HC Deb 07 March 1893 vol 9 cc1224-31

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

I do not think, after the Debate which occurred last Friday, it will be necessary for me to move the Resolution of which I have given notice, "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months." I do, however, think it opportune and right that we should take this opportunity of saying a few words with regard to the charges of this Railway Company. This is not a personal matter with me, but it is a matter which affects the traders and agriculturists all over the country. It may be asked, What has a Private Bill got to do with railway charges? It may not have much of itself to do with railway charges, but it is well to bear in mind that Parliament has granted to these Railway Companies powers which give them a monopoly, the idea being, in the first place, that such monopolies were granted in the interests of the people, and not in the interests merely of syndicates and companies. Therefore, I think the time has very probably nearly arrived when we should say to these companies—and this one in particular, as we are only dealing with it at present—that unless you work fairly and properly, and use this monopoly which Parliament has given you in the interests of the people of the country as well as yourselves, the time has arrived when we will refuse the concession of all further powers to you whatever. As far as I am personally concerned, although I represent a small constituency, still it is one largely connected with trade, and is a large railway centre, and I am continually having letters and resolutions sent to me with regard to these charges. Of course, I know the promise that has been made that the Companies are going to consider the matter, and the President of the Board of Trade the other night asked us not to be ungenerous or vindictive. I do not desire to be ungenerous or vindictive, and if I did, this is about the last Company in the United Kingdom I desire to show that feeling towards. But we have got to bear in mind the position of affairs. This Company last year, with the other Companies, promised that, although the maximum rates were fixed at a certain high rate, they would not use those powers and charge those maximum rates. But they have entirely broken that promise, and on the 1st January they raised the rates in an extraordinary manner, and practically upset and injured the whole trade and agricultural prospects of this country. Therefore, the Companies cannot charge us with vindictiveness, because it is their own action which has caused us to move in the matter. It is very nearly time this House considered the position of these Companies, and hon. Members asked themselves whether the period had not nearly arrived when they should refuse to grant further powers until we have got these matters settled. I am aware that Parliament last year and the year before granted these powers, but they were granted under the mistaken notion that the Companies would not use them in the way they have. We are told that you can bring goods from America to London for much less than it costs to send goods to London from some parts of Scotland. I am told the charges on this railway are six or seven times what the charges for similar classes of goods in the United States are; but one would think that we could do this work much cheaper in this country than they could in the United States. I have a letter from a constituent of my own, in which he complains of the extraordinary way in which the Companies make up their accounts. He says that in the case of 2½ cwt. of flour at Is. per cwt. they make it 2s. 9d. instead of 2s. 6d.; and so on with many other charges. This same constituent tells me that the companies have increased the charge for carriage of another article from 7s. 6d. to 12s. 11d. Another gentleman writes to me and says, "Do not be misled by the Railway Companies, if Mr. Mundella is." I am afraid the Board of Trade itself—through its officials—do not look upon this matter from the traders and agriculturists point of view at all, and that, in all these cases, the companies practically get something a little more than fair play. There are many other matters in connection with these charges that I could bring forward, but all I will say now is, that I do not desire to act vindictively towards this particular company, neither do I desire on the present occasion to take a division on my Amendment. I bear in mind that in the ordinary course this Bill will have to come back again to this House after it has passed the Committee, and then, unless we get these matters satisfactorily settled, I shall reserve my right to move a similar Resolution when the Bill comes on for Third Reading.

SIB JAMES WHITEHEAD (Leicester)

I put down a notice in opposition to this Bill because I saw an opportunity of discussing the whole question of railway rates. But since I gave notice to oppose the Second Reading an occasion has arisen and an opportunity given to this House for an ample discussion of the subject. That being so, I do not intend to proceed with my opposition. I trust that the results of the promised Special Committee will be to give to the traders and agriculturists of the country an equality with the Railway Companies, so that fair and equitable charges may be arrived at. At present the traders are left entirely at the mercy of the Railway Companies. I hope the Special Committee will make such recommendations as will induce the House to pass a Bill that will obviate this. I trust between this and the Third Reading of the Bill for some satisfactory arrangement, but if such an arrangement is not arrived at I shall again address the House on the subject.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDEIXA,) Sheffield, Brightside

I am glad my hon. Friends have indicated their intention of withdrawing their opposition to this Bill, and I hope others will follow their example, and all the opposition to this Railway Bill disappear. I say so for this reason: they could not render any service to the traders and public by opposing such Bills as the Bill I have before me. I am quite sure, if they will read the provisions of this Bill, they will see they are mainly to enable the Railway Company to discharge public obligations which the Board of Trade have impressed upon them; to enable them to give greater facilities to traders in their business, to abolish level crossings, and put bridges over the lines in place of them, and for the widening of the line. These are matters entirely outside the question of rates, and it is to the interest of the public, and to the interest of this House, that these Bills should follow the usual course. I am glad, therefore, that my hon. Friends have taken the course they have, and I hope we shall deal with railway rates entirely apart from these questions. With respect to railway rates, I do not want to dwell upon that matter further than to say I am in receipt daily of many letters thanking the Board of Trade for their intervention, and stating that there is every prospect of a good understanding being arrived at. I trust when the time comes we shall be able to report to the House that we have brought matters to a very satisfactory conclusion, and I hope the Railway Companies will exercise the opportunity that has been given to them to meet the traders in this matter by reducing the rates to a point which will be satisfactory. I trust the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time.

MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty)

I regret very much that my hon. Friend does not intend to press the Motion to a Division. I look upon these great Railway Companies as monopolists, who are like Irish and Highland landlords—they have no mercy. As a result of the excessive charges which they have imposed, the Companies have seriously crippled the resources of the traders everywhere, and if these charges are allowed to remain trade will be driven out of the country, and thousands of honest traders will be ruined; and the consumer will have to pay a higher price for his goods. I have a letter from a gentleman in Arbroath (Mr. James Keith), an engineer, in which he says, among other things— We do a large traffic in rough metal castings made in our works in Arbroath, and all of which nearly have to come to London. The traffic is a staple and constant one, and yet the railway rates are prohibitive, so much so that we have to send the whole by steamer from Dundee. We cannot, however, even send these goods by steamer in this way without sending them over the Dundee and Arbroath Railway for 16 miles from Arbroath to Dundee by rail, which means that the Railway Company can so raise this short rail rate as almost to make it prohibitive on the 'through' traffic rate by steamer or Shipping Company. This the Railway Company have actually done, and they refuse point blank to the Board of Trade to reduce it.…. Even the old rates, 41s. 8d. a ton, for such traffic were at least 50 per cent, too high, and they are now much higher. When I state that the same goods are sent from New York to Chicago, a distance of 1,000 miles by rail, for 16s. 8d. per ton, you will see that, even at the old rate of 41s. 8d. per ton for 450 miles by rail from Arbroath to London, the charge is seven times what it is over the American railways when proportionate distance is taken into account. Also be it noted that the Americans can send similar goods to ours from New York to Glasgow by sea, and then from Glasgow to London by rail in this country, and deliver these goods in London, for one-half the carriage charge that we have to pay should we dare to send the same goods only from Glasgow to London over the same rails. I think the Board of Trade is much too gentle with the Railway Companies, and that more drastic measures ought to be adopted towards them.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade expressed the official view on this question, but I question very much whether that will turn out to be the view of the House of Commons. I received a letter a day or two ago from a constituent of mine, a manufacturer in the County Tyrone, who distinctly stated that the difference between the rates make it a question whether the small factories in that country should be continued, or whether in the future Belfast should mot be allowed to have a monopoly. I can tell the President of the Board of Trade that no official view will be allowed to prevail over our constituencies, and that if he does not stir himself to bring the Railway Companies to their senses they will take the matter into their own hands.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

In this case the traders have undoubtedly had extreme provocation, but under the circumstances stated by the President of the Board of Trade I quite agree with the view that it is undesirable to press this opposition to a Division. At the same time, I do desire to enter a protest against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He has spoken of the satisfaction with which he has received certain representations from the Railway Company.

MR. MUNDELLA

No. I spoke of the communications I had received from traders.

MR. TOMLINSON

No doubt it is easy enough for the companies to come to some arrangements with the large traders, but the chief difficulty arises in the case of the small traders, of whom—in my constituency, for instance—a large number have been hardly hit by the increase in the rates. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The Railway Companies are using their powers of charging short-distance rates in a very unfair manner. A clause was inserted in the London and North Western Act dealing with this question, and under that clause the company is claiming the right to alter their charges in a very peculiar way. I will give an instance. Goods are carried by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company partly over the Lancashire and Yorkshire and partly over the North Western line, and instead of there being one rate for the whole distance, the latter company, by mutual arrangement, take over the traffic at a point only a quarter of a mile distant from the destination of the goods, a long way past the junction between the lines of the two Companies, and then for the extra quarter of a mile a fresh and short-distance rate is imposed. I do not think Parliament ever intended that short-distance rates should be imposed in that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, amongst other matters, take into his consideration the manner in which short-distance charges are attempted to be imposed.

COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he fully appreciated the statement of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that American metal goods can be sent to New York from Glasgow by steamer, and from Glasgow to London by train, and yet be delivered at half the cost which would be incurred for the transit of English goods from Glasgow to London by train? I earnestly press him to use every power he possesses as President of the Board of Trade to prevent preferential rates thus being granted to foreign goods as against our own traders.

SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, S.)

I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is quite right in his advice as regards this Bill, which is as much in the interests of the public as of the Railway Company. But it affords our only chance of attacking the companies, and hence the justification for opposing it. Some years ago I was interested in a large building in the centre of England, and we found it was actually cheaper to purchase the iron girders used in it in Belgium and bring them over here, because the cost of transit was so much less than that which would be incurred if the girders were obtained from an English manufacturer. The State railways in Belgium charge far lower rates than any of the English lines, and as our own companies give preferential rates to Continental goods traffic a premium is placed upon foreign manufactures, to the great detriment of home trade and labour.

MR. A. C. MORTON

I do not intend to withdraw my opposition to the other Bills, unless the companies satisfy the public demands.

SIR F. MAPPIN (York, W.R., Hallamshire)

I think all Members of the House may well be satisfied with the statement given by the President of the Board of Trade last Friday night, on the strength of the communications he had received from several of the principal Railway Companies, in which a pledge was given that no rates should be advanced more than 5 per cent, unless under very exceptional circumstances. I may say, on behalf of the Midland Company, that they arrived at that decision on the 17th February, and their determination, no doubt, influenced the other companies very considerably in coming to a like arrangement. I therefore hope that the House will not reject this Bill, knowing, as hon. Members must do, that the Midland Company has always endeavoured to benefit the working public, and to carry the produce of the country at reasonable and moderate rates.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

When will the Instruction be moved?

MR. M'LAGAN (Linlithgow)

On Thursday.

Forward to