HC Deb 23 May 1845 vol 80 cc798-804
Mr. Stuart Wortley

rose to move the following Resolution, in conformity with that recommended by the first Report of the Committee on Railways of last Session; viz., that the following clause be inserted in all Railway Bills passing through this House:— And be it further Enacted, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the Railway by this or the said recited Acts authorised to be made from the provisions of any general Act relating to such Bills, or of any general Act relating to Railways, which may hereafter pass during the present or any future Session of Parliament. Railway legislation being in its infancy, it was but reasonable to suppose that from year to year various points might arise on which it would be found desirable that Parliament should legislate. If, therefore, they should neglect to do so now, they would in all probability find themselves prevented from legislating hereafter, and be in the same situation as they were with respect to the original railway companies. He was sure the House would agree with him that Parliament were justified in claiming a right to deal with the subject generally hereafter; and as the Resolution he now proposed had been applied to every Bill passed last year, he thought they could not avoid applying it to the Bills of the present Session without giving the promoters undue advantages, and occasioning great public inconvenience.

Viscount Howick

entirely concurred in the proposed Motion, which he thought one of great public importance. He thought they ought not to pass any Railway Bill without reserving for themselves power to revise the rates of charge. It was notorious that hitherto the House had acted in too great a hurry on this subject. In consequence, however, of a Motion by the hon. Member for Inverness last Session, the Government proposed, as a Standing Order, that a clause should be introduced in all Railway Bills regulating the amount of charge; but the Committees having nothing to guide them in the execution of this duty, or any proper means of judging what the rates of charge should be, had acted in a manner that was vague and inconsistent. Some, as he had mentioned on a previous occasion, had authorized the charge for coal, one of the necessaries of life, at the extravagant rate of 4d. a ton, while others had fixed it at 1d. only. This had been the case also with respect to Irish railways, on some of which lime and coal, articles in Ireland of chief importance, were charged at the extravagant rate of 3d. per ton. He did not wish to cast any blame upon the Committees: but he thought the Government should have been prepared to give them advice and assistance on the subject. It was quite competent to them to do so. He would himself have proposed a resolution on the subject of the rate of charge, were it not that their railway legislation had been so much delayed that it would be extremely difficult for many of the Bills to pass the other House this Session. He thought it, however, of the utmost importance, Parliament should cause it to be understood that it would not consider itself bound to adhere to the present rate of charge; and with this view, he would propose the addition of the following words to the hon. Member's Motion:—"Or from any future revision and alterations under the authority of Parliament of the maximum rate of fares and charges authorized by this Act." He thought this would remedy the evil, and remove any objection that could be pointed out to the present Resolution.

Mr. Gisborne

said, the words added by the noble Lord made the Resolution of considerably more importance. It was only a few weeks ago that the House determined to impose upon Railway Committees the duty of determining what these rates of charge should be. At that time he advised the House not to place too much confidence in the value of that Resolution; and now, after a few weeks' trial, the noble Lord said it worked so badly that it must be altered. He should like to know, however, in what manner that House was to review the rates of charge. The Committees had the means of ascertaining what they should be, since they could impose upon the promoters of the Bills the necessity of giving evidence before them on the subject; and they had already done so in conformity with the power delegated to them by the House. Were they then going to overturn the decisions of the Committees, and to alter the rates without hearing the parties again on the subject. It was desirable to assimilate the rates of charge as much as they could; but to make a uniform rate of charge would be impossible. He did not say the Committees were the best mode to decide upon this point; but they were better than that proposed by the noble Lord, or any other that the House was likely to adopt. He thought, therefore, and especially as they had had no notice, the House should negative the noble Lord's proposition, though he did not so much object to the Resolution of the hon. Member for the West Riding.

Mr. Warburton

said, he thought, before they assented to either proposition, they should first see how far the Committees had carried out the principle the House had affirmed. The principle adopted in France was, not to grant privileges to railway companies in perpetuity, but to restrict them to a term generally of thirty-three years. The tendency of all the Reports of our Board of Trade had been to throw all the railway traffic in the various districts into the hands of a small number of companies; and the question had now arisen, were they to maintain this monopoly, or to throw it open to public competition? He thought they were bound to protect the public against extravagant charges; but at the same time he should wish, before he acceded to this Motion, to know how this object had been secured by the powers they had recently delegated to the Committees.

Sir G. Grey

thought, that if the Motion of his noble Friend was only intended to be operative during the present Session of Parliament, it ought not to be made a Standing Order of the House. There was, a great want of uniformity in the rates of charges upon these railways. He would support the proposition of his noble Friend, as he thought that several railway companies had departed from the rule laid down in respect to charges.

Sir G. Clerk

thought the proper rate of fares could only be satisfactorily considered by the Committees upon these Railway Bills. The Resolution of the noble Lord would be calculated to do great injustice to railway companies, for it might have the effect of fixing a maximum rate of fares, which would entail much mischief. The Resolution of the noble Lord would also prove inconsistent with the Act of last Session, for that Act gave a power to the House to interfere after a lapse of twenty-one years.

Mr. Labouchere

observed, that the House had this Session directed Committees upon Railway Bills to settle the amount of rates on railways. It was, however, quite manifest, that if they acceded to the recommendation of the various Committees without further inquiry and more investigation, the step that they had taken would be rendered absolutely nugatory. The course which had been taken by these Committees had been so extremely various that the House ought to interfere in the matter. He thought, then, that the proper course to take was that which was proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Sunderland. He admitted that it was very difficult for the House to fix the maximum rate of charges; but the Resolution before the House only gave them the power of doing this thing—it did not oblige them to do it. The House would, no doubt, exercise that power discreetly, considerately, and with reference to the circumstances connected with each case. Of all the fears that could be entertained, it was in his opinion the most idle fear to suppose that the House would deal hardly against these railway companies, in consequence of its zeal to protect the public against them. His experience was decidedly against such an apprehension. The interest in respect to these railways was daily increasing, and was brought to bear by much canvassing among its Members. The real danger to be feared was, whether they might be induced to shrink from the performance of their duties to the country, which, as a House of Commons, they were bound to perform. He had no fear that they would run any risk of doing any injustice to these companies by discouraging these railway schemes. This was a question of the utmost importance for them to consider. They should keep this power in their hands, not for the purpose of exacting unfair conditions, but with the view of taking proper precaution that justice should be done to the community at large. He felt strongly upon this subject, and he thought that the House should accede to the very moderate and reasonable proposal that was now made. He had given notice to the Vice President of the Board of Trade of his intention to put a question to him on Monday next, with reference to the immense quantity of railway business that was before the House, and the delay which had taken place in respect to it, not exactly in consequence of the great weight of railway business that was before them, but in consequence of the Reports of the Board of Trade. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be then able to say what course he was prepared to recommend to the House. He thought it was of the utmost importance that the intentions of Government on this subject should be announced as soon as possible. He would vote for the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and also the addition to it which had been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. He would recommend that the proposition should be made a Sessional and not a Standing Order.

Lord G. Somerset

would not enter into a discussion upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, because he thought it ought not to be brought before the House without due consideration. Due notice, however, had been given by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire of his proposition; and yet the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland introduced another proposition involving still more extensive alterations in respect to railway regulations. He would not say whether the noble Lord's proposition should or should not be adopted; but he would now decidedly vote against it as an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, because it would evince a dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Select Committees which had been already appointed. He should certainly say that these Committees had exercised a sound judgment as far as the maximum rate of charges was concerned. What struck him was, in the decisions of these Committees, the great similarity which appeared to exist in respect to these charges, and that the Committees might not, perhaps, have considered the peculiar circumstances of the different railways. Why should they suppose that the same rate of charges should be applicable to every railway? It was true that there ought to be a power of revision in respect to those charges under certain restrictions; but the Act of last Session had given them a strong power on this point. There were regulations already entered into which empowered them, after a certain period of years, to revise the rates that may have been charged. They were not then wholly without a remedy on this subject. He did not think that the House should admit so extensive a proposition as that of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord would consent to withdraw his proposition, he would give it every consideration upon a future day; but he should vote against it if it were forced to a division.

Viscount Ebrington

said, he thought he should consider the interests of the House, by moving the adjournment of this debate until Monday next. He wanted to know upon what principle these Committees were expected to fix the tolls? What rules had they for their guidance in the matter? He was himself a party in taxing the tolls of a railway, without having the slightest idea whether he was right or wrong. He thought that that was a situation in which the Members should not be placed, and upon this subject he must protest against the doctrine of the Vice President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

said, as no objection existed to his Motion, he did not see why it should not be at once agreed to. The proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland might be discussed as a substantive Motion on Monday.

Sir J. Graham

was anxious that every consideration should be given to the proposition of the noble Lord, which was one of a most important character; and it was necessary that the House should know exactly the intention of the noble Lord. He therefore wished to ask, whether the provision were to be strictly prospective, or whether it were to have a retrospective effect? If it were to be prospective, he should entertain very little doubt on the matter; but, if it were intended to be retroactive, there might be considerable objection to it.

Viscount Howick

thought, that wherever a railway company came to ask for fresh powers, the House ought to attach to those powers such restrictions as they thought proper. There might be some hardship in imposing on companies, when they came for trifling powers, provisions which were not thought of when they were created, and he should have no objection to confine his provisions to companies which might now be created for the first time; but he thought its application to them was of the most essential importance. He felt inclined to support the proposition of his noble Friend the Member for Plymouth, because he thought that a proposition of this kind ought not to be agreed to without mature consideration; but he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. If that course should be adopted, it would be necessary to postpone the third reading of some of the Bills now before the House. One of those Bills, in the care of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Patten), contained some most extravagant charges for the conveyance of goods in the Blackburn district. It authorized the company to charge 4d. per ton per mile for coals. Now this was a most extravagant charge. He believed the expense of haulage was about 1s. per train per mile, and supposing each train to average 150 tons, the charge would be 3l. 15s. for what only cost 1s. Upon some of the railways coals were carried at three farthings per ton per mile, which yielded a fair profit, and therefore such an extravagant rate ought not to be allowed. He also believed the charge for passengers was considerably higher than it ought to be, and that some steps ought to be taken to remedy the evil.

Debate adjourned until Monday.

Back to