COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 23 June 1891 vol 354 cc1179-99

House in Committee (according to Order).

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

My Lords, I have to move an Amendment which has been suggested by the Local Government Board, for the insertion in Clause 11 of some words after the words "borough and other authorities."

Moved, in Clause 11, page 4, line 27, after the word "authorities "to insert the words" other than the Council of the county or borough.—(The Duke of Westminster.)

On question, agreed to.

Clause 22.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, I have put down an Amendment which I have to recommend very strongly to your Lordships. It is after the word "exceed," page 7, line 22, to insert the words "three-fourths of." My reason for proposing this Amendment is that this Bill is a very serious blow to the salt industry of Cheshire, which I may say is the staple industry of a very considerable part of that county, and is desirable, therefore, in the interests of trade and commerce in those districts, to endeavour to alleviate the effects of it as far as we can in a reasonable manner. I am further induced to move this Amendment because it follows the example which has been set in previous legislation in regard to the Cattle Plague Acts, and so forth. Your Lordships will remember that, under that legislation, although compensation was accorded to farmers whose cattle had to be slaughtered for the public good, provision was made that in no case should the whole amount of damage be allowed to be recovered by the farmer. I think three-fourths was the general rule that was allowed by the Acts in that respect. Your Lordships are also aware that a similar rule is adhered to very strictly by most of the fire insurance companies. Among other rules of those companies they do not compensate a man fully for any loss he may sustain. I think in this case there is this additional reason for pursuing that course: that there is a strong presumption, amounting to an almost absolute certainty, that the person who will claim compensation has benefited probably during the whole of his life, and his predecessors during their lives, that is to say, the estate has been a great gainer by the abstraction of the brine in these districts, the abstraction of which has been more or less the direct cause of these subsidences. I will not detain your Lordships further now. I will only say that I think the full amount of compensation is rather a severe tax upon an industry which is certainly not so prosperous as some of your Lordships seem to imagine. I venture, therefore, to move this Amendment.

Moved, in Clause 22, page 7, line 22, after "exceed" to insert "three-fourths of."—(The Lord Thurlow.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)

I cannot quite understand upon what ground this Amendment is moved. Certain injury is supposed to be done to property by this brine pumping, and why should not the brine pumpers be called upon to pay for the immediate injury done? The noble Lord opposite says that in the case of the Cattle Plague Acts three-fourths, compensation only was given, but there nobody had done the injury, it was a visitation of Providence. This, on the other hand, is a case where these men have done an injury to a certain extent. Why should they pay only three-fourths, and not the whole amount of the damage? I cannot understand the ground on which this is put. Then, with regard to the practice of insurance companies, if insurance companies only choose to insure people to the extent of three-fourths of the amount of the injury, that is their affair; but upon what ground these persons are to be exempted from paying for the whole damage and are only to pay three-fourths of it I cannot understand.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

I hope your Lordships will not approve of this Amendment. The noble Lord has said it must be remembered that these people who will suffer have benefited by the prosperity of the salt trade. But Northwich is a county town, and whatever prosperity it possesses I do not think it can be said to have arisen entirely from the salt trade. Agriculture is carried on; there are fields cultivated, and so forth. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the other large firm concerned, Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co. are in favour of this clause, and are not in favour of the proposal which is put forward by the noble Lord.

LORD THURLOW

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that Brunner, Mond, and Co., who have been referred to on several occasions, though a very important firm, are not exactly in the same position as the Salt Union. We must recollect that Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co., although very large brine pumpers, are not salt makers They make an article which is much more valuable, that is to say, they make soda-ash, and other things, for which they have a practical monopoly under several patents owned by them. I think there is some little confusion in the minds of several noble Lords in regard to the position of that firm. They know that Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co., have been for several years realising 25, 30, and even 40 percent, profit, but with regard to the saltmakers, that is not so. As a matter of fact, until the Salt union was established, they were suffering losses instead of realising profits. The industry was threatened almost with bankruptcy, and now, without being any longer in the position of fearing bankruptcy, these salt makers are not exactly in the position supposed. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that the Salt Union up to this time have not paid more than 9 per cent. per annum on their ordinary shares, a rate of profit which contrasts very forcibly with the figures which were given to us, and which the House was led to suppose the other day came out at 35 per cent., or something of that kind. However, I do not desire to press the Amendment.

*LORD DE TABLEY

I must protest both as a landowner and a salt proprietor against the forced analogy which the noble Lord has just made. There is nothing in common, no kind of connection between the injury which is the consequence of cattle plague and damage arising from pumping brine from underneath a man's land. When it is proposed by the noble Lord to reduce the compensation from the total amount to three-fourths, he must have forgotten that the tradesman, or whoever it may be, whose property is injured, is only compensated from the direct damage he sustains, supposing his building is pumped down. His business has been suspended; his customers have been inconvenienced and have left him; he has to go elsewhere to carry on his business, and he gets nothing for plant, fixtures, or machinery which is injured. Therefore, I think the actual amount of the damage he sustains is not too much to give him, and that it is rather hard upon him to reduce it to three-fourths.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

There are three words in this clause to be inserted after the word "likely." I believe there is no opposition to that.

Moved, in Clause 25, page 9, line 4, after "likely," to insert the words "to recur or."—(The Duke of Westminster.)

On Question, agreed to.

Verbal Amendments agreed to.

Clause 35.

LORD THURLOW

In this clause I have to ask your Lordships to insert the words "or salt," after the word "brine," in line 15. The reason of that is very simple. This is a clause which has been very properly introduced in the other House to protect the interest of salt makers; to protect rights which have existed for many years, and contracts which have been made for several years in advance. As the clause stands, the interests involved are chiefly in respect of brine contracts, which, no doubt, are very large, but I would call the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the contracts for salt intended for chemical and other purposes are also very large. For example, I may quote one set of chemical contracts with one only of the two Pumping Companies, the Salt Union; that is a contract for the supply of 400,000 tons of salt for five years. That contract alone amounts to 2,000,000 tons of salt. Those 2,000,000 tons of salt are not sold to ordinary buyers of salt; they are sold for the purpose of being converted into valuable chemicals, and at only 7s. 6d. per ton. Now, 7s. 6d. per ton is a great deal lower price than has been the selling price for similar quantities of salt for some time past. The price has been as high, before the formation of the Salt Union, as 17s. a ton; at the present day the Salt Union has contracted to supply to nearly all the consumers in England quantities amounting to millions of tons at a price of only 7s. 6d. Therefore, I can see no fair reason why they should not reap the same advantage from contracts made by them in respect of supplies of salt as from contracts in respect of brine. I therefore hope the noble Duke will see his way, in fairness to the salt makers, and in view of the existing contracts, to accept this Amendment. I believe it was owing to a pure accident that the word salt was omitted when this clause was drafted, and there is every reason, in fairness, if you admit it with regard to brine in respect of contracts in advance, why you should not do it in the other case. There can be no logical difference between them as far as I can see.

Moved, in Clause 35, page 11, line 15, after "brine," to insert the words" or salt."—(The Lord Thurlow.)

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

I believe the promoters are not very favourable to the Amendment, but I do not know whether I ought to object to it.

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

I beg to point out one reason why I think your Lordships ought to be careful in admitting this Amendment. I think it is very desirable to keep people to the arrangements which they make in Committee. I have here the notes of the discussion which took place upon this very clause before the House of Commons Select Committee. After the discussion had gone on for a considerable time, several Counsel interfering and suggesting this and that, I find this took place: The Counsel for the Salt Union were asked, "Are you agreed upon it?" Then Mr. Lloyd, who was Counsel for the Salt Union, said, "Yes;" and the Chairman said, "Then I think you may let that clause go in." One can hardly believe that the Salt Union and their Counsel had not fully in their minds at that time the difference between brine and salt just as completely as they have it now. Then, there is another thing which I would point out. If this had been a private Bill, conducted in the usual way, no such Motion could have been made without somebody formally calling the attention of the saltmakers to it, and they would have had a right to appear. Here is a proposal now to add this unknown quantity without notice to any human being except us, who have received the Amendment to-day. I can see no reason why there should be this very material addition made to what was arranged in the House of Commons. I do not think that is at all a safe way of doing business. Therefore, if even the promoters of the Bill, who do not represent all the saltmakers, if they represent any, assent to it, I think your Lordships will say you are not satisfied with alterations proposed in this way. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships further upon that. I have no interest in the matter myself, one way or the other, except to preserve the regularity of proceeding. But I must add this: the next Amendment in my noble Friend's Paper expresses the utmost contempt for contracts, for if you look down the clauses, your eye will catch these words," Any covenant, or agreement, or contract to the contrary notwithstanding;" so that he is not much impeded, your Lordships see, by contracts when he finds them in his way and wants to rescind them.

LORD HERSCHELL

I cannot help feeling some misgiving as to whether this Amendment should be accepted, because the clause itself is a rather strong one, inasmuch as it adds somewhat to the contract price of an article which a person has contracted to buy. This Bill has been seen and read by the brine purchasing people, no doubt, and to add to it now such an important Amendment would be a serious matter. It would be an important addition which, it seems to me would not be likely to be accepted.

*LORD HENNIKER

I do hope the House will not consent to this Amendment. I think the question has been threshed out most carefully in the House of Commons, and it would be a great mistake to put an Amendment of this kind into the Bill

Amendment negatived.

Verbal Amendments agreed to.

Clause 37.

LORD THURLOW

I move in line 5 to insert words to enable a deduction to be made from any rents or royalties of one-half the amount of rate levied upon the brine raised on the property. I am sorry the noble Lord opposite takes exception to these words. I do not know that they are necessary; perhaps it is an undue measure of caution to have inserted them, but they were inserted by a draftsman of considerable skill in these matters, and, for my own part, I am not willing to run the risk of their omission. What I would point out to your Lordships is this: it seems to me it is a very unfair proceeding to tax the saltmakers in respect of their salt to the full amount, and to allow the people who derive benefit from fixed rents and royalties from the brine pumping, and who are just as much to blame as the pumpers themselves for subsidencies, to be let off scot free. Your Lordships must recollect this is a very strong case, because these rents and royalties have been fixed in advance in most cases in Cheshire for 30 years. Now, 30 years is a considerable length of time, and for one class of people who are conducting an industry of this kind to have to bear the burden of the whole of a new tax imposed is, I think, extremely unfair. I should like, if I could, to remove to some extent the impression which evidently has gained some ground as to the prosperity of the salt trade. There is not very much prosperity at the present moment, and if your Lordships pass this Bill without any of these Amendments, I can only say you will be dealing a most grievous blow at an industry which cannot really bear it. What I would say is this: that there is no such thing as a monopoly in salt. We know that a great many industries in this country have been hard pressed by foreign competition, and that is especially the case in the salt trade. There are new deposits being opened up in different parts of the world. There is any amount in Europe. Germany is full of it; Austria, Hungary, and Transylvania are full of it. The German salt, which is sent viâ Hamburg, is now replacing British salt, that is, salt from Cheshire, in the Calcutta market, where it is a great feature in the trade, and in the South African markets. In the same way the Americans in many places in their great continent are opening up the markets to their salt in an unprecedentedly rapid way, in Kansas and in other parts of America. The British industry in salt is consequently much cm the decline. If your Lordships will consult the statistics of the Board of Trade you will find that they bear out these facts: that the export trade in salt from England is dwindling and disappearing, and that it is all going into the hands of foreign salt producers and foreign salt shippers. I think this is a very strong point indeed, and it is not too much to say that, instead of doing all that Parliament can to place additional burdens upon this already heavily weighted industry, a contrary course ought to be pursued. I should say it was rather the duty of Parliament to endeavour to relieve it from some of the burdens which it now has to bear. At any rate, I think it is unreasonable in the highest degree that the people who do the mechanical work of salt pumping and salt making should be taxed to the whole amount, and that the people who have rents and royalties fixed in advance for 30 years should not be mulcted to the extent of a single farthing. I therefore venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I would venture to make an earnest appeal to the noble Duke not to be too hard-hearted in this matter. There is no doubt about the absolute truth of what I have stated, and that that is the feeling of the salt trade in this country. They feel that their trade is already being hard pressed, and that it will follow other branches of trade which have almost wholly left this country, if you turn the screw too tight. I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long, but I desired to correct this erroneous impression about the largo profits, founded upon these chemical prices. There are two kinds of salt used, only one being for agricultural purposes, and I am happy to say that it is cheaper to-day than it was before the formation of the Salt Union.

Moved— In Clause 37, page 12, line 5, after ("Act,") to insert ("and shall be entitled to deduct from any rents or royalties payable by him one-half of the amount of the rate or rates levied under this Act upon the brine raised on the property, in respect of which such rents or royalties are paid, any covenant, agreement, or stipulation to the contrary notwithstanding.")—(The Lord Thurlow.)

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON

I am quite prepared to confirm what has been said by the noble Lord opposite that the price of salt has been increased, and, therefore, I do not think there is any argument to be derived from the prosperity, as has been represented, of the salt trade at the present time. The clause as drawn is, I think, a perfectly fair one, and I do not think any Amendment of this kind ought to be made.

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

I would just add to that a little information which has been afforded by the Salt Union itself. The manager of the Salt Union was asked before the Committee whether he thought this 3d. a ton would make any difference, and he said, one could see, with a smile on his face, that he did not think it would. Not only that, but he further said that a difference from Is. to 2s. 6d. had not affected it in the slightest degree. Then he said that the price of salt was not affected by outside considerations, but by the agreements between the pumpers or makers. I beg to tell my noble Friend that the figures I mentioned the other night were entirely accurate, and, indeed, I took them from the statements of his own witnesses. Adding them together the amount comes to the 13 per cent. exactly, which I mentioned the other night, and they were only supplemental to the figures which the noble Duke quoted. There is another fact which I will give upon the authority of the Salt Union themselves They have no monopoly, says my noble Friend. But they said they had bought up 40 companies, and that they pay £10,000 a year as what they call retainers to landowners to prevent them from letting pumping places to anybody else. They have thought it worth their while to do that. I think other people would be inclined to give a different meaning to the word "retainers" in this case. Therefore it is not their fault that they have not obtained a monopoly, if, as the noble Lord says, they do not possess it.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

I beg to remind your Lordships that all the people in the district are equally interested in the prosperity of the salt trade, and they will do nothing to limit or proscribe its prosperity, which is so important to them, as well as to the Salt Union. I would observe that the royalties are so very small, amounting to only 3d. a ton, that no deduction can fairly be made from those amounts, and that the royalty owners have no control over the prices, which of course are raised at the will of the Salt Union. If this clause is carried, it would raise many new opponents in the field, who would have to be heard. I would also remind your Lordships that this point was not raised upon the previous discussion of the Bill, and I fear that if this Amendment is put in the fate of the Bill would naturally be very much imperilled from the course which would have to be pursued in the other House with regard to it.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I ask your Lordships to disagree with this Amendment. I had at one time a considerable interest at Northwich, but I am happy to say that I got rid of it rather more than 10 years ago, and am therefore quite free to speak upon this subject. I might, perhaps, have some delicacy as far as regards Messrs.

Brunner, Mond, and Co., as they purchased first the salt works which I had on the left bank, and later on upon the right bank of the Weaver. But there are two facts which remove that feeling. First, Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co. are consenting parties and promoters of this Bill; and, secondly, that with the enormous profits they made last year they can well afford to pay compensation. Although they do very much less damage than other alkali works, still there is some damage to vegetation done by them. The whole of these Amendments of the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Salt Union are all of one nature—that is, gradually to reduce the compensation from the figures stated by the Parliamentary agents for the Salt Union. The amount of compensation they might have to pay would be £20,000 in the year, and I think this is a very small sum for them to pay out of the profits, which were stated in the papers which have been circulated at over £360,000 in the last year.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

That is the whole amount.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

But, my Lords, there will be a considerable alteration effected by these Amendments. The first one, in Clause 22, would reduce the sum from £20,000 to £15,000; and in this clause which we are now discussing the Amendment would reduce it to £10,000; while the next Amendment, putting the figure, instead of 3d., at 2d., would leave it at only £5,000. Now, I wish to assure the House, what I am sure the noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships already knows, that I have no hostility either to him or to the Salt Union; on the contrary, I think they both deserve the thanks of the country, for they have both improved the trade of Northwich very much by their good management, concentration of forces, and the measures they have taken for preventing waste. I may say, in my own case, that I found it impossible to prevent waste. I went to considerable expense to put up brine-meters, with the result only that I was enabled to see how much I was losing. I could not prevent their washing out the salt pans with brine; it was contended that the iron suffered from the fresh water, the real fact being that it was laziness on the part of the worker which prevented their taking fresh water from the Weaver close by. The noble Lord has told us that the Salt Union has prevented this, so they have; they have stopped one leak. I think my noble Friend has forgotten his Roman History. He seems to have forgotten the Roman Emperor who wished that all his subjects had but one neck, and he must not be surprised now that people are able to fix upon one body from whom compensation for these subsidences can be exacted. But the noble Lord need not be so alarmed at the prospect of having to pay £20,000. I have no doubt they will find mechanical appliances for supporting these houses, either on piles, as has been done in the case of gas receptacles, or that they will employ other remedies which may be presented to them. I have been long familiar with this district, and I know that the subsidences have increased very much, and I think your Lordships will not wonder at it when you see from the amount of the profits for the last year the enormous amount of salt which has been abstracted from this district.

LORD THURLOW

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

The next Amendment on the Paper refers to the amount of toll that is to be raised. There are later Amendments relating to certain exceptions which have to be made from the compensation; but we cannot know what we have to provide for until it has been determined whether or not to except the Railway or Canal Companies. I think it is impossible to decide upon the amount of the rate until we know whether these different concerns, companies or otherwise, are to be excepted from the operation of the Bill. I therefore suggest that this Amendment should be postponed.

LORD THURLOW

I think so. I entirely agree' with the noble Duke.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I was going to ask why this figure is limited to 3d? If a brine pumper pumps away the property of another person, why is his liability to be limited to 3d. for every 1,000 gallons? I do not see why that limitation is proposed, and I should like to ask what is the reason for it.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

The reason is, it is calculated that that sum will be sufficient to compensate certain individuals for the injury which may be done to their property.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

What does the amount come to at 3d.?

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

It amounts to £20,000.

THE CHAIRMAN (The Earl of MORLEY)

Does the noble Lord mean that the clause should be postponed until the end of the Bill?

LORD THURLOW

Yes.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

I should recommend the noble Duke to let the clause pass now. If necessary, it can be altered in Standing Committee; but I must say I do not see any reason for postponing it.

LORD THURLOW

I should like to know whether this will preclude the clause being re-considered in the Grand Committee?

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

No.

LORD THURLOW

Then I am quite satisfied.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44.

LORD THURLOW

Here, my Lords, I have another Amendment in the same direction, and with the view to meet a point which my noble Friends one after another have argued—that is to say, with the view to endeavouring to alleviate the hardships on this industry. It is to reduce the rate from 3d. to 2d.

THE CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has another Amendment upon the words "form part of."

LORD THURLOW

If your Lordships will allow me to move that now I will do so. I think the words "form part of" are not so important as the insertion of the other words which are suggested here. It is simply to the effect that any interest from year to year on the fund is to accumulate and form part of the principal. I think there is no objection to that, and I presume it will be agreed to.

Moved, in line 24, to leave out ("added to ") and insert ("form part of.")—(The Lord Thurlow.)

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

This is only another mode of reducing it in an apparently innocent manner; but the effect is just the same as that of all the other Amendments—that is, to reduce the Compensation Fund.

LORD THURLOW

No. I think the object is simply to make it more clear, and I believe it was originally intended it should read in that way. It was, however, held by those interested that it was quite clear, and that the interest might be allowed to be added to the Reserve Fund, instead of being counted in, so that the Reserve Fund should not exceed a certain sum. The noble Duke, I think, concurs in the Amendment.

LORD MONK-BRETTON

There seems to be some mistake here. Is it not intended that the words "added to" should be "relieved" and that the words "form part of" should be inserted?

LORD THURLOW

The object is to make it clear.

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

There is only one criticism would make upon this. It is simply in the interests of grammar and good drafting. What is the use of putting in the words "form part of," because if one sum is added to another it does form part of it.

LORD THURLOW

Then I will not press it, but I press the succeeding Amendment in line 26: "until the reserve fund with interest thereon shall accumulate."

*LORD HENNIKER

I beg to ask the noble Lord opposite to explain why he introduces the word "interest" here, because I would point out that he already has that word in?

LORD HERSCHELL

It is necessary because the interest would be added to the Reserve Fund.

LORD THURLOW

This, I may say, is not my own invention. It has been suggested to us by a very competent draftsman. As I have said, it is no invention of my own, and I do not attach any value to it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 50.

*LORD STALBRIDGE

My Lords, the amendment which I propose to make in this clause is one which is not at all antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, but, on the contrary, recognises that principle. It is one which I, on behalf of the Railway Companies, wish to make, because the Railway Companies desire to take advantage of this compensation which is to be paid, and I can see no possible reason why Railway Companies and Canal Companies should be excepted from the operation of this Bill. In the first place, it is exceptional legislation. I believe it is almost without precedent that there should be such an exception made as this. The reasons I gather for it are two: First of all, that the Railway Companies have made great profits from the carriage of the salt; and, secondly, that they are very well off, and that any damage which might accrue to them from the brine pumping would produce such a great effect, and would be so expensive to repair, that it would swallow up all the fund which is to be devoted to these poor freeholders and landowners who suffer damage now from subsidences. But I maintain that railway shareholders deserve as much justice at the hands of this House as any other class of people in this country, and there is no reason why, in this instance, they should not get it. Let me take these two reasons one by one. First of all, as to the great profits which have accrued to the Railway Companies, and particularly to the London and North Western. We are told that the Railway Companies, when they made their lines, were fully aware of the risks they ran, and that in spite of that knowledge, they made their railways. But this portion of the London North-Western was the old Grand Junction line. I am not going to give your Lordships a history of the old railway from the time it was originally made in 1837 down to the present, but your Lordships will remember that the first line was made from Liverpool to Manchester; then a little branch was made to Warrington; then it was carried on to Birmingham. It is true it passed by the salt district and through it, but I think it will be found that the salt works have derived more benefit from the railway, than the railway have derived from the salt works. I think that is a question which is at least open to argument. The rates charged for the carriage of salt by the Railway Companies are very low. They are mostly charged on short distances; they are called short distance rates, and the only long distances over which the salt is carried would be, say from Cheshire to the east coast—to Newcastle. Only one-third of that money goes into the pockets of the London and North Western Company, the rest goes into the pockets of other Railway Companies, who will naturally not get any compensation under this Bill. Then, again, there is another difficulty from the nature of the article carried. Your Lordships will easily understand that the salt waggons must be specially made. Salt is a dangerous commodity to carry in any waggon. If it gets into the axle boxes corrosion ensues, and the axles of salt waggons are well-known to be more liable to give way than the axles of waggons of any other description. The result is that the salt is carried in waggons specially constructed, which are the property of the Salt Companies. Then, secondly, it must be remembered that these waggons cannot be used for anything else. Salt cannot be transported in the same waggons as coal, of course; to carry black and white in that way would not do at all. The goods, as I have said, are carried very short distances, and at the lowest rates, so that altogether from the carriage of the salt, looking at the accidents, the damage which ensues from the fracture of waggon axles, and so on, I do not think that the Railway Companies have been very large gainers thereby. Then, as to the point of Railway Companies being very rich and not needing compensation, and as to their claiming large sums for damages which would swallow up the whole of this Compensation Fund, I do not think there is much in that, because it is obvious that subsidence causing-great damage would necessarily not come under the terms of this Bill at all, and it is only gradual subsidence, the subsidence of a viaduct or anything of that sort for which the Railway Company-could claim compensation. Now, the evidence which was given by the witnesses for the promoters of this Bill was very important. Mr. Wells, their engineer, and Mr. Ward, their manager, gave evidence upon this matter, to which I must call your Lordships' attention. It is very short. Mr. Wells, as I have said, is their own engineer, and he is asked this question— Q. And you think that is a proper and right provision?—A. I would compensate: everybody if I could afford it. Q. And you would compensate Railway Companies?—A. If I could afford it. Q. Is that the only reason you can give for not compensating Railway Companies, that you cannot afford it?—A. That is the first reason. Q. Have you any other reason?—A. The only other reason is that they came there by their own act and can compensate themselves from their traffic. Mr. Wells, I think, cannot be very well aware of what Railway Companies can charge, but if we can charge an extra tariff we shall be glad to do it. Still, as I have said, the salt is carried at the lowest rates at which it can possibly be done in the same way as the company charges with regard to coal, Now, look at the evidence of Mr. Ward, the manager of the company, who has been thoroughly conversant with the trade for something over thirty years, I believe. I need not read the whole of the long questions and answers, and his was with reference to whether certain accidents would happen, and that it would be very hard to saddle accidents on the Compensation Fund. He says— I do not think it was intended for a moment that such a loss should be put upon the Fund; it was only intended that the Railway Company should get compensation for actual injuiry done to their line. Q. Now, I want you to apply your mind to the other point—de you see any reason why other Companies should not be compensated for damage done in the same way as other owners are supposed to be?—A. No, I do not, I confess. That is their own manager's answer to the question put to him upon the subject. Q. Do you see how you can give them compensation?—A. Yes, if the compenation is confined to the actual damage done to the property itself. Then Mr. Bolton, our lawyer, says, "That is all we claim," and that is all the Railway and Canal Companies could in equity claim, and all they could ask. I submit, my Lord, that this being such a peculiarly exceptional case, and the objections being more sentimental than actual, these companies ought not to be excluded, and I do hope your Lordships will see your way to support the Amendment which I move,—that is, the omission of Sub-section I in Clause 50. A noble Lord, who is much better able to deal with this subject than I am, will draw your attention to the two or three other sub-sections in the same clause, and I only wish I had committed the Amendment with regard to the omission of this sub-section to his charge, as I am sure he would have been able to give yon far more potent reasons for the exclusion of this section; but I venture to hope the reasons I have given will suffice, because, as I have said, there is no actual valid reason why Railway and Canal Companies should be excepted from the operation of this measure. I am bound to say I have heard none as yet. The only reason I have heard is in regard to the profits made by these Companies, and the amount derived by them for the carriage of salt, which I have already dealt with. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Amendment.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

Your Lordships will, I am sure, see, not without emotion, this quarrel between two brothers! As my noble relative has told your Lordships, the whole thing is entirely exceptional and peculiar, and there is no precedent for such a condition of things. I would remind your Lordships that the principle of this Bill is to prevent these bodies and companies who have derived, and who do derive, direct pecuniary benefit from their operations connected with the salt trade from being able to claim compensation. That is one of the main principles of the Bill. My brother further said that the London and North Western Railway has not derived very great benefit from the fact of their being large carriers of salt; but the Cheshire lines were made for, and maintained, exclusively by the salt trade. They were made to carry the salt; they are maintained by the revenue they derive from the conveyance of the salt; and also they are not charging their maximum rates, which they can do at any time, and therefore, they have the remedy, if they choose to exercise it, in their own hands. I may add that the Railway Companies I have alluded to, including the London and North Western, have derived a profit of £140,000 per annum through the salt trade. No doubt the annual wear and tear of these railways have not been very considerable, the amount having been only £7,000 during the last 15 years, But there is a scheme on foot to extract brine from a place near the great viaduct, near Winsford, which was alluded to the other day. That viaduct is a very big thing; it cost a great deal of money, and if anything happened to it, owing to the sinking of the land, the damage done to it would more than swamp the fund; it would amount to far more than anything to be derived from this Compensation Fund. Whether the subsidences are gradual or sudden I think the Compensation Fund would have to meet them in either case. I understand the promoters are of opinion that if this Amendment is carried the Bill will be practically valueless from the amount of compensation that may have to be paid. The 3d. is calculated upon the basis on the omission of these various bodies, and if they are admitted as having claims to compensation for damage, the 3d. will be nothing like enough; but I should imagine it would be difficult to fix a larger rate than 3d. a ton. Therefore, I believe the Bill would be made practically useless, and I hope the House will not consent to the Amendment proposed.

*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The argument we have just listened to would be a very good argument indeed for raising the figure above 3d., but what answer is it and what satisfaction is it to the Railway Companies? They are told that if they are compensated for the destruction of their property they will destroy the Compensation Fund. That is a contingency which I should imagine the Railway Companies would contemplate with very considerable equanimity. But supposing the very thing happens which the noble Duke tells us is going to happen. He tells us that there is a project on foot for pumping brine near a great viaduct, and that if that viaduct comes down the Compensation Fund will be destroyed. But what, on the other hand, is the compensation which will be paid to the Railway Company? The Railway Company, albeit it has had the great advantage of carrying this coarse article salt at low rates for a number of years in this district, may one fine morning lose its viaduct, over which not merely the salt goes but all its passengers and other traffic, and it will be expected to put up that viaduct again in the best way it can. What is the reason for it? Surely we are entitled to have some good reason shown why a Railway or a Canal Company should be treated in the same way as any other owner. Up to the present I do not think a scintilla of reason has been given for it, and unless I hear a much better reason than has been given up to the present time, I can only say that if a Division takes place I must suppor the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

I thought I had given the reason. The reason is that they have derived considerable profit from the salt trade. As I have stated, the railways have derived an annual profit from it of £140,000.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

But is that quite certain? Is it admitted by the Railway Company? Because, in the first place, this Railway Company was not made specially for the convenience of the salt traffic. If it was made for the salt traffic in the sense that railways have been constructed for other traffic, the argument might hold good.

*THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

The Cheshire salt lines were made expressly for the salt traffic.

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON

My Lords' I think I can give the answer to the arguments against this clause. This Bill was intended to meet special cases of damage done to small proprietors, poor owners and householders who may suffer special damage. There is not a single Railway Company in Cheshire which to my knowledge during the last 30 years has seriously suffered, and therefore there is no grievance. With regard to Railway Companies, the necessity has not been proved. All these bodies are parties who derive benefit from the salt trade. The Weaver Navigation has been mentioned, but it derives a large revenue upon which they pay to the county, and in the same way the County Council receive so much from the Weaver-Navigation, which is money earnt by the carrying of the salt. All these bodies, therefore, are interested parties. The main traffic of the Cheshire lines is the carriage of salt. It is impossible to say that the salt is carried at a loss; it is carried at a profit. It is quite clear, as far as that goes, that the London and North Western Company is not so important a carrier as the Cheshire lines; but because the London and North Western do not derive a very profitable trade from it, that is no argument against others who do. This clause has been framed to meet the necessities of the case. There is no case whatever proved by the Railway Companies at the present time that they suffer any damage, and, therefore, there is every reason why they should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. That being so, I trust the House will support the clause as it stands for the reasons I have stated.

*LORD DE TABLEY

It will, I think, have a very disastrous effect in the district if this Amendment is carried. All these local bodies are now quiet and acquiesce in their exclusion; but there can be no doubt that once you let in the railways they will ask to be let in too. In one respect also they ought to be put on the same footing as the railways, because the railways can claim compensation, as it is, when they own houses for the occupation of their employés. The local bodies ought, therefore, to be compensated in the same way, for they are in a worse position than the railways. I hope this Amendment will not be passed.

*LORD STALBRIDGE

This is so important a question and so few noble Lords are now present that I would suggest whether it it advisable to carry on the discussion in a nearly empty House. I beg, therefore, to move that the House do now resume.

THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER

I beg to support that Motion.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Tuesday next.