[BILL 34.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 31 March 1873)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said it might be convenient that he should make a short statement which would enable the House to understand exactly how he meant to deal with one or two Amendments which had been put on the Paper. He referred specially to two Amendments which came from both sides of the House in regard to Clause 5. One Amendment proposed to admit the concluding words of the clause from "notwithstanding" to "Act" inclusive. He found that these words had created a degree of alarm, he was going to say in the public mind, but he should rather say in the railway mind, much beyond anything he had himself anticipated. His main object in introducing these words was to make sure that the intention of the Joint Committee of last Session with regard to facilities and through rates should be carried into effect—"through rates" being declared "facilities" within the meaning of the Traffic Act. But he had learnt that these words were understood to cover a much larger field than he admitted was necessary for the purpose of the Joint Committee or of this Bill; and, that being the case, he was very willing to omit them from the clause. His desire was to carry faithfully into effect the recommendations of the Joint Committee of last year; and all the more so because that Committee did him the honour to support and accept the Report which, as their Chairman, he had submitted for their approval. The words as they now stood in the clause, he willingly admitted, went beyond any recommendation of the Joint Committee, because they applied to the whole Railway and Canal Traffic Act. He was not going into the argu- 350 ment, but much might be said in favour of the words, for they all knew very well that from the imperfection of the system of Private Bill legislation the general legislation of this country had, he was afraid, in not a few instances, been over-ridden and contradicted by clauses which had been introduced into private Acts of Parliament entirely, so to speak, behind the back of the public. At the same time, it was difficult to pronounce with accuracy as to what the words to which he had referred might cover and include, and that was in itself a reason against their retention in the clause. He should, therefore, be ready to accept the Amendment on the Paper with respect to the omission of the words from the end of the 5th clause. The only other Amendment to which he need refer was an important one put on the Paper by one of the hon. Members for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), who was a leading member of the Joint Committee last year. He (Mr. Fortescue) should be able to accept his proviso on Clause 5, at least in great part, as he understood it. There would be some difficulty about the latter words, but as to the former part of the proviso, there was no difficulty in accepting it with a slight alteration. It might be necessary in Clause 10—the Through Rates Clause—to insert words which would make the meaning perfectly clear, because he never concealed from the House what the intention of the Joint Committee was in that clause—that in certain cases through rates should be compulsory, and that where the Parliamentary powers of charge were found by the Parliamentary Commissioners to be used not bonâ fide for the purpose of forwarding traffic, but to send it by another route for the private interest of the Company and against the interest of the public, the Parliamentary powers should not be allowed to stand in the way. The clause might, indeed, act of itself in the way intended, but it was better to be entirely clear on these matters, and a few words might be added to Clause 10 for the purpose of making it clear that the power of ordering through rates, limited as it would be by various provisions in the clause, should not be defeated by mere reference to the Parliamentary powers of charge. In conclusion, he ventured to appeal to both sides of the House not to waste time by a long preliminary dis- 351 cussion. An hon. Member had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee, but as the Bill had not the slightest shadow of a party character, he hoped the feeling of the House would be in favour of going into Committee, and endeavouring to make some effectual progress to-night.

§ MR. J. FIELDEN
said, that he was unavoidably absent from the debate on the second reading; but if the question which he wished to put before the House had been discussed, he would not have felt it his duty to propose, as he now did, that the House should go into Committee upon the Bill this day six months. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had to a certain extent protested against the Bill, but he had not raised the question of principle. Now what was the principle of the Bill? The principle of this Bill was, that whereas in the past all the rules, regulations, and restrictions imposed upon railways had been contained in Acts of Parliament, it was now proposed by this Bill to abandon this system, and to give power to three Commissioners to make laws for the government of all the railway interests in this country. This was a vital principle which was not touched upon on the second reading, and which ought to be carefully and seriously discussed by the House. The railway interest was a gigantic interest, and he thought it would be a dangerous thing to give to three Commissioners power to deal at will with 500 or 600 millions of property. If such vital and important interests were to be subjected to what would in effect be arbitrary power, he did not see how the liberties of the country were to be preserved. There was an idea abroad that this Commission was to deal with every question in reference to railways. There were people who thought that if this Bill passed every one who arrived at a junction belonging to two Railway Companies and did not find a train to carry him forward might make a complaint to these Commissioners and get redress. But the Bill did not provide for anything of the sort, it simply provided that these three Commissioners should carry out the Act of 1854. What he wanted to know from the President of the Board of Trade was this. Were these Commissioners to lay down arbitrary 352 rules riding over the whole management of railways? Or were they to act strictly within the law? If they were to act within the law, why should not the Court of Common Pleas carry out the provisions just as well, and why had it not carried out the Act of 1854? The reason was that the complaints were frivolous, and not such as ought to be dealt with by such a tribunal, and surely it could not be tolerated that, anyone who had some frivolous complaint should insist on a Court of Law interfering to disturb the traffic on railways. What had the Railway Companies done that they were to be dealt with in this arbitrary manner? Had they neglected their duty to the public? Had they not done what was reasonably expected of them, and conferred an immense benefit on the community? He found that there was a prevalent idea in the House that he was a railway director. He was a Proprietor of stock in many railways, but he was not a railway director. And he could say further that before he gave Notice of this Motion he had not had a communication with any railway directors or any railway official. He was acting on the present occasion solely fron considerations of public policy, and he believed—and he hoped that the House would believe him when he said it—that he was not the man to be put forward to do the work of any Board of Railway Directors. It seemed to him that this Bill amounted to a breach of faith, because the proprietors of railways had invested their money on the faith of Acts of Parliament, after knowing that they were liable to have those Acts altered solely and only when Parliament deemed it right in the interest of the public that these Acts should be modified. But they did not invest their money on the understanding or in the belief that this vast property which was held by railway proprietors, should be handed over to three Commissioners appointed by Ministers of the day. The Standing Order of the House, No. 168, not only defined that railway proprietors invested their money under a clause of an Act of Parliament, but by inference it implied that nothing but an Act of Parliament could alter the conditions. His contention was that this Bill gave power to three Commissioners to interfere and to take action with regard to the property of railway proprietors 353 without an Act of Parliament. He wanted to show to the House that railway proprietors had not been negligent of the interest of the public in their management of railways. What had they done? He presumed that the object of the Legislature in allowing these Acts to pass was to give greater facilities to the people to travel, and greater facilities for the transmission of goods. And what had been done? He found from the Report of Captain Tyler, the Government Inspector, made in 1871, that the number of miles of railway opened in 1852 was only 7,336; while in 1871 the number was 15,376, being an increase of 8,040 miles. The capital invested in railways in 1852 was £264,000,000; in 1871 it was £552,000,000 an increase of £288,000,000. The total receipts from all sources in 1852 were £15,700,000; in 1871 they were £48,900,000, an increase of £23,200,000. It was idle to say that Railway Companies did not provide the means of transit for the public. He believed that they had done more than any other interest in the State. Now, what had they received from the public in the way of remuneration for the great convenience they had given them? In 1860, the interest paid on the investments in railway property in the United Kingdom was 4.11 per cent; in 1865 it was 4.65 per cent, or a little over 4½ per cent; and what were the means they had provided for the transit of passengers? In 1850 the number of passengers carried—exclusive of season ticket holders—was 89,000,000, in 1872 it was 375,000,000, being an increase of 286,000,000. While the receipts there-from had increased 210 per cent, the number of passengers carried had increased 321 per cent, clearly showing that Railway Companies had not pocketed the whole of the increased profits, but had given a fair share—he might almost say more than a fair share—to the public. He next came to a more important point, and that was the loss of life on railways, and he would ask the front Treasury bench, after hearing his figures, whether they really expected that any three Commissioners appointed by the Government could manage the vast bulk of passenger traffic with as much safety as had been done by the independent action of railway directors? According to Captain Tyler's Report in the years 1847, 1848, 1849, one person was killed 354 to every 4,780,000 persons carried; in 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, one person was killed to 8,700,000 carried; in 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, one person was killed to 9,600,000; and in 1871—and when he read the figures he could scarcely believe the facts—one person was killed to every 31,000,000 carried. What, then, was the mis-management of this vast railway interest, which had a capital of between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000? What was there in these figures that warranted the Minister of the day in coming to this House and asking that the Railway Companies might be put under the control of these three gentlemen? It seemed that the House was going into paternal legislation, and that it was thought that vast interests like the London and North-Western Railway, the North-Eastern Railway, the Midland Railway, and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways were not capable of taking care of their own concerns. They were to have three Commissioners. What where they to be? He was not a lawyer, but he had never heard any official so loosely described. He was to be "experienced in the law;" but he believed that if all the Judges put their heads together they would not succeed in giving a precise definition of that term. A man sentenced to penal servitude for ten years was quite experienced in the law, and in another ten years he would be still more "experienced." If he was a man who had gone through the Bankruptcy Court several times he would have great experience in the law. He would not say that if this Bill had been drafted by one "learned in the law" it was the most slovenly Bill he had ever read; but he asserted that it was either most slovenly and carelessly drawn, or else it was drawn so as to give an idea that a man was to be appointed who had a knowledge of law, whilst the words of the Act did not convey that meaning. They might have used the usual words, "a barrister of five years' standing." The second was to have experience in railway business. Well, what did that mean? A platelayer had experience in railway business. The man who travelled much on railways had great experience in railway business. Under the terms, then, anybody could be nominated one of these Commissioners. Then it was very curious that although three 355 Commissioners were to be appointed, and two were described, the qualification of the third was not described at all, and he thought it was probably intended to appoint some one who had no experience either in law or in railway management. But these wore the men who were to have the supreme control of the whole of the railways of the kingdom. The nation could never by Act of Parliament lay down rules for the management of railways which would be effective. There must be responsibility in the management of railways as in everything else. But if they prescribed rules they departed from the policy which had made the country great, of giving the widest freedom of action to individuals so long as they kept within the law. Parliament had laid down the principle of heavy damages, to prevent injury to passengers and damage to property which were assessed by juries in our Courts of Law. By a Return presented to the House of Lords on the subject, he found that for the five years, beginning in 1867 and ending in 1871 the total amount of compensation paid by the Railway Companies for loss of life, injuries sustained by passengers, and damage to property, was £2,350,000, being at the rate of £470,000 per annum. Here was a security to the public—a very fair security he should think. He thought that as Railway Companies were mercantile concerns, established in order to secure a good dividend to the shareholders, nothing could be a greater inducement to them not to neglect their duty than the knowledge that they would be liable to a fine of nearly £500,000 a-year. Proposals of the kind which took away from Parliament the power of making laws, and enabled Commissioners or Boards to make orders which should have the force of law, were never introduced in their fully developed form. They were always done in an insidious way. It was said the Commission was only to deal with through rates and with the contracts with the Post Office. But this was the thin end of the wedge, and if he mistook not it would be driven home until the Government would eventually purchase all the railways for the State. As to the Commission having any real practical effect in producing more punctuality, or the more effectual transmission of passengers and parcels from one part of the country, 356 such an expectation would be futile. It was impossible that any three men such as would be appointed could deal properly with this enormous traffic. Having shown what had been the result of railway management in the hands of the Companies and the increase on the profits of their traffic, he wished to remind the House that the result of the management of the Government in the affairs of the country had raised the amount of taxation from £56,000,000 in 1853 to £71,500,000 in 1871; while, on the other hand, the Railway Companies had increased their receipts during that time 100 per cent. After the Government had shown that kind of management in public affairs he did not think Parliament would be justified in handing over the, management of the railways to the State. The Bill proposed to appoint a First Commissioner at £3,000, two Commissioners at £2,000 each, and two Assistant Commissioners at £1,500 each, making £10,000 a-year without clerks, &c. Their duty would be to prevent accidents and insure greater punctuality in the delivery of goods, but if they interfered with the free action of the Railway Companies in the management of their business would they not relieve the Companies from their responsibility in the event of accidents or delay in the transit of goods? The whole thing must end in conferring upon the proposed Board very arbitrary and centralizing power and in placing the whole railway system under the management of the Government. Looking at these gigantic undertakings, and the enormous amount of money invested in them, Parliament ought to be jealous in placing them under the control of the Government, with such an extensive amount of patronage. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and that was the question of rates. The public seemed to think that because Railway Companies gave lower rates to certain individuals than the maximum rates, they ought to give them to everyone. Now, was that reasonable? Every manufacturer and large producer varied his terms according to the amount of his business with different individuals. What the House had a right to insist upon was that Railway Companies should not charge more than a certain amount for the carriage of passengers and goods, 357 But he submitted that it was an interference with the freedom of action and proper conduct of business to bind them to charge the same rate to everybody who came to them. He considered the question one of national importance. It was the first step towards taking railways under the control of the State; and, believing as he did, that our prosperity as a nation had arisen largely from our freedom to conduct our own affairs in the way we thought best, he felt bound to oppose this Bill, and therefore moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.

§ MR. GOLDNEY,
in seconding the Motion, said, he did so because it was a subject which he thought ought to be fully discussed to satisfy the House and the public outside, who felt great alarm with respect to the provisions of the Bill. Either the project meant more than was shadowed forth, or it might be accomplished by much less expensive machinery than that contemplated by the Bill. According to the general scope of the Bill the Commissioners were to do no more than carry out the Railway and Canal Companies Act of 1854, which was simply for the settlement of through rates, but there was another provision which the Companies would not object to, and that was the publication of the rates for goods and cattle traffic as well as passenger traffic. This Bill emanated from the Report of the amalgamation Committee of last year—the Joint Committee appointed to consider the amalgamation of the various large systems of railway. The Committee sat a long time, and examined a great number of witnesses. Amongst others the traffic-manager of the North Western, the Great Western, and the Midland Companies, and a large number of gentlemen engaged in mercantile pursuits in the chief towns on the lines. During the sitting of that Committee, for some purpose or other, they chose to extend the inquiry a little further than the instructions given to them. The main object of the inquiry was whether amalgamation with respect to large Companies was desirable, or whether Parliament should keep up a system of competition, to protect the public. Companies had hitherto been so far controlled in their charges by Parliament that in almost every new Bill, or every 358 extension, the Committee had imposed further restrictions on the amount of fares and rates which the Railway Companies might charge the public. For instance, in the case of the North Western Company, the maximum rate for first-class passengers was 2d. per mile, for second-class passengers 1½d., and for third-class passengers 1d. He thought it much better that a power like that should still be exercised by Parliament than handed over to a Commission. The Joint Commission said that they considered that competition could not be maintained by legislation, that combination was increasing, that it was impossible to lay down any general rules as to the limits of amalgamation, that equal mileage rates were inexpedient, that a periodical revision of the rates was impracticable, and that fixed rates were undesirable. They further suggested that the Companies should exhibit books at each station showing the rate for goods; and that the administration of the Act of 1854 should be assigned to a special tribunal possessed of a knowledge of railway matters. Now, if that was to be done every one acquainted with railway management and interested in railway property would wish that a tribunal of that kind should be a tribunal of the highest character, composed of the best men they could select for the purpose, with such salaries as would make them rank with the Judges of the land, and should carry with them the same weight in the eyes of the public. There was an amended clause in the Bill, giving an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas in matters of law. Now, of three Commissioners possessing different qualifications there was a great chance that the decisions would depend a great deal on one mind. There ought to be some tribunal to which the decision of the Commissioners could be referred. The Commissioners were not only to determine matters in difference, but were to build up a policy, to create a code on which they should legislate. There were portions of the Bill relating to arbitration which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had expressed his willingness to modify. And before such a power as this Commission was created it would be wise for the House to consider whether the different railway regulations which now existed ought not to be consolidated or 359 amended. There existed at the present time what he believed a large number of the public were unacquainted with, a great institution called the Railway Clearing-house, which had, under the Act of 1850, acquired many of the powers which, under the Bill, would be vested in the Commissioners. The authorities at the Clearing-house had endeavoured to regulate through rates; they had determined the monetary question as between one Company and another; they could settle disputes as to demurrage mileage rates, and what should be allowed under various circumstances by one Company to another. With such an institution in existence and the powers of the Court of Common Pleas under the Act of 1854, he did not see the necessity for immediate legislation. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fielden), because he thought the question involved was so large, so much larger than was contemplated by the Bill, that it would be much wiser for the Board of Trade to allow it to rest for a year, and to have a Committee appointed to consider the expediency of accommodating the different matters of railway arrangement in reference to a subject which so nearly affected the comfort and interest of the whole community.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Joshua Fielden,)—instead thereof.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he was not surprised at the speech which had been made by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden), but was surprised to hear that he was not a railway director. The hon. Member seemed to have sot up an imaginary case, in order that he might afterwards try to demolish it. He had talked of the powers to be conferred upon the Commissioners as something extraordinarily large, whereas he thought the House would see they were of a very limited nature. The hon. Gentleman had also fallen into another error by speaking of the proposed legislation as a direct violation of the agreement between the Railway Companies and the public, on the ground that the 360 railways were created by Acts of Parliament, and that it was only by an Act of Parliament that their powers could be taken from them. A still further error had been committed by the hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the arbitrary action of the Commissioners; but any one who read the Bill would find that the powers to be vested in the Commissioners were the powers at present existing under Mr. Cardwell's Act of 1854, and which were simply to be transferred in their entirety to the new Board. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that the powers entrusted to the Court of Common Pleas had never been put in force, because the details brought before them were of so minute a character as to be unworthy of consideration; but the public felt that those powers ought to have been put in force, and wanted another tribunal to be created, which would deal more comprehensively and definitely with the question. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask what negligence the Railway Companies had been guilty of to subject them to such treatment at the hands of the Government, and showed, from official Returns, that the proportion of people killed by railway accidents was very small in comparison with the number of people who travelled by rail. But the real point was that many of those accidents might have been avoided, and such as the public said ought not to occur. Captain Tyler, in his Report on the Kirtlebridge accident, last year, said the records of the Board of Trade for many years pointed strongly and continuously to the difficulty that had existed in inducing Companies, especially the large and more powerful ones, to adopt improved systems of working, and principles of construction, even when they were of the most obvious character; and Captain Tyler added that the most extensive railway systems had far from kept pace with their constantly growing business and corresponding requirements. The Railway Companies, much as they had done in the interests of the public, had not fulfilled many of the requirements which would conduce to the safety of travelling, and therefore they were not in a position to come before Parliament and ask, "What have we done that you should find fault with us." The hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was absurd to create Com- 361 missioners to do work which such a Company as the London and North-Western Company was surely capable of doing for itself, and taking care of its own interests. But that was the very point. It was because these powerful Companies were far too strong and far too capable of taking care of their own interests that some central authority ought to be created, to see that the safe conduct of the public was properly cared for. If he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) wished to throw any obstacles in the way of the passing of the Bill it would simply be because he did not believe that the Government had foreseen all the difficulties of the case. He hoped that the Commission to be created would be a thoroughly efficient Commission, and one in which the public would have confidence, but he was afraid that the salaries proposed to be given to the members of it would rather limit its usefulness. The only blot he found in the Bill was that it hardly went far enough, for he would have liked to have seen the Commissioners entrusted with arbitration powers as to Companies and with many other duties relating to the safe travelling of the public. If the Companies did not themselves see the advantage of having a centralizing power among themselves, it was quite time that the Government provided such a central authority. In Germany there was such a central authority in existence, and its effects were found to be most advantageous. We should do well if we imitated such a system in this country. He hoped the House would support the Government in passing the present Bill, which he believed had long been called for.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he would not have troubled the House at all upon this question if it had not been for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He was glad that the Government had accepted an amendment of which he had given Notice, the object of which was to prevent the measure from being so construed as practically to give the Commission the power of revising the rates of the Railway Companies. By the terms of the Bill as it was originally drawn, power was thus given to the Commissioners, but that fact must certainly have escaped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman when 362 the Bill was drawn, or doubtless he would not have inserted words of so strong a character. When the Joint Committee of last year drew up their Report, after hearing all the evidence, they came to the conclusion that if such a power were given to the Commissioners it would practically amount to confiscation. These were the very words of the Report, and it was only fair to other members of the Committee who were absent from this House to state that the Committee never intended to propose anything like confiscation. Still the words in the Bill were capable of that construction, and now that the matter had been pointed out he was glad to say that the Government had seen the force of that objection, and had withdrawn these words. As regarded the able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden), it reminded him a good deal of the sermons which they occasionally heard on Sundays, in the course of which the clergyman set up a very wicked man simply in order to knock him down again. No doubt if the Commissioners were to have the powers which the hon. Gentleman described, they would be very formidable persons indeed; but any hon. Gentleman would see from the Bill that they were practically to be bound hand and foot within the four corners of the Bill, and were to have nothing like the powers attributed to them by the hon. Gentleman. They would be appointed to carry out the Act of the 17 & 18 Vict., to exercise certain powers and duties now belonging to the Board of Trade, and under certain circumstances they were to be enabled to take arbitrations when Companies had quarrelled among themselves. In the matter of through rates the powers of the Commissioners would certainly be extended, but the House must remember that though it was quite true that the Railway Companies had not paid very large dividends, that was to a certain extent their own fault, for in the origin of railways the object of all railway directors seemed to be to fence round their own property, and instead of encouraging traffic to come along it, to keep all possible traffic away. He believed that if the present policy of the railway directors had been pursued from the commencement railways would have been in a far more prosperous condition than at the 363 present time. The Railway Companies had large powers given to them originally in order to further the convenience of the public, and that fact should always be borne in mind. With regard to the question of through rates, it was clearly put before the Committee of last Session that in some cases the railways diverted the traffic in order to get higher rates, and it was shown that in the case of the South Yorkshire coalfields two Railway Companies agreed to raise the rates for conveying South Yorkshire coals to London to such an extent, in favour of coals from Derbyshire and other places, that practically the South Yorkshire coal ceased to come to London altogether. In such cases Parliament ought to interfere and say, "You are using the powers we give to you for purposes for which they were never intended." As to the composition of the proposed Commission, he hoped the position of the Commission would be raised to such a high standard that people of the same class as the Judges of the land would be upon it. In setting up a new tribunal it would be false economy not to have a good one—if the experiment were to be tried at all it should be well tried. He hoped the Government would take that into consideration before the Bill became law, and would offer such an inducement to men of the highest standing as would enable them to act as Commissioners. The Commission had been spoken of as if it were to interfere with railroad management, and lay down codes of rules, but nothing of the sort was intended. The Commissioners would simply be bound to administer the Act of Parliament, and many railway directors were in favour of having such a tribunal.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that he had not spared bringing abuses of the railway system which had occurred in his own neighbourhood before the House, when the occasion required that he should do so; but he had found that the Companies become amenable, but he was not on that account inclined to dispute the desirability of codifying the railway law. He wished, however, to justify what had been asserted by his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden) to the effect, as this Bill had been presented to the House, it consisted virtually of 364 a wholesale delegation of the powers of Parliament to the proposed Board of Commissioners. Now, the House was in a very peculiar position. Her Majesty's Government had a large majority in the House, and it had been stated by the Leader of the Opposition that in this present House the position of the Government appeared to him perfectly unassailable. This, he thought, should render the House of Commons careful to act in all these matters upon thoroughly constitutional principles in vindication of its Parliamentary rights. When he read the Bill, and particularly the 5th clause, what did he find? Not only was it proposed that the Commissioners should have all the statutory powers conferred upon the Board of Trade, but all the powers conferred by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854 upon the Courts and Judges of this country. But the proposals of the Bill did not stop there, for the concluding words of the clause conveyed that the decision of the Commissioners should have full as much effect as the decision of any of the authorities or Courts they would by this supersede; and in addition to all this, if the Bill were to pass, the Commissioners were to have the power which was conveyed by the words—"notwithstanding anything in any special Act" contained. Therefore these Commissioners were to have the full power of all the existing authorities and of the existing Courts, with power also to cancel and to abrogate special Acts of Parliament, wherever and whenever these might interfere with or impede the effect of their decisions. ["No, no!"] These were the concluding words of the 5th clause. [An hon. MEMBER: They are withdrawn.] But he (Mr. Newdegate) was speaking of the Bill as it was introduced, and of the powers that had been sought by the Bill from this House. He was glad to find that the House would grant no such power; that was the object of the few words that he was now venturing to address to the House. It was only fair to take the measure as it had been introduced, as the expression of the intention of the Government; such were the purposes for which the Bill had been introduced. By what had fallen from hon. Members who endeavoured to defend the measure, it was perfectly manifest that this Bill, which proposed to confer these powers upon the 365 Commissioners referred to, was drawn to enable them, as the representatives of the Government, to vary the rates, and probably to assess the property of the Railway Companies. ["No, no!"] Then all he could say was, that many of the Amendments which had been assented to by the Government were perfectly needless if such as he had stated was not the purport of the Bill. When he read the Bill, he could not help saying to himself that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were evidently importing some of their Irish ideas into English legislation. Well, they all knew that legislation was needed for Ireland which was not needed and was not justifiable for England. Why, the Irish people were declaring this every day. Thousands of the Irish people were perpetually lauding the departed Government of His Holiness the Pope as it existed in Rome and in the Pontifical States. Did we not hear of memorials? Did we not hear of lamentations over that departed Government? The House must surely understand that this was the form of Government the Irish people preferred, and desired to see established in Ireland. How were they to escape from that conclusion? No one was more ready to gratify this Irish idea than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. What he hoped was that the House would decide that these right hon. Gentlemen should limit the operation of these Irish ideas to Ireland, and should not import this arbitrary system into the legislation of England. When he looked at this Bill—and he was speaking of it as it was introduced, and not as he hoped it would be when amended—and speaking of the two right hon. Gentlemen, he remembered that the Postmaster General had managed the purchase of the telegraphs for the Government; and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman made a very good bargain in a pecuniary sense; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if he had his will, as expressed in the original form of the Bill, would have obtained the control of the railways without purchase. The telegraphs had been purchased and paid for. No doubt it was a very economical 366 manner of acquiring property to take it without paying for it. But it reminded him of the old story of the two makers of birch brooms. They were engaged in comparing the prices at which they could sell them, and one expressed himself very much surprised at the cheapness of the other's. They then went through the items, how much was the cost of labour and so on, in making these brooms; but at last one asked the other where he got the materials. "Oh!" was the reply, "I stole them." It appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate), therefore, that if the intention of the Bill were carried out, by which the House would obtain these Commissioners who were to be the delegates of the Government, the cheapness of the transaction would consist in possessing themselves virtually of railway property not by purchase but by seizure. He could only say, then, that he trusted the House would not only amend the Bill, as hon. Members had already given Notice, but if they passed the Bill that they would convert it into a codification of railway law, and not allow it to pass as the delegation of Parliamentary functions to a Government Commission.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
thought it exceedingly proper that the Government should deal with the subjects contained in the Bill, and said his only objection to the scheme was that it did not go much further. In fact, the Government were neglecting their duty in not taking up the question whether the lives of travellers were to be constantly sacrificed by railway mismanagement. He asserted without fear of contradiction that a large portion of the railway accidents which annually caused loss of life might be prevented by Government interference. On many occasions he had endeavoured to press this matter upon the attention of the Government, and if they still disregarded it in spite of the fearful warnings they had had, they must be held responsible for the consequences of the accidents which occurred in future. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity for taking these precautions, which were indispensable to prevent such accidents. Those who were opposed to Government interference argued that it would diminish the responsibility of the Railway Companies, but he contended that would not be the case, be- 367 cause if a Bill was passed requiring the Companies to make certain regulations for carrying on their traffic, the necessity of adhering to those regulations would tend to increase rather than diminish their responsibility.

§ MR. DENISON
said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had thrown down a challenge to railway directors in the House, for he implied that they could not in future oppose any suggested legislation without bringing upon themselves a considerable amount of odium. He happened to be a railway director, and directors represented the interests of large bodies of proprietors, in whose name they must speak more or less; but in any observations he might now address to the House, he should not speak on behalf of any Railway Company or association, and the criticism he made must be judged on its own merits as expressing his individual opinion. He knew nothing of the intention of his hon. Colleague until he saw his Amendment on the Paper, and but for the announcement of the President of the Board of Trade he should have supported the Amendment. In declining to oppose the second reading, the Railway Companies had in a certain sense given a negative sanction to legislation in the direction suggested by the Committee of last year—that was to say, they were willing that a tribunal should be created for the better carrying out Mr. Cardwell's Act, and some other purposes enumerated in the Joint Committee's Report; but he did not admit, because the Railway Companies had neglected to oppose the second reading, that therefore they were to accept the tribunal pure and simple as proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The proposed jurisdiction of the tribunal was a very serious matter for the Railway Companies, and the right hon. Gentleman having agreed to drop the words in the 5th clause overriding other Acts of Parliament, the discussion turned upon the powers, functions, duties, and authority of the new tribunal. It would not only absorb the powers of the Board of Trade—and, in some cases, of arbitrators—but it would be a judicial authority, which would form its own rules and mode of procedure; and, as provided in the 22nd clause, every decision and order of the Commissioners would be final. It was not to be reasonably 368 supposed that the Railway Companies would submit their interests to any body of gentlemen, however distinguished, without appeal. The more able the members of the tribunal were, the more despotic it would be; and the effect of this scheme would be to establish a sort of Railway Star Chamber, capable of interpreting its own jurisdiction on the most elastic principles. What he wished to do now was to put in a caveat against its being imagined that the Railway Companies could accept such a tribunal without important modification of its powers. After the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, he believed a division would not be taken on the Amendment; but he reserved to himself liberty to oppose the powers of the new tribunal in Committee.

MR. HENLEY
said, he hardly wondered at the discussion which had taken place. He wished the Government had seen fit to commit the Bill pro formâ, in order to insert the long string of Amendments they proposed. When he looked at the Bill as introduced, it seemed to have in it what the late Sir John Jervis, then Attorney General, would have called "a great deal of white brandy." At first he did not think much of it, but on examination he found it gave power to act in spite of Acts of Parliament. What would be the use of an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade upon a mere question of law when the Commissioners would have power to repeal laws? He had no concern in railways, but he was of opinion that this Bill must have shaken public faith in property. No man could have read the Bill, and seen how it was proposed to deal with the vast amount of property which had been expended to the enormous benefit of the country, without receiving a considerable shock. If he might venture to say so, the mode of proceeding adopted by the Government was contrary to common sense. The principle advocated 19 years ago, of bringing the network of railways over the country into one harmonious whole, was a very proper one, and in extending it anyone would have thought that the natural idea would have been to create a tribunal in which the country would have had at least as much confidence as they had in the authority to be abolished. Would any hon. Member of the Government assert 369 that owners of property could have the same confidence in three persons, removable at the pleasure of the Government, as in the Judges of the land? One of these gentlemen was to be "a person experienced in the law." That was a new, curious, and dubious phrase. He had heard of persons "learned in the law," and of Revising Barristers of so many years standing, but he had never seen this description before. The next was to be a gentleman "experienced in railway matters." It was difficult to understand that definition. A man might be experienced in railways by riding on them, by making them, or by getting them up; and all these things, apart from experience of management, might come within this blessed definition. As to the third gentleman, nothing was said of him; he was to be "a Christian at large." The right hon. Gentleman had amended one strange provision of the Bill, which would have empowered these three gentlemen to send for anybody's account books without any limit. By the clause as amended they would only have power to send for those documents which were relevant to the matters in hand; and he hoped that in like manner they would be restrained from going into anybody's premises, or otherwise one of these gentlemen might walk into the Queen's bedchamber, or any other place in the kingdom, without anybody being able to find fault. The Bill was somewhat loosely drawn, and would tend to shake people's faith in Parliament in regard to their treatment of property. A great deal had been said at public meetings and in the newspapers lately about the State purchasing the railways, and no doubt it would be very convenient to set up a Commission to depreciate this property before the Government bought it. It was important that duo provision should be made for the proper management of railways; but he hoped that as the Bill passed through Committee various points would receive their needful adjustment, that justice would be done to those who had invested their money in railways, and that nothing would be done inconsistent with the due recognition of the great benefit railways had conferred on the country.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he hoped that, after he had given some explanation of the object of this measure, the 370 House would go into Committee upon it at once. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden), who moved this Amendment, appeared to think that the Government proposed to take the management of the railways through the means of a public Department. [Mr. FIELDEN: I think I said that this was the thin end of the wedge.] Some hon. Members who followed went a great deal further. One hon. Member said that, in the 5th clause, the Government proposed to give the Commissioners power to alter rates and fares, and that the whole idea was either directly or indirectly to bring about the purchase of railways by the Government, and their' entire management by a Public Department. The Joint Committee had made no recommendation in favour of the purchase of railways by the State, and the very object of this Bill, in his opinion, was to render anything of the kind out of the question, and at the same time to secure to the public the securities which they required. The Bill proposed to transfer from the Court of Common Pleas the jurisdiction conferred upon that Court by the Act of 1854, and thus carried out the advice of Lord Campbell, who said that the Judges, and himself amongst them, felt themselves incompetent to decide the matters imposed upon them under that Act, being wholly unacquainted with railway matters. The power to enforce through rates was really in accordance with the principles of the Act of 1854, and was the main Amendment in that Act which the Committee thought most desirable in the public interest. The Bill was intended to carry out the views of the Committee, and he trusted the Amendment of the hon. Member would not be pressed.

§ MR. LEEMAN
said, that the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster led to the conclusion that this Bill was limited to one object. Be (Mr. Leeman) wished to have a definition of the meaning of the word "Docks." The term was a very general one, and there was no knowing where such interest was to begin, and where it was to end. Various Docks held rights subject to various Acts of Parliament, such as the Docks at Sunderland and at Hull. Some of these Docks were largely mixed up with other undertakings, and he submitted that a clear understanding should be arrived at upon the question.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that only Docks belonging to Railway Companies would come within the scope of the Amendment. These Docks had generally come into the possession of Railway Companies since 1854; and, in some cases, they formed an integral part of their system. The retention of the word was therefore necessary.

§ MR. DENISON
felt sure that had the Amendment appeared in the original draft of the Bill, the Railway Companies concerned would have opposed it.

§ MR. MONK
proposed, in line 24, to leave out "of experience in the law," and insert "a barrister of at least 14 years' standing."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
suggested that if the words "barrister-at-law" were inserted, they should leave the matter there without any further qualification. Perhaps, the Committee were not aware there was no limitation with respect to the appointment of Judges in the Court of Common Pleas, who might be appointed the day after they 372 had been called to the Bar. All that the law required was that they should be barristers, and the system had never led to any difficulty.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. The object of the clause as it stood was to enable the Government not necessarily to appoint a barrister; but if they thought proper a gentleman belonging to any branch of the profession, which he thought was a very liberal act on the part of the Government.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that, as a matter of fact, the first gentleman who would be appointed under the words of the clause would be a barrister-at-law of more than 14 years' standing; but his own feeling was, undoubtedly, that which had been expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He thought it quite possible, although it might not be so in the first instance, that some very suitable gentleman might be found and appointed who was not a barrister, but a solicitor.

§ MR. LEEMAN
was very glad to hear the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It was very desirable that it should be left open to the Government to select a gentleman who was not a barrister, but a member of any branch of the profession. Representing, as he did, the railway interest to a great extent in that House, it was due to them to say that they most cordially concurred in what had been said in the earlier part of the evening, when Government were urged to take care that the gentlemen forming this Commission should be men of the highest standing—certainly not inferior to that of a Puisne Judge, with at least an equal salary. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be permitted in the slightest degree to influence the Government on the question of salary. The gentlemen appointed should be men of the highest possible position with corresponding emolument.

§ MR. MONK
said, that when he first read the Bill he was of opinion that the phrase, "gentlemen experienced in the law," was a very curious one. However, he now entertained very little doubt that the Government would select a person who would have the confidence both of that House and of the country. At the same time, he objected to the selection being from the lower branch of the profession to fill so important an 373 office as that of Chief Judge; because a gentleman, however distinguished he might have been as an attorney or solicitor, would be placed in a false position, if called upon to preside, if he had previously been a member of a firm extensively engaged in railway business.

MR. GILPIN
hoped the Government would keep the words as they were.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
believed that unless men of first-rate powers and position were appointed as Commissioners in the first instance, these important duties would, sooner or later, fall into the hands of men who would not command the confidence of the country.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he would not pledge himself that the man of the highest rank should be the legal member. The salaries of the three Commissioners would be equal—£3,000 a-year each; and he believed men of high capacity and standing might be secured to perform the duties. No doubt the duties would be of great importance, but not of so embarrassing a kind as gentlemen in public life were often exposed to in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a warm supporter of the Bill, and very readily assented to salaries of that amount, which he (Mr. C. Fortescue) thought sufficient for the purpose.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the right hon. Gentleman might secure the services of these gentlemen who would command the confidence of the country; but that was not the question they had now to determine. The question was whether as a rule they could command the services of the best men for the salary proposed. His own Motion was that the salary ought to be placed higher, so as to put the Commissioners on the same footing as the Puisne Judges.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought that the Commissioners should be co-ordinate in jurisdiction and equal in salary.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that by the Bill they were made so.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
wished to know, as it did not appear from the Bill, whether the Commissioners would be eligible to sit in Parliament.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Commissioners could not sit in Parliament without a special authorization, which the Bill did not contain.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he believed that no gentleman who had the confidence of the public and great experience of railway affairs would be induced to accept the office of Commissioner at a salary of £3,000. It was a fact known to many that gentlemen who really had experience and knowledge, and whose authority would be accepted by the railway world and the public, had at present the command of higher salaries, with much greater expectations.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
suggested that the Commissioners should take rank after Her Majesty's Judges.

§ MR. DENISON
said, he would like to know if the powers of the Inspecting Department of the Board of Trade would still remain.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Department of the Board of Trade had charge of the general safety of the public, which was not dealt with at all by the Joint Committee of last year, nor by this Bill; and in relation to this subject the Board of Trade would remain entirely independent of the Commission. The Commissioners would not be in the position of Inspectors.

§ MR. CHARLEY
proposed to substitute "a member of the legal profession" for "a person experienced in the law" The words "experienced in the law" had never been recognized in any Act of Parliament before.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
thought that the words were the best that could be used to describe a lawyer. If they inserted the words, "member of the legal profession," that would exclude men who had perhaps only left the Bar and taken their names off the books a week before.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
moved to add, after line 29, the Proviso— That it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, if he think fit, to remove for inability or misbehaviour any Commissioner appointed in pursuance of this Act. The Commissioners would be independent of Parliament in so far as they would be removable only by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds stated in this Proviso. They would be placed, in short, on the same footing as the County Court Judges, the Proviso being taken from the County Court Judges Act.

§ MR. RATHBONE
hoped that if the office of the Commissioners was found 375 to be useless, and it was abolished, there would be no necessity for compensation.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the appointments were made for five years, and if at the end of that time the office was abolished, no compensation would be given.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
moved as an Amendment the addition of a Proviso— That the power of compelling a reference to the Commissioners in this section contained shall not apply to any case in which any person has in any general or special Act been designated as arbitrator by his name or by the name of his office, or in which, a standing arbitrator having been appointed under any general or special Act, the Commissioners are of opinion that the difference in question may more conveniently be referred to him.

§ MR. LEEMAN
wished to know why the latter part of the Proviso had been introduced. Where would be the power of the Commissioners if this Amendment wore passed?

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
explained that he had inserted the words because there were certain cases in which Railway Companies, being in close relations with one another for working purposes, had appointed a standing arbitrator to settle numerous small points in dispute between them. It had been represented to him that it would be a mistake to compel a reference in all such cases to the Commissioners.

§ MR. MONK
thought that the Proviso was unnecessary, and that it would be very unsatisfactory to the public.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, it would only apply in those cases where there were close working arrangements between two or more Companies. It would in no way affect the settlement of points in dispute between the Companies and the public.

§ MR. RATHBONE
moved, in page 5, line 4, after "that," to insert— The provisions of the said section for prohibiting undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage as between different persons, companies, or descriptions of traffic, shall be held to extend to any undue or unreasonable preference, advantage, prejudice, or disadvantage between different towns or localities. He said that Railway Companies had no more right to give a preference to towns or localities than to an individual.

§ MR. LEEMAN
said, that the Amendment would shut up all the ports on the Lancashire coast except Liverpool. Such a provision would be utterly unworkable. An express train running between one town and a distant town might be made to stop at every intermediate town, lest there might be an inequality between towns. It would stop the traffic of half the coast towns in the country.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
hoped that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would withdraw his Amendment. Nothing more absurd and impracticable was ever proposed.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the principle of equal mileage rates was carefully considered by the Committee last year, and was unanimously concluded to be impracticable. The law secured equal treatment to traders in the same town, but rates as between one town and another were inextricably bound up with railway, sea, canal, or other competition, the rate for coal between London and the North of England, for example, being governed be the sea competition. The complaints urged by certain localities and traders before the Committee would be altogether, or nearly altogether, met by the clause as to through rates, and a rigid rule of this kind would be impracticable.

§ MR. RATHBONE
contended that the words—"undue or unreasonable preference" in his Amendment would be construed by the Commissioners as covering the questions of amount of traffic, cost of line, and competition.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
pointed out that under an equal mileage rate the colliery nearest Liverpool would be able to sell its coal at a lower price than one a few miles more distant, and the manufacturing town nearest Liverpool would have an advantage as regarded cotton. Cotton goods were now sent to Fleetwood at a cheap rate; was this an undue preference as against Liverpool? A 377 Company ought not to be allowed to fix a higher rate in one locality as compensation for a low rate in another where greater competition existed; but he doubted whether the Amendment would prevent this.

§ MR. LANCASTER
said, that other parties might be interested in procuring a through rate as well as a Railway Company; but the clause only enabled the Commissioners to act in this matter at the request of any Railway Company. He, therefore, moved the addition of words enabling "any person interested" to apply for a through rate,
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 8, after the words "such Company," to insert the words "or of any person interested."—(Mr. Lancaster.)

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he objected on the part of the Government, on the ground that it would throw such an enormous mass of business on the Commissioners that they could not undertake to discharge it. It was never intended to make this a general traffic Bill. For all practical purposes it would be sufficient to give the the Companies power to enforce through rates on each other.

§ MR. WOODS
said, that a colliery company or a large mercantile firm might sometimes have quite as much traffic to send over a given line as an adjoining Railway Company. He did not think that a complaint of the want of a through rate so made would be at all frivolous, and it was a right which ought to be conferred upon persons interested.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would by-and-bye propose an addition to the clause giving a locus standi before the Commissioners to Corporations or Chambers of Commerce of any town or locality, or to any 10 inhabitant traders, in case the clause were contravened.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought there ought to be some provision in favour of the public, and that the appeal should not be confined to Railway Companies only.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the supposition in the clause was that some Railway Company would be found willing to take the traffic and carry it afar as it could. If all the railways were in the hands of one body there would be no difficulty. But the continuous lines of railway might be in the 378 hands of various proprietors. The Bill provided that when the traffic had been carried as far as the Company could carry it, it should not be stopped at that point. He could not agree to the Amendment.

§ MR. STAPLETON
suggested that the Company which received the traffic in the first instance should not only forward it, but use its Parliamentary powers to get it carried on by other Companies.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, in page 5, line 31, after "accordingly," to insert— Provided always, That in no case shall it be lawful for the Commissioners to compel any Company to accept lower rates than the rates which such Company may for the time being legally be charging for like traffic on any other line of communication between the same points, or if there be no such other line of communication for like traffic, under like circumstances or as near thereto as may be on the Company's line in that immediate district.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
having assented to the alteration,

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
moved to insert the following words after line 37— (7.) The Commissioners in apportioning the through rate shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including any special expense incurred in respect of the construction, maintenance, or working of the route, or any part of the route, as well as any special charges which any Company may have been entitled to make in respect thereof.

§ MR. PIM
said, he thought that Railway Companies that owned or worked steam vessels should be bound to afford facilities to the owners of other steam vessels for the transmission of traffic on their systems of railways and canals. He begged, therefore, to move, at the end of line 42, the insertion of a clause which would secure that object. Every Railway or Canal Company so long as they use, maintain, or work, or are party to an arrangement for using, maintaining, or working steam vessels for the purpose of carrying on a communication between any towns or ports, shall afford due facilities on all parts of their systems of Railway or Canal to other owners of steam vessels for the transmission of traffic of all classes which may be conveyed or intended to be conveyed in the steam vessels belonging to such owners, at the same throughout rate of charge as may at the time be charged for similar 379 classes of traffic conveyed by the Railway or Canal Company on their lines of Railway or Canal, and in steam vessels used, maintained, or worked by them; Provided such other owners of steam vessels conveying the traffic agree to receive out of the through rate of charge (after payment in the first instance to each party entitled to the same, the allowance due for terminals or cartage, or other payments made on account of the traffic), such part as may be in proportion to the distance which the traffic is conveyed in such steam vessels as compared with the distance it is conveyed by Railway or Canal.

§ MR. PEASE
opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would act most unfairly to the Railway or Canal Company who might own the vessels.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
had considerable sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend, so far as he understood it; but the words of the Amendment, as it stood, could not be incorporated in the Bill; and, for the sake of further consideration, he would suggest to his hon. Friend to bring up similar words on a future stage of the Bill.

§ MR. MONK
moved, in line 42, to add the words— And all the provisions of this section shall apply to every Canal, whether such Canal communicates with the Canal of the receiving, forwarding, or delivering Company, directly or indirectly, by means of any river or estuary, or of the sea, and so far as they are applicable shall extend to all Railway and Canal Companies, whether carriers or receivers of tolls only.

§ MR. W. S. STANHOPE
thought there was much weight in the suggestion, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the President of the Board of Trade.

§ MR. CHILDERS
inquired how there could be a through rate when part of the route was the open sea, open to all the world? The very idea of a rate implied that there was some owner of the road or water-way who could impose it alike on all who used that road or water-way. The proposal was quite foreign to the scope of the Bill.

§ MR. MONK
replied that no rates would be required if an arm of the sea were used.

§ MR. RATHBONE
proposed to add, at the end of the clause— A complaint of a contravention of the said enactment, or of this section, with respect to any town or locality, may be made to the commissioners by a corporation or chamber of commerce thereof, or of any place included therein, or by not 380 less than ten persons being inhabitant traders of, or whose business includes the forwarding of goods to such town or locality, without proof that the complainants or any of them are personally aggrieved by the contravention.

§ MR. LAING
said, he thought that they should adhere to the scope of the Bill, and not add such an Amendment.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
suggested that parties aggrieved only should be allowed to complain.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
observed that Mr. Cardwell's Act gave individuals the right to complain.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, it was an important question whether any public body should have any locus standi before the Commission, but he put it to the hon. Member whether the question could properly be raised on that part of the Bill, as he now raised it.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
observed that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) had all he wanted under his Amendment given to him by the Act of 1854, which gave to any person complaining of want of reasonable facilities power to apply to the Court of Common Pleas, whose powers were transferred by this measure to three Commissioners.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he doubted whether the Act of 1854 secured the object desired. He suggested that a large trader should have power to apply to the forwarding Company to put the Commissioners in motion, and in case of its neglect or refusal should himself have a right of doing so.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he could not concur in this suggestion. If it was the interest of the forwarding Company to apply to the Commissioners, they would do so without being asked, and the Joint Committee had declined to recommend that every trader should have the power of applying. Such a power might be given hereafter if it were found that the public interest demanded it, which he believed would not be the case.

MR. ELLIOTT
said, he supplied about 120,000 tons of coal annually to the Imperial Gas Company of London. As the clause stood he should have to apply to the North Eastern Railway Company to apply to the Commissioners for through rates with the Great Northern Company, the former having harbours and ports of their own, to which if was their interest to take the coal. He ought not to be deprived of the right of appealing to the Commissioners if the 381 North Eastern Company refused to put the Commissioners in motion.

§ MR. RATHBONE
said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he reserved to himself the right to bring it up hereafter as a new clause.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, it now became his duty to move the addition of words of which he had given Notice in the beginning of the evening. His object in moving them was that there might be no mistake in the minds of hon. Members or of the tribunal as to the meaning of Clause 10. In certain cases the ordering of a through rate by the Commissioners might be rendered absolutely impossible, and the whole clause might become illusory, if a Railway Company were to charge its maximum rates, and decline to charge anything less. In order to make the meaning of the clause perfectly clear on this point, he proposed to add the following words:— Nothing in any special Act contained shall be construed so as to prevent the Commissioners from ordering and apportioning a through rate under this section. These words would add nothing to the intention of the clause; they could not possibly go beyond its scope, and their only effect would be to make the meaning of the Legislature absolutely clear.

§ MR. DENISON
said, this Amendment seemed to be in substance a revival of the words which the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn upon Clause 5. They were words of the deepest import to Railway Companies, and he should therefore move to report progress in order that those Companies might have time to consider them.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
reminded the Committee that in withdrawing the previous Amendment he had stated distinctly that it would be necessary to make Clause 10 effective in this way. The clause could have no other meaning than that now assigned to it. Any other interpretation would assume nothing less than an act of hypocrisy on the part of the Joint Committee.

§ MR. LEEMAN
appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he thought it was reasonable towards the Railway Companies that he should now press an Amendment of which the House 382 heard for the first time. The construction to be put upon these words might be of the utmost possible consequence to Railway Companies, and all he would ask of the right hon. Gentleman was that he should postpone his Amendment, which, so far as he understood it, went to revive the objectionable words which they were all so anxious to see struck out of the Bill.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN,
said that as several hon. Friends around him had great doubts as to what the effect of the proposed words might be he would suggest that the Amendment should be postponed till the bringing up of the Report, though he did not put quite the same construction upon the words as was put upon them by the hon. Member.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was rather inclined to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Wilson Patten) that these words had not the character which some hon. Members had given to them, but still he would suggest that they should be brought up on the Report.

§ MR. LAING
remarked that it was absolutely necessary that these words should be postponed, because it was impossible to say otherwise whether they were consistent or not with the important Proviso which had been adopted on the Motion of the hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr Cross.)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he thought the Committee would acknowledge that he had been perfectly frank with them on this matter. He wished to point out to the gentlemen who represented the railway interests, that if the clause meant anything within its carefully defined limits it must have the meaning he assigned to it in the addition he proposed. If it meant that a Railway Company might, by pointing to its maximum, avoid the orders of the Commissioners, the whole clause would be a farce. The Amendment had no application, except to the through rates as defined and limited by the clause. At the same time he was willing to let the clause pass as it was, but on the distinct understanding that he would bring up the words again on the Report, or re-commit the Bill for the purpose of inserting them, and that the words meant nothing more than he had described, He believed that all 383 parties were anxious to get through Committee that evening.

§ MR. LEEMAN
said, that all he had risen for the purpose of doing was to express a desire, on the part of those who were largely interested in this question, that they should have an opportunity of considering these words, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had any right to complain of such a request being made.

§ MR. STEVENSON
moved, page 6, line 5, to insert after the word "contract" the following words, "and stating the distance from that station or wharf of every station, wharf, siding, or place to which any such rate is charged;" the object being to show the distance for which the rates were charged.

MR. W. P. PRICE
moved, page 6, line 6, to leave out from "every such book" to "direct" in line 14, inclusive, on the ground of the vast trouble that would be involved in the requirement without any advantage to the public. The object of the clause seemed to be that the public should be informed how much of the total rate they paid for carriage of goods along the railway, and how much by way of terminal charge. In the Midland Company alone the provision would involve a great deal of trouble, and the Returns could not be prepared before alteration in the rates had become necessary, so that the preparation of them would be simply impossible. But in the great majority of cases there was no terminal charge at all. This terminal charge was given under different Acts of Parliament, and the Companies were allowed to charge in addition to the toll a reasonable sum for loading, stopping, sheltering, and unloading at the terminus. There was no reason why the charge should be dissected as was now proposed.

§ MR. LANCASTER
could safely say that there had been more dispute about this terminal charge than anything else. The question arose in almost every negotiation with a Railway Company, and if there was anything vague in it, the Company always said, "Oh! that is for terminus." If this portion of the clause 384 was withdrawn, the public would be left without any remedy in one of the most important matters complained of.

§ MR. MONK
said, it was one of the recommendations of the Committee of last year, to the effect that Companies should be compelled to exhibit at every station the rates they charged for goods, distinguishing the mileage and terminal charges, and stating the special rates and contracts.

§ MR. LIDDELL
also opposed the Amendment. There was a large sum charged in the shape of terminal charges but nobody knew for what. In the case of coal and iron no covering was required, and what people who sent those goods by railway desired was to be told what they were paying for. There could, he thought be no fairer demand.

§ MR. PEASE
said, that even if the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Price) were agreed to, every person who applied to a Railway Company to distinguish the terminal charges from the carriage rates in the amount charged against him would be furnished with the information under the provisions of an existing Act of Parliament.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Companies were bound to supply the information when it was asked for, and he saw no reason why they should not supply it beforehand. All that was wanted was that the book of rates and terminal charges kept by the station clerk for his own guidance should be open to the inspection of the public where they wished it.

MR. WOOD
hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, and insist upon the Companies supplying the information asked for.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, this was a point of very considerable difficulty, to which the Joint Committee of last year gave a great deal of attention, and which he had endeavoured to understand as well as he could. He was bound to say the words of the clause, as they stood, would impose upon Railway Companies a vast amount of trouble and labour, which in a great many cases would be of no use to the public. He quite agreed as to the importance of having rates of all kinds, including special rates, in the books kept at each station for the use of the station-master; and there could be no difficulty in Companies giving to the public access to that infor- 385 mation; but information as to terminals was not contained in the books which lay at the respective stations, and in the great majority of cases there was no necessity for distinguishing between terminals and rates. The objection to this part of the clause was that what ought to be the exception was made the rule; he would therefore propose a tertium quid between the two views, which, he thought, would meet the necessities of the public without requiring Companies to go to vast trouble without any corresponding public advantage. He would leave out the words "Every such book shall" and say— The Commissioners may from time to time on the application of any person interested make orders with respect to any particular description of traffic, requiring a railway or canal company to distinguish, &c. That Amendment would do all the public required.

§ MR. MUNTZ
approved the change proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

§ MR. LANCASTER
thought a scale ought to be published, as was done in France and Germany.

§ MR. FLETCHER
thought this was a subject for more careful consideration than could now be given to it, and on this ground he moved to report progress.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said there could be no reason for not getting through the Bill to-night, as this was not a vital question by any means.

§ MR. STEVENSON
moved to insert after "direct," in line 14, "the rates and tolls charged for the carriage of traffic from any siding, wharf, or place, not being a station, shall be in like manner shown in a book or books to be kept at the nearest station to such siding, wharf, or place."

§ MR. PEASE
said, that this proposal would involve an immense addition to the work of the Companies, and consequently to the charges on the public.

§ MR. LANCASTER
said, that in his neighbourhood, where they had only a canal, the charge for conveying cotton was 5s. per ton. They had now two railways and a canal, but the canal was worked by one of the Railway Companies, and the result was that the charge for cotton was 7s. 3d. per ton. He moved to insert after the word "managing" the words "or connected with or interested in the management of."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said that the hon. Member's object was good, but there was a vagueness in the words, "or connected with." He had no objection to insert the words "interested in the management of."

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
approved the first part of the clause, which required appeals from the order of one Commissioner to be heard by all the Commissioners, but objected to enable one Commissioner to exercise any power vested in them by the Act.

§ MR. GREGORY,
in order to give time for further consideration of the question, moved that the Chairman report progress.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
hoped the Bill would be got through tonight. It was unnecessary to require the presence of all or even of two of the Commissioners in every case, for one Commissioner would be able to do some of the business, subject to a re-hearing, if desired, by the whole body.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that one Commissioner would be sufficient in many cases, there being the safeguard of an appeal to all the Commissioners.

§ MR. DENISON
feared there would be an indisposition on the part of the Commissioners to revise the decision of one of their number, more especially as there would be no further appeal on a question of facts.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
thought that to secure uniformity of decision, all three Commissioners should sit together at first at any rate as often as possible.

§ MR. MELLY
objected to the Committee reporting progress.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
hoped that the Committee would not report progress. He proposed to withdraw Clause 20 for the present, and, after careful consideration, bring up a new clause on the Report.

§ MR. MUNTZ
complained that extraordinary powers, unknown to the law, were proposed to be given by this clause—namely, that the Commissioners were to try cases both of law and fact.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it was a very common practice, especially in Chancery.

§ MR. MUNTZ
moved the omission of sub-section A, which enabled the Commissioners to "enter any place or building" for the purposes of making inquiries for giving effect to the Act.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the clause was a very important one, defining, as it did, the powers of the Commissioners, and deserved more attention and consideration than it was likely to receive at that hour (half-past 12 o'clock). He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to progress being reported.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), for the omission of the sub-section, stated that the words objected to had been copied from the Railways Clauses Amendment Act. A power which had not been abused by Inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade was not likely to be so by the Commissioners.

§ MR. MUNTZ
still objected to the words to which he had called the attention of the Committee, and submitted that it would be better to report progress, in order that the clause might be more carefully considered.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
thought that if the Commission was to be set up, it must at least be armed with necessary powers for the purposes of the Act.

§ MR. FIELDEN
moved that the Committee report progress.