SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 February 1883)

§ MR. NORWOOD,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that, so far as he could learn, the only objection which had been raised against this very important Bill—which comprehended the construction of a bridge across the Humber, and a means of communication between Hull and North Lincoln—had reference to two items in the Schedule, by which it was proposed to impose certain differential rates upon the carriage of common and artificial manures, which were said to be of an exceptional nature. Now, he ven- 969 tured to say that a very proper distinction was drawn in charging a higher rate for the conveyance of artificial manure, such as the best Peruvian Guano, which was worth £16 a ton, and which required to be conveyed in covered carriages and warehoused, instead of being exposed to the atmosphere, than for common manures, which were of very little value indeed, and the conveyance of which required no extra care whatever. Artificial manures were highly charged with ammonia, and unless great care was exercised in their conveyance their value became considerably deteriorated. It was not customary to oppose a Private Bill introduced in the interests of the public at this stage, and such a course was particularly inconvenient now, seeing that the Session was already much advanced, and it was necessary to get these Private Bills before Select Committees at once. The course now taken by an isolated interest of adjourning the second reading of Bills of this nature was a monstrous thing, and not only inconvenient to the promoters, but to the House itself. He should certainly divide the House against the adjournment of the debate, because he had no wish to be dictated to by eminent agriculturists on the other side of the House. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down objected to be dictated to by an isolated interest, whom he accused of opposing the Bill. Now, the agriculturists of the country—

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, he had alluded to the manure merchants.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to the agricultural interest. The hon. Member seemed to think it was a monstrous thing that certain persons should oppose the Bill, because they objected to differential rates being charged upon artificial manures. It might be a monstrous thing, but he wished to explain to the House that it was a matter which had already been determined by the House itself. In the year 1881 the Great North of Scotland 970 Railway Company brought forward a Bill by which they endeavoured to put a higher rate upon artificial manures than common manures. The question was brought under the notice of the House, and the House decided that the Company should not be allowed to charge these rates. If, then, it was a monstrous thing, the House had already decided to do it; and if it was right in 1881, he maintained that it was also right in 1883, and more especially in 1883 than in 1881, because the agricultural interest had suffered since that time two years more of agricultural depression, and was therefore less able to afford to pay these extra rates. If the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) persisted in going on with the Bill, he should oppose the second reading.

§ MR. J. HOWARD
said, the question was rather more important than it appeared to be on the face of it, because if these powers were granted to new Railway Companies to raise the rates upon manures, the existing Railway Companies would have good reason for seeking to raise their rates also. Upon that ground he should most strenuously oppose the Bill. Further, he thought that the Board of Trade ought not to have allowed Bills to slip through Parliament last Session containing these objectionable clauses. The Board of Trade existed for the public interests, and not in the interest of Railway Companies.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he thought the House would agree that it would be a monstrous thing if this Bill were allowed to be read a second time, when other Bills containing similar provisions had been postponed. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) would not press the second reading of the Bill, but would consent that it should be deferred, with the others, for future consideration. Without making further remarks, he would move the adjournment of the debate.