RAILWAYS. (Hansard, 31 July 1840)

§ Mr. Finch
was desirous of expressing his hope, that this clause was so worded as to enable the Board of Trade to obtain from all railway companies such accounts as would show what was the amount charged by them for tolls, and what for locomotive power. It seemed to be the policy, and it certainly was the practice, of all the railways to heap the whole sum into a gross charge, and not to separate the sum asked for toll from that required for locomotive power. In order to illustrate what he intended, he would call the attention of the House to the charge made by the London and Birmingham Railway Company. The charge of the London and Birmingham Railway was, for the conveyance of carriages 3l. 15s. Now he found on looking at their Act of Parliament, that they were not allowed to charge for a carriage not exceeding a ton in weight, more than 4d. per ton per mile for toll, the maximum charge, therefore, for toll, would be 1l. 17s. 4d. The difference between that sum and 3l. 15s. was a charge entirely for locomotive power, and inasmuch as the public had, under the act, no control over the charge for locomotive power, it might be doubled at the will of the company. So was it with the charge for horses. The toll for each horse was 1½d. per mile, that would amount to 14s., the charge is 3l. 10s., the difference between the two sums was the charge for locomotive power, and that amounted to 2l. 16s. He had had the opinions of many competent persons, that one farthing for each passenger per mile, and a farthing for each ton of goods per mile, would be a sufficient remuneration for locomotive power, and if that were a sufficient charge, he looked upon the amount now demanded as outrageous. 1180 He knew that Parliament was not yet sufficiently aware of the actual cost of locomotive power to determine whether the charge was sufficient or not, but he asked the Government to require from the companies such an account as would inform the Government, and let the public know what was charged for each object. Again, the charge for passengers allowed for toll at 2d. a mile, that would amount to 18s. 8d., the charge for locomotive power at a farthing a mile would not be more than 2s. 4d., the charge was 1l. 10s., and there was thus a difference of 11s. 4d., more than four and half times as much as in the opinion of engineers was necessary. He hoped that the noble Lord would direct his attention to this part of the subject, because the public, as passengers, were at the mercy of the railway companies. So also was it with respect to the conveyance of goods. The London and Birmingham Railway Company would not enable all parties to carry goods. He saw by looking into their Act of Parliament, that their tolls were divided into three classes, one class was 1½ d. per ton per mile, the second was 2d. per ton per mile, and the third was 2d. per ton per mile. The company, however, charged one gross sum of 1l. 13s. per ton for all these classes. They, therefore, made a charge upon the first class of 9s. 4d. for toll, and 1l. 3s. 8d. for locomotive power, and they thus charged 2½ to 1 as compared with the toll, for locomotive power, and if one farthing a ton per mile was ample, they were charging 600 per cent, more than was sufficient. He, therefore, trusted that the Board of Trade would, when the act should come into operation, turn their attention to these points, because so great a revolution was about to take place in the method of transit for goods and passengers, and the public, in consequence of the breaking up of the old methods of travelling, were so much at the mercy of the railway proprietors, that unless attention was directed to these points the public would never consent quietly to the continuance of the monopoly. Some one would be found to start up and claim the right, which, as he contended, they had, of using the railroads upon payment of the tolls.

§ Lord Seymour
said, that the clause did not enter into the details which the hon. Member required. The House was aware, that he had prepared the clause in pur 1181 suance of the general understanding, that it should include the charge to the public, but should not enter into the amount of profit derived by the companies. Now, if they called for a return of the charge for locomotive power as a separate item, it would be of no use unless they also had some proof of the cost which the companies were put to for that power. It would, therefore, be of no avail to ask for the charge for locomotive power alone. He had strictly adhered to the wish of the House, and endeavoured to classify the different heads of tolls, rates, and charges on the public, and he had limited the clause to that object.

§ Mr. Finch
said, that it turned out just as he had expected, there would be no protection to the public by this clause against unlimited charge for locomotive power.

§ Lord Granville Somerset
differed wholly from the hon. Member for Walsall, for he thought there should be no specific return of the charge for locomotive power, first, because he thought, that it would be very difficult to obtain from the railroad companies what they did charge for this power, and next, because under that head there were many sums that were not included in the toll, he meant the charge for the different stations, porters, &c, which it was impossible to break up into particulars. He did not see why they should ask any question as to the general management of the railroads, he did not know any reason to suppose that the companies charged more for locomotive power than was necessary, and if they wanted to see a difference in the price of the conveyance of different classes of the community maintained, they must not look too closely into the charge for locomotive power. The charge to the company for the poor man's conveyance was the same as for the rich man's, and if they made the charge to the public uniform, they would raise the price for the carriage of the poor man. Therefore, looking at things practically, he was glad that the noble Lord had confined his clause within its present limits.

§ Mr. Hindley
entertained the same opinion. He saw in the observations of the hon. Member for Walsall a great jealousy of railroad companies. But when they looked at the patriotic spirit with which these undertakings had been carried on, when they saw the facilities which they afforded to the public, enabling an 1182 hon. Member with ease to pop over to Dublin, and to be back in his place in the House in a few days, and when they knew how little profit had been yet realised, he thought that Parliament had no right in this early stage of the proceeding, to object to the remuneration they obtained.

§ Mr. Ewart
observed, that the railway proprietors did not arrogate to themselves any more patriotism than canals or other public companies, but they did not want to be interfered with any more than those other bodies. He recollected, that when he was on the committee for the first railroad, it was strongly opposed by a canal company that had been in existence seventy years, and was paying 33 per cent, upon each share, whilst the 100l. shares sold for 1,200l. There was, then, no jealousy of the canals. Why did not the hon. Member for Walsall, who might be considered as representing the water affairs in that House, subject the companies with which he was connected to the same rules? It was his firm belief, if such inquisitorial proceedings were encouraged, all such bold undertakings as had given this country a name above other nations, would be materially checked, and they would lose the advantages which these undertakings were likely to confer.

§ Mr. Henry Baring
said, that whereas a maximum price existed for tolls for the transit of goods and passengers, the railway companies might charge any sum for locomotive power, and were not limited to any particular price. He thought that the statement of the hon. Member for Walsall went more to that point than any other, and it was one which was well worthy of consideration.

Mr. Aglionby
thought, that great injustice had been done to his hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall, by representing him as representing the water interest. His hon. Friend assured him, that he had no share in any water or canal company. He believed, that some Members of that House could not say so much with respect to railways. He thought that the hon. Member had only the interest of the public at heart. He did not understand his hon. Friend to desire, that inquisitorial powers should be given with respect to the proceedings of railway companies, but merely that it was necessary to have a salutary check upon them as regarded the public. All he said was, that they had cut up the country—that they had in- 1183 fringed private interests on the plea that they would effect a great public good— that they had, in fact, a monopoly—and that it was not fair they should pay 30l. or 40l. per cent, profit, and if they did, they ought at least to produce their ac counts.

§ Mr. Easthope
could not suffer any observations as to the individual interests of Members, to be introduced into the debates of the House without making some remarks. It was notorious that he was interested in railway property, but was that a reason why he should not be convinced that it was for the benefit of the proprietors that the public convenience should be promoted at the least possible cost? This being the opinion of all interested in railway property, they were naturally anxious to take part in a matter in which their own welfare, and the advantage of the public were identical. If such a doctrine as that which he had just heard were to be made use of in that House, it must necessarily happen, that when an hon. Member rose in his place to discuss the question of the corn-laws, it would be held that he was to be suspected and looked upon with jealousy, and that his observations were not to be received without apprehension, should he happen to be a landlord. Now, he held that because he was a landlord he would be so much the more anxious that the corn-laws should be placed on a good basis, and accord with the general interests of the community, and instead of this militating against his remarks, it was a ground why his observations should be received with greater attention.

§ Mr. Muntz
could not but recollect that it was not a long time since the railway proprietors were laughed at, and told that they would never get any return for their money. Having risked their capital, they were fairly entitled to the profits. Suppose there had been a great loss on their speculations, would the public have consented to give them an indemnification? Certainly not; He knew a canal in which the 100l. shares sold for 3,500l. each, yet did they hear any one say that the tolls on this canal ought to be lowered. Individuals who had subscribed their money at a great risk for a public improvement ought to have a fair chance of great profits if they were made.

§ Sir Charles Burrell
thought that any inquisitorial power would cramp the ener- 1184 gies of the country. They ought not further to inquire into the affairs of these companies than to protect the public interests. They ought to see to steam-vessels as well as railroads, for he knew a case in which lives had been lost because no boat was kept on board a steamer.