1847.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



309 



House of Commons has been refreshed with new blood, and that Mr. Mac- 

 gregor, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Wilson will not prove useless members, still less 

 Mr. Glyn, Mr. Hudson, and the many olher gentlemen whom we have al- 

 ready enumerated. Before leaving this part of the subject, however, we 

 cannot well refrain from making some remarks on a few of the individuals 

 most prominent in the railway legion. 



Mr. George Carr Glyn is the son and grandson of a baronetal family of 

 that name, and a member of the banking firm in which his brother, the pre- 

 sent baronet, is a partner. Mr. Glyn made his debut in joint-stock com- 

 panies during the mania of 1824, at which time, among other such occupa- 

 tions, he was auditor of the Columbian Pearl Fishery company — one not 

 among the brightest enterprises of that speculative period. Of late years he 

 has shown less ardour in his engagements. In the next great period of specu- 

 lation, we find him chairman of the London and Birmingham, now the Lon- 

 don and North Western railway company. For a long time he has been the 

 head, out of parliament, of the railway interest ; as much from being put for- 

 ward by his colleagues, as from being recognised by many of the minor com- 

 panies. His policy in this capacity is the index of his parliamentary policy, 

 and it has not been that which in our view has been best calculated to pro- 

 mote railway interests. Mr. Glyn has no confidence in independent action, 

 and has always been inclined to lean upon the government. He was the in- 

 troducer and the chief supporter of the Doard of Trade inspection system, 

 and his last public act is a declaration of his adhesion to the same principles, 

 though he has already had reason to regret the exercise of the power which 

 he has entrusted to such bands. Jlr. Glyn has no defined views as to the 

 operations of railway capital, the principle of private enterprise in joint-stock 

 companies, or the principle of fares. What convictions he has are opposed 

 to what is assumed to be the best theory and the best practice, and Mr. 

 Glyn only acts iri conformity with these latter, when he cau no longer with- 

 hold his action, though he does not seem to give his acquiescence. With a 

 very distinct delivery, and a seeming logical severity of language, Mr. Glyn is 

 a very indistinct thinker. .\s a railway chairman, with the prestige of a 

 great reputation, and with a case carefully got up, Mr. Glyn has been an im- 

 pressive speaker. Whether he will be so successful in the House of Com- 

 mons, where he will no longer stand alone, but have to contend with other 

 men, remains to be seen. Undoubtedly he has great advantages : a pleasing 

 person, polished language, a confident but inoflfensive address, and the asser- 

 tion of high moral principle, when backed by power and reputation, are calcu- 

 lated to produce a favourable impression on an audience. On some points 

 of religious profession, Mr. Glyn is, we believe, likely to take the same part as 

 his cousin, Mr. Plumptre, whose strong opinions are well known. Success 

 and ill-success have been about equally balanced in Mr. Glyn's career : the 

 resignation of the North iMidland chair, defeat by the Great Western, 

 and recriminations with Mr. Moss and Mr. Russell, in which mutual charges 

 of breach of faith have been bandied, have been counterpoised by Mr. Glyn's 

 maintenance of the London and Birmingham chair, and by his amalgamation 

 of the Grand Junction railway, after difficulties which might well have been 

 regarded as insurmountable. Mr. Glyn's maiden session will be anxiously 

 watched by many. 



Of Mr. Hudson little need be said. He has successfully passed through 

 an anxious railway session, and the next series of half-yearly meetings 

 can scarcely present anything inauspicious. The prestige of his reputa- 

 tion is untouched, while in the present temper of the Bentinck parly, being 

 unshackled in his political movements, and released from his patronage of 

 protectionism, he is likely to exercise great and useful ioduence in the 

 bouse. Mr. Hudson is certainly the railway man of the most original 

 powers of thought, of the most advanced mind, and of the most progressive 

 character. More confidence is to be placed in his single defence of the 

 joint stock system, than in that of all the railway members put together. 



Mr. Hayter is the representative of the Great Western. 



Mr. Chaplin is a man who will hereafter be better understood by the 

 public, A sketch of him in Fraser^s Magazine, does honour to him 

 and to the writer. Mr. Chaplin is a man who by great prudence has 

 raised himself to a very high position, who undertakes uothiug without 

 careful and laborious thought, and who, although often behind hand and 

 not always in the right, commands respect from the known fact that his 

 opinions are the result of a well-studied conviction. Mr. Chaplin, we 

 conceive, is much more likely for the present to follow Mr. Glyn's line of 

 policy than any olher ; for he is, like Mr. Glyn, only a forced follower — 

 we cannot say convert — of what may be called the railway movement 

 party. 



Mr, David Waddiogtou has not hitherto been well known in any inde- 



pendent capacity. His chief claim heretofore has been the unbounded 

 conlidence reposed in him by i\Ir. Hudson, and his administration under 

 iNIr. Hudson of the Eastern Counties railway, against the most difficult 

 circumstances. 



Mr. Robert Stephenson, the son of the patriarch of the locomotive sys- 

 tem, has been less ku'iwn by the public in his personal capacity than as an 

 engineer. His ability in those n'adiatorial combats before parliamentary 

 committees, his practice in negotiation and correspondence, and the confi- 

 dence reposed in his diplomatic skill by leading railway men, are guaran- 

 tees of his powers to those who know him. A good figure and pleasing 

 address will help him in makiDg an impression in the House of Commons. 

 He has always been acting in conjunction with Mr. Glyn. 



Mr Locke has tried his skill in the same arena of the committee-rooms, 

 and with equal success. Mr. Locke at one time co-operated with the 

 Great Western in their struggle with the London and Birmingham, but 

 still must be ranked among Mr. Glyn's followers. 



Mr. Jackson, of Birkenhead, has only a provincial reputation. He is a 

 fluent speaker in the Liverpool style, but is likely to require a long training 

 in the House of Commons before he will have weight. He has no decided 

 views on general principles of railway policy, but is an advocate for non- 

 restriction in currency matters. He has no weight amon^ the railway 

 interest, and will not be admitted by them as an exponent of their views, 

 whatever course he may adopt. 



Sir Joshua Walmsley is a Liverpool merchant, a colleague of Mr. Jack- 

 son's. He has served the office of mayor of Liverpool, when he was 

 knighted. He is likewise a fluent speaker. 



Mr. William Cubitt, the contractor and builder, not the engineer, will 

 not, it is supposed, take any active part in parliamentary proceedings. 



Mr. Samuel Morton Peto is considered a man of education, ability, 

 intelligeuce, and practical business habits. He speaks well, but his rail- 

 way principles are not known. 



Mr. Wyld has never had any intimate connexion with railway manage- 

 ment, but is well acquainted with the general policy, and is supposed to 

 he an advocate for non-interference. 



Mr. Humphrey Brown was the founder of the Birmingham and Glou- 

 cester railway, and afterwards ils manager. He enters with very strong 

 feeling into every subject he takes up. He is not so well liked as a 

 speaker out of doors, but in the House of Commons is likely ,to be well 

 listened to, as he is a well-skilled statician, and can get up his case care- 

 fully and studiously. He leans to non-interference in the management of 

 joint-stock enterprise. 



There are abundance of railway directors in the house, but very few 

 others who are likely to lake part in debates in such capacity beyond those 

 we have named. As the matter stands, we fear the prospects of the rail- 

 way interests are very uncertain, for in all likelihood the voices and votes 

 of Mr. Glyn, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Locke, Mr. Stephenson, and 

 Mr. Waddington may all be given for a Board of Trade bill, or for more 

 stringent stauding orders to restrict new companies: This, however, is 

 matter of speculation, for Mr. Hudson is far on the way, as already inti- 

 mated, to repudiation of the Board of Trade, and he last year vehemently 

 condemned their railway bill. If, then, they should bring in some mea- 

 sure trenching too much on the vested interests, they would only have the 

 support of Mr. Glyn and Mr. Robert Stephenson, and the government 

 would find itself attacked by Mr. Hudson, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Hayter, Mr. 

 Waddington, Mr. Locke, Mr. Peto, Mr. Jackson, Jlr. Humphrey Brown, 

 Mr. Wyld, and Sir Joshua Malmsley. This would make a grand railway 

 debate; and a severe defeat of Mr. Strutt might jeopardise the ministry. 



We must intreat the railway members carefully to consider the mischiefs 

 which have already accrued from Board-of-Trade interferences, to with- 

 stand every new bill, and to repeal or modify all the restrictions which 

 have been placed upon joint-stock enterprise by the standing orders and 

 enactments, such as the length of notices to parliament, the ten per cent, 

 deposit, the limits on the payment of interest on calls, on the amount of 

 dividends and fares, the power of suing for calls, the registration of joint- 

 stock companies, and all the other new-fangled devices for impeding the 

 free progress of railway enterprise. Old companies may be fearful of 

 encouraging competition, but experience must have already pointed out 

 that there is only one sound way of promoting railway enterprise, old and 

 new, and that is by unloosing the fetters. The same argument which 

 authorises the fettering of new schemes, authorises the fettering of the 

 old. What the companies have to fear is not competition from each other 

 but spoliation on the part of the government. As matters are going now, 

 there will at an early period be a demand for a limitation of dividends 



