Liverpool And Manchester Railway Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament

You appear to have JavaScript disabled in your browser settings. You may find some parts of this website<br>do not work properly without it enabled.

UK Parliament

Hansard

Commons: 6 April 1826

Commons Chamber

Liverpool And Manchester Railway Bill

Liverpool And Manchester Railway Bill

Volume 15: debated on Thursday 6 April 1826

Apr

1826

Download text

Back to top

Previous debate

Next debate

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

General Gascoyne

Share this specific contribution

Share a link to this specific contribution:

Share contribution 1 on<br>Twitter

Share contribution 1 on<br>Facebook

Share contribution 1 via<br>Email

Copy link to contribution 1 to clipboard<br>Copy link

rose for the purpose of moving the third reading of this bill. He observed, that though he had been a member of that House for many years, he had rarely found it necessary to make any observation on a local measure of this nature; but, as he saw an unusual muster of those who objected to the bill, he felt it to be his duty to offer a few remarks in support of it. His constituents were decidedly in favour of the measure, as was evident from the number of petitions which had been presented, showing the benefit that would be derived from it. It was true, that last session a similar measure had been defeated, but even then the justice of its principle had been admitted and, since that time, those who most strenuously objected to the formation of the road, had given up their opposition. It could not be denied, that the trade of Liverpool and Manchester had increased very much of late years; and therefore this new communication between the two places had become necessary. It was said, that individuals, who had property on the intended line of road, would be injured. This, however, was an argument that would militate against every species of improvement. The population on the thirty-one miles which intervened between Liverpool and Manchester was nearer in amount to 1,000,000, than 800,000 persons; and, therefore, it was impossible that some inconvenience must not be suffered. But, assuredly, inconvenience ought not to prevent a great public improvement. This was a measure that did not originate in the spirit of speculation. Local circumstances, and the clear necessity of having an additional accommodation for the transit of goods between the two towns, had given rise to it. The plan would be extremely beneficial to Ireland; for he considered the adoption of every project which rendered the communication between the two counties more rapid and easy as a point gained for Ireland.

Mr. William Peel

Share this specific contribution

Share a link to this specific contribution:

Share contribution 2 on<br>Twitter

Share contribution 2 on<br>Facebook

Share contribution 2 via<br>Email

Copy link to contribution 2 to clipboard<br>Copy link

seconded the motion. From the evidence given before the committee, with whose recommenda- tion the bill came before the House, it was, he said, made manifest that there was an absolute necessity for a more rapid and cheaper communication between Liverpool and Manchester than prevailed at present; and it was also made clear, to the satisfaction of the committee, that that communication would be best established by the proposed rail-road. The necessity of that rapid and cheap communication was apparent from the increase which had taken place in the trade of Liverpool. The trade of that port generally had been calculated to have doubled every twenty years since 1760, and the trade in cotton to have doubled every ten years. There might be some landed proprietors who might feel inconvenience from this rail-road; they were, however, by far the smaller number; the majority were either neuter, or satisfied that their property would be served by the projected rail-road. It was intended to make liberal compensation to all those whose property might sustain any injury. The principal opposition to the bill arose from the proprietors of canal shares; but, much as individuals interests ought to be respected, they ought not to prevent a great public improvement.

Mr. Stanley

Share this specific contribution

Share a link to this specific contribution:

Share contribution 3 on<br>Twitter

Share contribution 3 on<br>Facebook

Share contribution 3 via<br>Email

Copy link to contribution 3 to clipboard<br>Copy link

requested the House to bear in mind, that the bill which now came recommended by the committee, was last year rejected by the House. He would undertake to show, that the advantages of cheapness and rapidity which were expected from this bill, would by no means result from it. He would not object to it, if any case of public necessity, or great public improvement required it; and least of all would he object to it if it were proved that it would be serviceable to the trade of Ireland. No bill had ever come...