NORTH-BRITISH AND GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES' BILL. (Hansard, 23 April 1890)

§ *(12.25.) DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I beg to move— That it been Instruction to the Committee to allow all Warehousemen who as Traders have petitioned against the Bill within the time limited by the Standing Orders praying to be heard, to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses upon their Petition, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petition. The object of this Motion is to give a locus standi to certain traders of Glasgow before the Select Committee of this House, which is now sitting upon the Bill for the amalgamation of the North-British and the Glasgow and Southwestern Railway Companies. These traders petitioned against the Bill, and their Petition came before the Court of locus standi. Another Petition was presented by the Corporation of Glasgow, who wore allowed a locus standi, while that of the traders was refused on the ground that in Scotland the Muni-cipal Corporations represent the trading interests of the constituency. Mr. Pope, who appeared for the Petitioners, admitted that had the case occurred in England—in Liverpool, for instance, instead of Glasgow—no such objection would have held good, but that owing to the peculiarity of the Scotch Law there were precedents in favour of the refusal of a locus standi. I may mention that in this case the Corporation 1182 of Glasgow were by no means unanimous in resolving to oppose the Bill. They had considerable discussion on the subject in February last, and there were divisions which were very close as to the course which they ought to adopt. I believe that the Committee commenced its sittings upon the Bill yesterday, but the counsel for the Corporation of Glasgow only put in a formal appearance, so that the traders' interests are left practically unrepresented in this important contest. One local firm has been allowed a locus standi, but large trading interests have no representation at all. Now, I protest altogether against the distinction which is drawn between the traders of the Scottish Royal burghs and the traders in English boroughs. The theoretical distinction is that in Scotland the Corporations of the Royal burghs are held to represent the trade interests, whereas in England the Corporations only represent the municipal and sanitary interests of the community. Turning to the reasons for which this theoretical distinction is drawn, I find that in 1886, when certain Scottish Amalgamation Bills came before Parliament, the locus standi of the Petitioners was disallowed, on the ground, as reported in Clifford and Stevens, that the Corporations were elected by Guilds and Trade Societies previous to the Municipal Corporations Act, and that in consequence the traders were fully represented. Now, I have no objection to Corporations having a locus standi in the case of important Amalgamation Bills, but I do not think it ought to be a ground for excluding the traders, who are not directly represented by them, and who may have entirely different interests. To my mind it is preposterous that the locus standi should depend upon a state of matters which existed 50 years ago. It may be said that there is even now some representation of Traders' and Merchants' Guilds in the Corporations of the Scottish Royal burghs. That is quite true, but these Guilds are things of the past, and they exist simply as Friendly Societies. I am supported in my proposal by a very high authority. In 1872 there was a Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and of this House upon the amalgamation of Railway Companies, and that Committee reported that no trader or other person who had an interest in procuring fair terms and consideration 1183 from a Railway Company should be excluded by any rule of locus standi from appearing before the Committee. This recommendation of the Committee was not restricted to English Corporations and traders, but was extended to Scotland. As the Court of locus standi is entitled to give expression to the opinion of this House upon this point, I think it might very well have over-ridden musty precedents, and have given effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee. It did not do so, however, and the result is that in this instance the traders of Glasgow, although theoretically represented by the Corporation, now find themselves even without the theoretical representation, owing to the fact that the counsel for the Corporation have only put in a formal appearance before the Committee. These Amalgamation Bills affect immense interests in Scotland, and I think that the Petitioners are fairly entitled in this instance to state their case before the Committee which is to decide the fate of the Bill. I will only add that the question is one of urgency, seeing that the Committee has already commenced its sitting. I shall, however, be quite willing to withdraw the Resolution upon an understanding that the Petition of the traders is allowed to go at once before the Court of Referees.

§ (12.40.) MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)
No doubt this is a question of considerable importance to the people of Scotland. At one time the burgesses of a Royal burgh in Scotland appointed the Town Council, so that the Town Council really represented the trading community of the burgh, but that is no longer the case. The Corporation of a Royal burgh no longer represents the trading interests of the burgh any more than they are represented by an English Corporation, so that there is no reason why there should be any distinction in the case of Scotland and England. I think, therefore, 1184 that it is desirable that the matter should be re-heard by the locus standi Committee. Another point is that the Corporation of Glasgow, who are certainly entitled to appear and be heard, have only entered a formal appearance against the Bill, and do not consider that they are in any way bound to take up the interests of the traders, who are principally warehousemen in Glasgow. These warehousemen conduct two businesses, one of which is a local trade and the other an export trade. One of these businesses very properly comes under the purview of the Corporation of Glasgow, but the export trade does not. It would, therefore, be a great injustice to the traders to be deprived of the opportunity of having their case heard.

§ *(12.45.) MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)
Perhaps I may save the time of the House if I state at once the view which is taken of this Resolution by the Court of locus standi. The Court, I need scarcely say is always anxious to give effect to what it knows to be the general wish of the House in regard to principle. The Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons desired that in amalgamation cases a very liberal construction should be put upon rights of locus standi, and, as a proof that the Court acted so in this very case, I may mention that they gave leave to appear to a firm of locomotive manufacturers, who alleged that their interests were likely to be specially injured. The Petition of the warehousemen was opposed on the ground that there was nothing to distinguish their case from the general case, so that to give them a separate locus standi would only be multiplying the hearing of counsel. The Petitions of the Corporation and of the traders are almost identical. Both complain that the proposed amalgamation may deprive the City of Glasgow of the advantages of competition. The Corporation say that they are deeply interested in upholding for the public the benefits conferred by the separate existence of these two railway systems, and they go so far as to say that they oppose the amalgamation, not only upon the terms suggested in the Bill, but upon any terms whatever. The Petition of the warehousemen does not carry the case further, the chief matter in question being the export and import of goods by railway. The Court decided 1185 that if they granted the locus standi it would virtually amount to the hearing of the case twice over, and on that ground alone the locus standi was refused. I must observe that the Petition of the Corporation of Glasgow was somewhat misleading, and that the Court wore induced to believe they would effectively represent all parties concerned. That now appears not to be their intention, and if the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) will withdraw the Resolution, the Court of Iocus standi will at once re-hear the case. I wish to add that, with the Scotch Members who have spoken, and others whom I have consulted, I believe there is no reason why the right of a Corporation to be heard to the exclusion of traders should be put higher in Scotland than in England.

*(12.47.) A CIVIL LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,) Wigton
I was prepared to offer a strenuous opposition to the Resolution because it seemed to me to amount to a re-consideration, and, perhaps, a reversal of the decision of the Court upstairs after a patient hearing of the case; but, after the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for the College Division, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), I feel that the promoters of the Bill would be scarcely justified in pressing their opposition further. The promoters have no desire to shut out any person or body of persons who have a, just right to be hoard, and until it transpired yesterday that the Corporation of Glasgow only put in a formal appearance against the Bill, they did believe that the traders would have had a full opportunity of being heard. The promoters, therefore, are quite prepared to accept the Resolution, or one which I understand is to be substituted for it.

§ *DR. CAMERON
I am quite ready to withdraw the Resolution in favour of one referring the matter back again to the Court.