This was, perhaps, the most important question that had yet arisen in the course of railway legislation, and of the greatest national importance. They had fallen into a great error, in railway legislation, in not laying down a proper system for the regulation of railways. It was, however, a remarkable fact, that in the early stage of railways they took steps to secure an uniformity of gauge. In the London and Birmingham, and in the Grand Junction Railway Bills, clauses were introduced providing that the gauges should be uniform. But when railway communication was extended into the south of England, this principle was departed from, and a different gauge adopted. There were two questions involved in this subject. First, the prevention of injury to the passengers and traffic from the want of uniformity in the gauge; and, second, the possibility of bringing the existing lines of railway into one uniform system. They were all, he was sure, agreed on the necessity of having only one gauge. There could be none but what admitted that two gauges were mischievous. They produced the greatest inconvenience to passengers and traffic, and would interfere with the traffic going forward in all parts of the country, unless steps were taken to avert the evil. In the Midland Counties, in Oxfordshire, Worcester, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire, there was a war on the subject of the gauges at present raging. Now, in those counties there was yet a vast area not supplied by railways; and it was here that the battle was going forward--the London and Birmingham, and the Great Western Companies contending which should occupy the vacant space. It was, therefore, a most important question, which should be discussed substantively, and not be decided by a side-wind during the progress of a particular Bill. The war would go forward, gathering strength, unless they stepped in and settled the question. Not only in the Midland Counties was the contest going forward, but it was extending itself to Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire, where as yet railways had made but slight progress. Well, now they had projects for new lines in connexion with the Great Western. There was a line from Southampton to Salisbury, which was nearly completed, and there was another from Bath to Bristol. But if these lines should be completed according to the present plan, the inconvenience would arise of transhipment from the Salisbury line to get on to the Bath line; and that was a monstrous evil. In Dorsetshire it was the same; and he understood that a line now about to be made in Wales would cause a like inconvenience, by reason of the narrow and broad gauges coming in contact. For these reasons, he did think there could not be a second opinion as to the necessity of having a uniform gauge. He knew there were some hon. Members in the House who would go so far as to argue that it was no inconvenience to tranship goods from one line of carriages to another; but, surely, it would not for a moment be argued that it was no inconvenience to remove loads of coals, or droves of cattle, from one train of carriages to another. He believed that a greater annoyance or inconvenience could not be conceived. Well, then, that fact being admitted, the question lay between the broad and narrow gauges; and let him call attention to the fact, that the narrow gauge was the first one on which railways were constructed; and at the present moment there were more railways constructed upon the narrow than on the broad gauge, while the projected lines were ten to one in favour of the narrow gauge. He believed the proportion of railways constructed to be 1,000 miles broad gauge, and 3,000 narrow gauge. On these grounds alone, he did think the narrow gauge should have the first consideration. What were the objections to the narrow gauge? They were not in a position now to delay the question between them; and even if there were a preponderance of utility of the broad over the narrow gauge, they were not, he repeated, in a position to defer the settlement of this question. But what was the objection to the narrow gauge? It had existed in this country for fifteen years. It was general throughout America, and there the width of the rails, instead of being as in this country, four feet eight and a half inches, was but four feet six inches. It was common in France, in Belgium, and, he might say, over the Con. tinent, with the single exception of Russia. Well, then, they had ample experience on the subject. There had been no accident, he believed, that could be really attributed to the narrowness of the gauge. They had had experience of its use, and its spread was so extensive, that they were not now in a position to interfere with it. If, at this time, they were attempting to conform their narrow to their broad gauges, they would require to alter their tunnels, their viaducts, their embankments, and, perhaps, | be reviewed by the House, and their Remost difficult of all, their bridges, and that, solution altered, without an infringement in some cases, would be altogether impos- of the respect that was due to the Comsible. They might come to this House for mittee. He was ready to allow that their power to do so. But if the broad gauge decision would be, whether the House were were made conformatory to the narrow to blindly follow the Committee's decision, gauge, it would be most expedient. This or take into consideration the evidence would require no alteration of tunnels, of which had enabled the Committee to come viaducts, of embankments, or of bridges; at their conclusions for the guidance of the nothing would be required but an altera- House. This was a matter of importance; tion of the rails and carriages. Well, this, for the question was, not whether a prehe said, was the proper time to legislate sent convenience or inconvenience was to upon the subject. He was aware that it be satisfied, but how they were to provide would be a hard matter to interfere by a for the welfare of future generations? The legislative enactment to compel the Great hon. Member concluded by submitting his Western Railway to conform to the nar- Motion. row gauge. But he contended that the evil would be less felt at that time than at any future period. They were now going on constructing railways, and they would in all probability live to see railways wherever turnpike roads at present existed. The railway combined the advantages of turnpike roads and canals; the expense of transit was less, and they were still going on improving the construction of them. They were five times as speedy as the one, and ten times as speedy as the other. They did not now experience the difficulties which had attended the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Could there be any doubt, then, that soon they would have railways over all parts of the country, and were they to risk the inconvenience of these rival gauges without endeavouring to find some means of remedying the evil? He was sure that, looking at the subject, the House would say, and he agreed in the opinion, that the Report of the Committee should not be lightly set aside; and it would only be on a subject of such paramount importance that he should ask the House to reverse the decision of the Com. mittee. But this was a question which must be met soon, and he was anxious that the House should meet it on the present occasion. He was sure that no hon. Member would reproach the Committee for the decision to which they had come; and he would say that the Committees as now constituted (and he knew, for he had sat on one for a month past), approached as nearly, as regarded probity, to perfection as they possibly could do. He did not mean to impugn the decision of the Com-cision, and determined between the two mittee. His object was not t the reason which had move decision; but still, on th impartial considerat ests, he thought tinto n Colonel Wood, in seconding the Motion, said, that, although he did not often agree in opnion with the hon. Member for Stockport, he had great pleasure in supporting his views on the present occasion. This was a question on which all parties might amicably meet. It was neutral ground, on which they were prepared to state their opinions; but having examined the elements on which the Committee had founded their Report, he hoped that he was not transgressing his usual principle in opposing the decision which had been laid before the House. In doing this he would impress on the Committee that he intended no disrespect in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member opposite. But there were other reasons why he should ask for a consideration, or, rather, a reconsideration of this Motion. The five Gentlemen on this Committee had refused their adherence to the recommendation of the Board of Trade, which was in conformity with the side of the question he had taken. The five Gentlemen of that Committee had stated their reasons for preferring the broad gauge to the narrow gauge. The Committee had taken an interest in this question which was highly creditable to them; but they had not calculated on the interest which it was likely to excite in others who were Members of that House. It was true, that they had considered the inconvenience of the narrow gauge, and an immense amount of time and money had been expended in endea vouring to ascertain the respective merits of the two gauges; but it appeared to him that the Committee had come to their de from strong ex-parte reasons. The 7, however, so full of importance hought they might -on; and the jud ade was so impe I review of the hat it ought not to be set aside without sufficient | wise to have done so; and, had it been consideration. He thought, therefore, that necessary, would have been extremely difthe House were interested in the fact, that ficult; for not only did no two of the their Report had been made, and that it engineers examined agree upon which was ought, in some degree, at least, to be relied the best narrow, or which the best broad on. The Committee had reported that the gauge, but not even one-though he, as broad gauge was preferable to the narrow Chairman, asked the question of every gauge. The Board of Trade was in favour engineer examined not one engineer of the narrow gauge. There were many would commit himself to a positive opinion reasons which perhaps might be urged in what would now be the best width of favour of both lines. He was quite satis- gauge to adopt generally for the whole fied, as far as speed and the saving of time country, supposing the matter was res inwas concerned, the broad gauge was pre-tegra, and that it was possible to have one ferable. In the conveyance of some kinds of traffic, however, speed was not the principal object to be attained. For instance, coals would not have a very swift transmission, and in this instance the broad gauge would be objectionable, as the rapidity of the motion would tend to chip the coal, and break it into small pieces, and spoil it for a profitable market. Another article of traffic that would be injured by a speedy motion was limestone. This would not bear rapid motion. There were many points on which the narrow gauge was superior to the broad gauge; and again, in some instances, the broad was preferable to the narrow gauge. entirely approved of the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. general uniform gauge. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) had a Notice on the Paper for a Select Committee of the House, to inquire and report upon that question. He confessed that he was surprised to find that evening, that the hon. Member had moved it as an Amendment to the present Bill. The hon. Member was more simple-minded than he could pretend to be, in supposing that the large attendance of Members present was on national grounds, and on account of the public interest involved in establishing one general uniform width of gauge for the entire kingdom. He feared the hon. MemHeber would subject himself to some suspicion likewise of other than a public and national object, when he brought forward a Motion that might very fairly be considered in that light, if submitted to the House in a substantive form, as a question of general interest, and as such deserving the consideration of the House upon its own merits; but which was most unreasonable to use as a side-wind, by which to upset a particular measure essentially belonging to the department of Private Business, and when a private party, at the cost of thousandsor, more probably, tens of thousands-of pounds, had brought the Bill to a forward stage, there to stop it; and, as it were, at the expense of that private party, institute an inquiry for the public good. He was persuaded the House would never sanction such a course. Have a public inquiry on public grounds, if the House thought fit; but do not suffer it to be by way of obstruction to private interests. He believed, from the evidence given before the Committee, that the subject had not yet been sufficiently tested by experience to enable even a Select Committee of the House, appointed for that sole purpose, to come to a satisfactory conclusion what the uniform gauge ought to be, although it would be easy to decide what was obvious-that a uniformity of gauge, Mr. Shaw said, as Chairman of the Committee whose Report was then under consideration, he felt called upon to make a few observations. He would rather have reserved himself until he should have heard all the objections taken to the decision or Report of the Committee; but he observed such an unusually large attendance of Members, that he could not but suspect that some of them were not very thoroughly acquainted with the merits of the question upon which they were about to vote; and he would, therefore, take that early opportunity of briefly stating to the House what the Committee had done, and also what he considered of almost more importance in the present instance-what the Committee were erroneously supposed to have done, but what they, in fact, had not done. To take the latter first; great excitement prevailed out of doors with reference to the question of the broad and narrow gauges, and it was imagined that the decision of the Committee turned upon the relative merits of the two gauges; but it was no such thing-they had carefully abstained from even intimating an opinion upon that point. It was unnecessary, and he thought would therefore have been un . relative merits of the two different gauges upon which they happened to be. They assumed both companies to be equally worthy, and either gauge to be sufficiently applicable for all the practical purposes of the proposed lines. They did not overlook the inconvenience of a change or break of felt it must occur somewhere, and they found by the evidence laid before them, a considerable portion of which on that point consisted of new facts that could not have been before the Board of Trade, that the amount of the inconvenience of the break of gauge would be much less, and the remedies for meeting it where it must exist more effectual, than had been antici if practicable, would be convenient and desirable. He believed that the preponderance of evidence would be, that the four-feet eight and a half inch gauge was rather narrower, and the seven feet wider than what should be established; but, as fluctuating between those two breadths, that the greatest difficulty would be ex-gauge; wherever it should occur, but they perienced in fixing one uniform gauge. Upon that subject the House would find an interesting correspondence of General Pasley-published last year amongst the Papers of the House-from which it might be collected that a gauge between five feet and five feet six inches was the most recommended. That was, however, for such a Committee, if the House should grant it independently of that Bill, as was pro-pated by the Board of Trade. For exposed by the hon. Member; but the particular Railway Committee over which he had presided had not to do with that abstract question, but their duty was practically to deal with the existing state of things and that was, that two large portions of the kingdom were occupied one by the narrow, the other by the broad gauge, in the proportion of between railways made and in progress, in round numbers, about 3,000 miles on the narrow, and 1,000 on the broad gauge. The Committee could act upon no such absurd speculation as that one or other of these great systems should be broken up in order to produce uniformity and even then the remaining gauge would, probably, not be the best. Or again, it was urged that the broad gauge should not be allowed up into the narrow gauge territory; but then, to be just, if the Committee said that, on the one hand, they must say on the other, that the narrow should not be allowed to go down into the territory of the broad-the practical effect of which would be, that a large district of country lying intermediate between the London and Birmingham line on the north, and the Great Western on the south, must be left without railway communication at all; but the Committee agreed with the Board of Trade in thinking that that district was entitled to railway communication. There were for the purpose of supplying such communication two sets of schemes or competing lines proposed-one by the London and Birmingham Company, on the narrow gauge; another by the Great Western, on the The Committee decided between these two competing lines upon a full consideration of their relative merits; but were not influenced by any opinion of the ample, the Board of Trade assumed, in the fourth page of their Report, that if the Great Western line were approved, the Birmingham and Gloucester railway must necessarily adopt the broad gauge from Gloucester to Birmingham; but since then that railway, as well as the Gloucester and Bristol, had fallen into hands which would prevent any such consequence; and, on the contrary, insure a narrow gauge railway from Birmingham to Bristol in any event, thereby securing an unbroken narrow gauge for all the northern traffic to the great shipping port of Bristol-one of the principal arguments set forth in the Board of Trade Report in favour of the London and Birmingham scheme. Again, it was not then contemplated, but since had been determined by the Great Western Company, to lay down two lines, one on the broad and another on the narrow gauge, from Worcester to Wolverhampton, thus affording that district, which included the iron and coal-fields of South Staffordshire, an uninterrupted gauge each way to the north by the narrow, and to the south by the broad gauge. The amount of break of gauge was therefore considerably reduced, and where it must occur, mechanical contrivances were proved to have been constructed which would greatly diminish the evil; but the proof of which there had been no opportunity of submitting to the Board of Trade. He had, then, shown that the opinion of the Committee had in no degree been founded on the relative merits of the two gauges, and that due consideration had been bestowed upon the inconvenience of the interruption of gauge wherever it took place. But the decision of the Committee was mainly influenced by other and larger considerations. The first was, the manifest superiority as a line I would supply two communications by seof communication, of the railway the Com-parate lines, and in the hands of great inmittee reported in favour of, over the one dependent companies-to London, partithey reported against. It was impossible cularly when the proposed branch should to look at the map without seeing it. The be made from Dudley to Birmingham. one led directly from point to point, saving He had thus endeavoured very briefly, as between the two principal towns of the compared with the length of the proceeddistrict-Worcester and Oxford-a dis-ings before the Committee, and he was tance of fifteen miles. The other was indirect, circuitous, and between these two points that much longer. The Great Western line was the first in the field, put forward with the bona fide view of drawing new traffic to their main trunk line, and which, therefore, it would be always their interest to work efficiently. The London and Birmingham line was evidently drawn forth as a defensive scheme; and, without imputing to either less of public spirit than animated the other, it would obviously be less the private interest of the London and Birmingham Company to work their line efficiently, because it would be rather drawing off traffic than bringing it to their main trunk. Another very important consider ation was the public advantage on the ground of competition. He was aware that the principle of competition was somewhat different in its application to railways and to ordinary subjects; and that therefore regulation had necessarily, in many cases of railways, to be substituted for competition. He believed that what was in railway phraseology termed "side by side" competition, generally ended in a compromise between the parties, at the expense of the public-but still he would maintain that a wholesome and salutary competition might in many cases be obtained, even in the case of railways, and greatly for the benefit of the public; and such, he thought, would be the result of the line then under consideration. It had appeared in evidence before them, that in reference to the great and important communication between London and Liverpool, the London and Birmingham Company had in progress arrangements for giving them a line from Rugby to Liverpool, independently of the Grand Junction Railway, which he considered a public advantage; and the present line would afford a line, if necessary, for the Grand Junction Railway from Wolverhampton to London, independent of the London and Birmingham. Moreover, to the most important district traversed by the proposed lines-namely, that between Worcester and Wolverhampton, the scheme approved by the Committee conscious very imperfectly, to put before the House a few of the principal grounds upon which the decision of the Committee rested; and before he sat down, seeing the great number of hon. Members in attendance who were about to vote on a case, the merits of which they could comparatively have had but little means of being acquainted with, he begged to state to the House the time and pains the Committee over which he presided had devoted to it. They had sat twenty-five days; had examined more than 100 witnesses; had heard counsel at great length-particularly on the part of the unsuccessful company, as that side had had the opening and general reply. The Committee had themselves given to the case the most unremitting attention; and when it closed had separated without even communicating their individual opinions to each other. On the night before they met to confer upon their decision, he, as chairman, had written out the various points upon which he thought the evidence bore favourably, and unfavourably, and his opinion upon them. Another Member of the Committee had done the same, even at greater length than himself, all had done so more or less. Besides, having taken copious notes of the evidence while the witnesses were under examination, and having met the next morning, they read over their papers, compared their several views, and after two hours' consultation, came to an unanimous decision in favour of the Bill then before the House. Nevertheless, he had no overweening confidence in the correctness of their decision. The entire Committee had felt the painful responsibility imposed upon them in having to decide for one, and necessarily against the other, of the two great interests involved in the question submitted to them. His hon. Friend the Member for Brecon (Colonel Wood) seemed to think that the five Members of the Board of Trade, and the five Members of the Committee stood on equal footing, and the authority of the one balanced that of the other. The Committee had differed with great deference and regret from the Report of the Board of |