HC Deb 06 March 1883 vol 276 cc1587-98

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that on the occasion when this and other Bills were last before the House the debate was adjourned for a week; and he was asked, on behalf of the Board of Trade, after the opinion which had been pretty generally expressed in the House, if he would see whether he could not make some proposal in the matter which should be satisfactory to the House. This was one of a class of Bills to which objection was taken on the ground that it increased the rates charged upon certain classes of agricultural manures. On the merits of that question a good deal might be said upon both sides; but he did not propose to discuss the matter now. Upon one point there appeared to be a general agreement—namely, that in future Bills of this kind, proposing an alteration of rates, should not, as in the past, per incuriam, be allowed to be passed without the special attention of the Committee to which they were referred being directed to them. He was now about to propose that all the Bills which dealt in this way with agricultural manures should be postponed for another week; and he did so in order that the House, in the meantime, might have an opportunity of discussing and disposing of the Motion which stood in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) for a new Standing Order, which it seemed to him (Mr. Chamberlain) would, to a large extent, meet the desire generally expressed on the last occasion by the House—namely, that— In the case of any Bill relating to a Railway, Canal, Dock, Harbour, Navigation, Pier, or Port, the Committee on the Bill shall consider and specially report on any Clauses giving power to levy tolls, rates, or duties in excess of those already authorized for that undertaking, or usually authorized for like undertakings. Of course, it would be impossible to make an alteration unless the attention of the Committee were specially directed to the matter. But he thought it convenient and desirable, while he accepted the principle of this proposal, that he should go a little further. On the last occasion, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) suggested that the Board of Trade should be instructed to make a Report. He (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out that, at one time, that had been the practice; but it had been allowed to fall into desuetude, because so little attention was paid to the Reports when they were made. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would propose a new Standing Order in the terms in which he originally placed it on the Paper, and by which he provided that the Committee should make a Report to the House stating whether any Report relating to the Bill had been referred to the Committee, and, if so, in what way any alteration or recommendation contained in such Report had been dealt with by the Committee, he (Mr. Chamberlain) would undertake that the Board of Trade should make a Report in each case, and he thought that this would provide a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. It would be perfectly useless to provide that any Report furnished by the Board of Trade should be dealt with by the Committee, without insuring that after it had been dealt with there should be a special Report to the House. he should support the Standing Order of the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped it would be accepted by the House, with this addition— That no Bill by or under which power is sought to increase or vary tolls or rates already authorized, or to be authorized, higher than those sanctioned by previous legislation shall be read a second time until a Report from the Board of Trade has been laid upon the Table of the House. If the House were pleased to accept the Standing Order with that addition, he thought they might then very well allow these Bills to go to a second reading, and be referred to a Committee upstairs, accompanied by that Instruction. In order that the matter might be properly discussed, he proposed to move now that the adjourned, debate upon these Bills be further adjourned until that day week.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Tuesday next."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, that he had put his name down upon the Paper in opposition to the second reading of that and other Bills for reasons which he had mentioned the other day. He trusted the House would therefore permit him to say that he was perfectly satisfied with the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain); but he should hold himself permitted to retain his Notice of Opposition to these Bills upon the Paper until the question of the new Standing Order, about to be proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), had been fully discussed by the House; because it might be that, after the House had discussed that question, the provisions of the Standing Order might not be altogether, although he hoped they would be, satisfactory to the agricultural community. He therefore wished to say that he was perfectly satisfied with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the discussion upon these Bills should be postponed for a week. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose that these Bills should now be read a second time, but that they should be deferred until a future date, pending the debate upon the Standing Order about to be proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hants.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain); but he wanted to know why the course now proposed was not adopted by the Board of Trade last year? The Board of Trade was supposed to be the guardians of the public interests, and not the guardians of the interests of the Railway Companies. No less than 11 Bills passed through the House last year, containing clauses of a similar objectionable character with those now proposed. The President of the Board of Trade stated, last week, that there was no precedent for opposing these Bills; but he failed to show the House that, although there might have been no precedent, there was no reason for opposing them; it was certainly not in the interests of the public that such Bills should be passed. There was no doubt that the Bills introduced last year slipped through the House without the agricultural interest being fully informed of their nature. There was, however, one Bill which was opposed, and that was the Great North of Scotland Railway Bill. He had taken it on himself to move the rejection of that measure, but he failed to carry the House with him on that occasion; and, as far as he was personally concerned, he was very thankful that the Bill had to be referred to the judgment of "another place." There could be no question that these objectionable clauses, when introduced by a new Company, were backed up by the big Railway Companies; otherwise, how was the fact to be accounted for that the Lobbies of the House of Commons were swarming last week with persons connected with the large Railway Companies, if they had no interest in that question? Certainly, if the House gave its consent to the enactment of these exceptional powers in the case of new Companies, he failed to see what arguments could be adduced for rejecting similar provisions when the old Companies came to the House and asked for increased powers.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the House was greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) for the readiness he had displayed in meeting the feeling so generally expressed last week. He did not propose to enter upon the subject-matter of the debate, because he considered that hon. Members on both sides of the House were now agreed that something ought to be done to safeguard the public interests in relation to this important matter. But he thought that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had been a little too hard upon the Board of Trade, because the House itself must accept the blame and responsibility for not having hitherto directed its legislation in the channel in which it was now considered desirable to see it directed, Hitherto Private Bill Committees had been in want of special directions, and had been in the habit of taking account only of the cases submitted to them for decision by the promoters of a Bill on the one side, and by the opponents on the other. They had not been specially charged by the House, as he thought they ought to be, with the duty of having regard to the public interests apart from any case which might be submitted to them for their decision from any particular side. It was in order to cure that evil that he had proposed that the House should pass a Standing Order, on the analogy of the Standing Order passed at his instance last year, with respect to Bills and sanitary regulations. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade now proposed that the Bills standing on the Paper should be deferred for a week, in order that that Standing Order might be discussed; and his right hon. Friend had suggested some modification and enlargement of the Standing Order as he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had placed it on the Paper. As he understood his right hon. Friend's Amendment, it would fit in better with the form of the Standing Order as he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had originally proposed it. Personally, he preferred the Order as it was originally proposed, and he had modified it only on the advice of the Speaker's Counsel, who thought that a shorter and more condensed form of words would answer the purpose better. If his right hon. Friend would allow him, he would place the Standing Order on the Paper as he intended to move it on Thursday. He hoped it would meet the difficulty, and that no mischief or prejudice would happen to the promoters of these Bills. Nobody wanted to interfere with them, except in regard to this particular point. They would not be prejudiced by the delay, and when the question came on again upon that day week, it would be found that the matter had been settled by the new Standing Order.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that, whatever might be the result, they were all glad that a definite mode of dealing with this important matter had now been arrived at. There was, however, one objection to the course proposed, which he would point out to the House. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Folkestone) had assented to the proposed adjournment of the second reading of the Bill, in order that the question involved in the Standing Order might be discussed; but the noble Viscount intimated that he would not withdraw his opposition unless the mode to be decided upon on Thursday for dealing with the matter was satisfactory to himself. If it were satisfactory, then the noble Viscount would abstain from further opposition, and would allow these Bills to pass. He (Sir George Campbell) could only say that the Kirkcaldy Bill was an important Bill in the interests of agriculture in that part of the country, and he was sorry it was to be delayed for another week if the opposition were then to be renewed. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade insisted upon a further adjournment, it would be futile to oppose him.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he wished to be allowed to explain. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had misunderstood his meaning. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) exactly as the hon. Member did himself; and all he (Viscount Folkestone) had stated was that he should not oppose these Bills, if the proposition of his right hon. Friend on the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was satisfactory to the agricultural community. At the same time, he proposed to keep his Amendment upon the Paper, until he knew what course would be taken with regard to his right hon. Friend's proposal.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) was a step in the right direction. It carried out, so far, the recommendation of the Committee on Railway Rates, &c, which sat last year, and which called the attention of the Board of Trade to the subject, suggesting that in respect of Bills of that nature the Government should make some Report to the House. He wished to remind, the House that the question was not only one of rates, but also of policy. Down to last year, the policy adopted in all Railway Bills was that all kinds of manures should be carried at the lowest rates. Now, the real essence of the proposal before the House in the Bills objected to was that certain kinds of artificial manure should be raised from the first to the third class, and charged accordingly. The effect of that would be to raise the rates for the carriage of manures very seriously; and it was, therefore, an important matter not only for the farmer, but to all who were interested in land. The question, as he had said, was not entirely one of rates, but of policy. He wished to know whether the Standing Order proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would apply to unopposed as well as to opposed Bills? Opposed Bills were fought out in a Committee upstairs; but when a Bill was unopposed it was not the duty of anyone to take cognizance of it. He thought the House ought to express a clear opinion on the matter of policy altogether independent of the Standing Order; and he should reserve to himself the right of opposing these Bills, when they came forward again, and of taking the opinion of the House on the question of policy. It was most important to know whether the policy was going to be reversed, which had hitherto been adopted, of charging the rates on all kinds of manures on the lowest scale. Farmers looked to the Members of that House to protect their interests. Practically, they had been giving power to the Railway Companies to make their own charges, and the Railway Companies were now showing a disposition to increase their rates. The Great North of Scotland Railway Company had, two years ago, made an attempt to increase their charges for manures, and that attempt had resulted in the question being brought before the House. It was afterwards referred to a Committee, and the Bill was subsequently thrown out by the House of Lords.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the Question before the House was not the adjournment of the debate; and whether, in that case, it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss the merits of the Bill on that Question?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he apprehended that the Question before the House was the policy of the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled, upon the Question of the adjournment of the debate, to go into the merits of the Bill.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he had not proposed to discuss the general merits of the Bill; but he was simply giving reasons why the House should consider the question of policy before adopting the Standing Order.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

said, he must presume that the object of postponing the consideration of these Bills for a week was to enable the proposed Standing Order to be discussed in the meantime. He believed that, in some instances, the promoters had agreed to alter their rates, and the delay of a week might seriously inconvenience them. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) to put the Bills down for an earlier day than that day week. He also wished to point out that the whole of these Bills did not hang together. Some of the schemes were opposed on a different ground altogether from that of an increase in the charges for the carriage of agricultural manures. He thought, therefore, that such Bills might be discussed, and that the House should not take the whole of them together. He might inform the House that, in some cases, the agents had already intimated their intention of altering the Schedules attached to the Bills; and he presumed that, in that case, the opposition would be withdrawn.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that, although he had already addressed the House, he hoped he would be allowed to answer the question which had been put to him. He did not think it would be possible to take these Bills on an earlier day than that day week, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would not propose the alteration of the Standing Order until Thursday; and, therefore, the adjourned debate on the postponed Bills could not be conveniently taken on an earlier day than Tuesday next. In regard to Bills which did not contain provision for increasing the rates, he saw no reason why they should not be taken earlier, as they were, practically, unopposed Bills.

MR. HICKS

said, he wished to point out that, in drawing up the new Standing Order, care should be taken that no words should be used which by any possibility could be construed into allowing the legislation of last year to be a precedent for the future. He saw in one of the Bills objected to that there was a provision enabling the Company, from time to time, to demand and claim for the railway authorized in the Act such tolls as were authorized in any Act passed in 1882. He thought they should take care, in framing this Standing Order, that the rates and classification to which the Standing Order referred should be those which had been in general use for a considerable time, and not those which might have been hurriedly allowed, and passed without observation or remark in that House, in the last year or two.

MR. R. H. PAGET

thought there ought to be a clear understanding on the matter; that the Report of the Board of Trade should not deal only with the proposed Bills. If that were done, it would only be a half cure. What was wanted was a Report from the Board of Trade upon the clauses of any Bill which would have the effect of imposing rates in excess of those previously scheduled. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had accepted the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) in regard to the alteration of the Standing Order; because that Standing Order, as it was down on the Paper, would not, in his (Mr. R. H. Paget's) judgment, have boon sufficient to meet the circumstances of the case, and lie should himself have boon prepared to move an Amendment to it, very much in the sense he understood the President of the Board of Trade had now himself suggested to the House. There was one other question to which he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was this—would he undertake, on behalf of the Board of Trade, not only that there should be a special Report laid before Committees on Railway Bills, but that there should be an officer of the Board of Trade ready to attend before such Committees, and give such information as might be desired? He laid particular stress on this for several reasons. Those who had had to deal with Railway Committees would he aware that the earlier clauses of a Bill were those which were chiefly fought out between the two opposing parties. They were scrutinized word for word, and there was very little chance of any- thing being allowed to creep into them unobserved; but the moment the Committee came to deal with the rating clauses of a Railway Bill all the opposition of rival lines ceased. All Railway Companies, however much they opposed one another upon other points, were only too ready to support each other in obtaining the biggest rates they could get in these Bills. If the object of amending the Standing Order was to protect the interests of the public from the imposition of new rates by Railway Companies, he maintained that, in order to afford the public full protection, there ought to be not only a Report of the Board of Trade, but that the Committees should have power to examine an officer of the Board of Trade, so as to obtain full information in regard to these rates.

MR. SPEAKER

I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and call his attention to the fact that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate. The observations of the hon. Gentleman will be more in Order when the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Selater-Booth) is before the House.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, lie fully accepted the ruling of the Speaker. He had hoped, however, that his remarks would have been germane to the Question before the House, as showing whether it was not desirable that the postponement of these Bills should take place until such time as the President of the Board of Trade could consent to a step which he (Mr. Paget) thought necessary for the protection of the public interests.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, he had no desire to continue the debate, because he thought they were nearly all agreed upon the course which ought to be pursued. But he wished to point out that it was not merely a question of tolls upon manures which was involved in the Standing Order of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), but a general revision of tolls in all Bills which might be introduced; and, therefore, the Standing Order would apply to other charges and tolls besides those upon manures, which might be equally as objectionable as any increased tolls upon manures. He therefore thought that other Bills on the Paper would have to be postponed in the same way as those which dealt with the question of agricultural manures, in order that the Standing Order might be applied to every Bill which contained a Schedule of Tolls. He thought that every Bill brought before the House, before it became an Act of Parliament, should undergo a thorough scrutiny at the hands of the Board of Trade, and of the House.

MR. GREGORY

said, that the Select Committee which sat last year, and the year before, on the question of Railway Rates and Tolls, went fully into this matter, and recommended an alteration of the Standing Orders now in force, so as to give all parties interested, including the general public, a locus standi before a Committee upon a Railway Bill, wherever it was proposed to increase the rates and charges. It was found now that it was often an exceedingly difficult matter to get the locus standi of an intended opponent recognized. He thought it might be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should consult the Officers of the House upon this question, and see whether any alteration was necessary, in order to enable a Committee to take into consideration points which it might be desirable to raise in the interests of the public.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, there was one other matter which had not been referred to, and he did not know whether it could properly be brought within the Standing Order of the House. It was, however, an important matter which ought to be brought under the notice of Parliament. In the Report of the Committee on Railway Rates, they made recommendations not only in reference to new Railway Bills and to those which proposed an increase in the scale of rates already imposed, but they also recommended the consideration of the existing rates of existing Companies. It might not be known by every Member of the House, but it was a fact that the scale of rates often differed materially as between different parts of the undertaking of the same Railway Company. In 1878, a Report was presented to the House of Lords, showing the difference in these rates. In that Report, for instance, the various different rates and charges imposed by the Great Western Railway Company covered 20 pages.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not in Order in going into these details.

MR. TOMLINSON

accepted the correction of the Speaker. He had thought it desirable that, in considering the terms of the Standing Order, attention should be drawn to the existing rates of existing Companies.

Motion agreed to.

Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.