[added in another hand:]1845 Mr Talbot
Ld Brougham
31 Sackville St.
13th May 1845.
My Lord
Having formerly ahd the honour of being introduced to your Lordship, I trust you will pardon me for troubling you with this letter on a subject which occupies at present a good deal of your attention & that of the Public.
You are endeavoring with your usual energy to protect those who are oppressed by the Great Railway Companies, and you have as I believe already made a great impression on the country, & produced a conviction that something ought to be done in the matter without delay. I find also that in a debate on the 8th of May the D. of Wellington said; "Considering how completely proprietors, especially small proprietors, were at the mercy of those great Companies, some measures should be taken for their protection." This will be good hearing to many disconsolate landed proprietors - but pray let these "Measures of protection" be immediate - let them be adopted in the present session - for if delayed until the next, they will bring but small comfort to those landowners whose estates are in present jeopardy, and who will be sacrificed in the interim.
Now if I understand aright, you intend to do something speedily, and the new standing orders which you gave notice of some time ago, are to be brought forward soon after the holidays. Such standing orders (I suppose) are to be in force from the day they pass the House of Lords, consequently applicable to the railway billsof the present session - If that is the case, there is a poiint to which I wish your Lordship would turn your attention. Parliament requires the assent or dissent of each land-occupier to be ascertained, & the result is stated in a register placed in the Private Bill Office. This has degenerated inot a mere formality - in fact it is at present little better than a farce, since the Railway Companies practically disregard the number of assents & dissents, & Parliament proceeds on no fixed principle respecting it, not saying what amount of assents shall be requisite to the passing of the bill, or what number of dissents shall be fatal to it - in fact laying down no distinct rules upon hte subject. Now, most persons would be ready to allow tha tthe dissent of all the occupiers of land on a projected line of railway (or even of a great majority of them) would be a just reason for rejecting that reailway bill. But if the majority assent many persons argue that the minority ought to be compelled to yield "probono publico". This may be proper enough if the minority of dissentients are scattered along the whole length of the line, but the Case is different when the dissents are found in masses in particular portions of the line. In such a case it is a fallacious argument to say that no attention ought to be paid to the wish of the minority. For instance, a railway may propose to traverse a town to its injury, & all the owners of property there may dissent from the scheme. Ought their dissent to be overruled? or would it not be more just to make a deviation in the railway scheme so as to cause the railway to pass round the town without entering it - and this notwithstanding that the landowners on the rest of the line assented unanimously?
Because it is not just that one set of persons should be sacrificed for the interests of another. But admitting the justice of the principle so stated, the difficulty is great of framing a pration propositoin on standing order which should enable Parliament to attach a due relative weight to the number of assents & dissents in different parts of the line.
Suppose the case of a very long line of railway (the London & York scheme for instance, 200 miles long) - If only the gross number of assents & dissents are counted, how can the dissent of a few properties who are injured be more than a feather in the scale? although their grievances may be great and manifest, & although perhaps a small deviation in the line would save them. And even if their estates joined, so that the same deviation would serve fro all of them, yet their numbers being few, their dissent would avail nothing against the assents on so long a line. Moreover some of the new railways propose to throw out sundry branches to varioius towns. Some of these branches may be good, & others bad, but it is surely absurd to lump the assents & dissents both of the line & its branches all together, & thus overbear the dissents on one particular branch. Each portion should be considered separately. Now, if any practical proposition could be thought of for giving a due & fair weight to the dissent & opposition of portions of th eline, or particular districts or localites (which seems a difficult matter to devise) it would be a great additonal safeguard to landed proprietors. I am myself a great sufferer (in prospect) by one of thee new railways, the Wilts and Somerset, which threatens to make sad havock with a beautiful estate which I possess at Lacock Abbey in Wiltshire- I would ask your Lordship to throw over me the shield of your protection, only I know how occupied you are, & how many cases of private hardship are pressed upon your attention- But as I can also show strong public grounds against the formation of this railway, I am engaged in drawing up a printed statement, & will ask your Lordship to do me the favor to peruse it when sent. In the mean time I beg to conclude by reverting to the question: Could any standing order be framed so as to give due & fair weight to the dissent of owners & occupiers of land in the different portions of a railway line?
I have the honor to be Your Lordship,s obedt servt
H. Fox Talbot
P.S. The railway scheme about which I complain is the same (if I am not mistaken) that Lady G. Fane petitioned against.
Thre present practice of Parliament seems very inconsistent. The standing orders are very particular about causing notice to be served on each land-occupier (in order that he may oppose the project if he thinks proper) and any bill is likely to be thrown out if this formality is willfully or extensively neglected. This was intended no doubt as a great safeguard, but it has become a farce, since the dissents thus recorded remain almost unattended to by Parliament.