The life of George Stephenson, railway engineer - Lighthouse ...

CHAP. XX.] SIR ISAAC COFFIN'S SPEECH. 229
It was found that the capital required to form the line of rail-
way, as laid out by the Messrs. Rennie, was considerably beyond
the amount of Mr. Stephenson's estimate ; and it became a ques-
tion with the Committee in what way the new capital should be
raised. A proposal was made to the Marquis of Stafford, who
was principally interested in the Duke of Bridgewater's Canal,
to become a shareholder in the railway. A similar proposal, it
will be remembered, had at an earlier period been made to Mr.
Bradshaw, the trustee for the property ;
but his answer was " all
or none," and the negotiation was broken off. The Marquis of
Stafford, however, now met the projectors of the railway in a
more conciliatory spirit ; and it was ultimately agreed that he
should become a subs^iber to the extent of 1000 shares.
The survey of the new line having been completed, the plans
were deposited, the standing orders duly complied with, and the
bill went into Committee. The same counsel appeared for the
promoters ; but the examination of witnesses was not nearly so
protracted as on the previous occasion. Mr. Erie and Mr. Harrison
led the case of the opposition. The bill went into Committee
on the 6th of March ; and on the 16th the preamble was
declared proved by a majority of forty-three to eighteen. On
the third reading in the House of Commons, an animated, and
what now appears a very amusing, discussion took place. The
Hon. Edward Stanley moved that the bill be read that day six
months ; and in the course of his speech he undertook to prove
that the railway trains would take ten hours on the journey, and
that they could only be worked by horses. Sir Isaac Coffin
seconded the motion, and in doing so denounced the project as a
most flagrant imposition. He would not consent to see widows'
premises invaded ; and " how," he asked, in the most dignified
senatorial manner, " how would any person like to have a rail-
road under his parloiir window ? . . . What, he would like
to know, was to be done with all those who had advanced money
in making and repairing turnpike-roads ? What with those who
may stiU wish to travel in their own or hired carriages, after the
fashion of their forefathers ? What was to become of coach-
makers and harness-makers, coach-masters and coachmen, innkeepers,
horse-breeders, and horse-dealers ? Was the House