before the House till that day six weeks should be withdrawn, and that the right hon. Gentleman would allow that Bill to take the same course as the others; and the House should not allow the second reading of that or any other Amalgamation Bill, but that they should all be suspended in their present stages, with the view that no prejudice should be taken against any of them in particular.
MR. FOX MAULEhad no objection to withdraw his Motion for the six weeks' suspension, and substitute any other time by which it was thought the Committee would have made their Report.
MR. LOCHthought, that as other Amalgamation Bills had been permitted to go through the preliminary stages, and had received a second reading, it would look like an unjust and partial proceeding if the Bill before the House were not to be treated in the same manner.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONobserved that his experience as a Member of the Committee to whom had been referred a group of Caledonian lines enabled him to state that in the great majority of cases the idea of competition between railway companies was altogether illusory. Some general rules ought unquestionably to be laid down applicable to different cases of amalgamation, otherwise great confusion and inconvenience would result in consequence of the

71
Committees coming to all kinds of conflicting decisions. Instead of appointing a Committee to take the question of amalgamation into consideration, the better course by far would have been for the Government to have taken the matter into their own hands, and to have come before the House at an early period of the Session, prepared with general rules and regulations to govern the conduct of the Railway Committees in all cases of proposed amalgamation.
MR. STUART WORTLEYwas for placing this Bill in exactly the same position with other Amalgamation Bills, which had been permitted to receive a second reading, and he would accordingly vote against the postponement.
MR. P. M. STEWARTwas averse to the second reading, for he was of opinion that the wisest course that the House could adopt was to order all Bills of this description, without any exception whatever, to remain in statu quo until the Report of the Select Committee which had been appointed to take the general question of amalgamation into consideration had been laid before the House. If the door were to be opened for the admission of the present Bill, all other Amalgamation Bills would of course be entitled to enter as well.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas under the impression that the moment that they had resolved to appoint the Committee of Amalgamation, the House had substantially laid down the rule, that until the decision of that Committee was known, all further proceedings in the case of Amalgamation Bills were to be suspended. He was for adhering to this course, and thought that the present Bill, and all others of a similar character, should be permitted to fall under the same rule. Much inconvenience would assuredly result if, on the strength of a precedent which had been set last night, all Railway Bills of this description were to receive a second reading, while the question which involved the course to be pursued in reference to amalgamation generally was still pending.
MR. F. MAULEthen withdrew his original Motion, and moved—
"That the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed until the Report of the Committee on Railway Amalgamations should have been laid before the House; and that a similar rule shall apply to all other Bills for the Amalgamation of Railways."
MR. HOME DRUMMONDsaid, that he should certainly support the second reading of this Bill, as he could see no other definite line to draw between the Amalgamation Bills that were to be advanced, and those that were to be stopped, than the passing of the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, which had this object specially in view. If the House were to go back to the first expression of the intention to interfere with Amalgamation Bills, they could not apply that rule to the present Bill without manifest injustice; for they had already allowed other Bills to be read a second time since that intention was announced. They could not treat this Bill differently without fixing on it a stigma which would affect it most injuriously in the estimation of the public.
The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 34: Majority, 6.
Bill read 2a.

TURNPIKE ROADS (SCOTLAND).
MR. F. MAULEmoved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Bill.
MR. LOCKHARTmoved as an Amendment to substitute the words that "the House will resolve itself into the said Committee that day six months." If the Bill passed, he considered that it would not at all diminish the number of toll-houses selling spirits. It was beginning at the wrong end; it would be far better to revise the system of licenses.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, the House had already divided upon the principle of the Bill, and he had hoped that there would not have been a second discussion and a second division upon its principle. Except upon public grounds, he should not have interfered in the matter; but there were crying evils arising from the sale of spirits at toll-houses. It was well known to almost every hon. Member present that the practice of selling spirituous liquors at toll-bars was a privilege which at various times had been grievously abused. Some most frightful crimes had been committed in houses of that description—witness the Gilmerton case. Still he thought that a prohibition respecting the sale of refreshments at toll-bars ought not to be rendered universal. Such a privilege, however, ought to be the exception, and not the rule. He should not object to the introduction of a clause giving the magistrates

73
a discretionary power of licensing those houses in certain cases.
SIR J. M'TAGGARTshould vote against going into Committee, unless exceptions were made in certain cases.
MR. FORBESthought it was unnecessary to define the duties of the magistrates in reference to this matter.
MR. P. M. STEWARTwas of opinion that refreshments should not be sold at toll-bars unless when they were situate at a great distance from public houses.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEwas opposed to the Bill, but he thought the whole subject of licenses ought to be into; and if no other hon. Member submitted a Motion to the House for inquiry, he would himself.
MR. HOME DRUMMONDsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was to be so far improved that a modification was to be made of the prohibition of licenses at toll-bars; but still he could not withdraw his opposition. He did not oppose it on the ground of no interference with the system of licensing in Scotland being necessary. On the contrary, he considered the subject full of abuse, and would give his cordial support to the Motion which his hon. Friend the Member for Peebles had expressed his intention to make. This Bill he considered altogether trifling with the subject as to the moral effects to which the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance, and practically, if it should pass, it would be found useless and unworkable.
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question:—Ayes, 30; Noes, 18: Majority, 12.

List of the AYES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hodgson, R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Howard, P. H.

Busfeild, W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Courtenay, Lord

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Denison, E. B.

Morrison, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Ebrington, Visct.

Scrope, G. P.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Seymer, H. K.

Etwall, R.

Stewart, P. M.

Fox, S. L.

Strickland, Sir G.

Frewen, C. H.

Thornely, T.

Fuller, A. E.

Wawn, J, T.

Greene, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Maule, F.

Henley, J. W.

Horsman, T.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Baillie, W.

Arkwright, G.

Baird, W.

74

Boldero, H. G.

Packe, C. W.

Buckley, E.

Rolleston, C.

Dennistoun, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Wood, C.

Forbes, W.

Wortley, hon. J.

Hope, Sir J.

Houldsworth, T.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, A. E.

Drummond, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clause 2, after three divisions, was struck out.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, he should withdraw the Bill. He had done what he could to remove the stigma that attached to making the turnpikes pothouses. After this, if any accidents occurred in consequence of drunkenness at these places, the Government would be responsible for them.
MR. S. WORTLEYsuggested that the whole subject had better be referred to a Committee upstairs. When he found an overwhelming majority of Scotch Representatives against the Bill, he thought himself justified in assisting to defeat it, but he was favourable to the object mainly proposed to be attained.
House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.