SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1893)

§ MR. J. G. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)
Sir, I have a Notice on the Paper to move the rejection of this Bill, but I do not wish to move it. I wish, however, to say that since the recent speech of the President of the Board of Trade, warning the Railway Companies with respect to their new rates and charges, no progress has been made towards securing a general reduction. Reductions have certainly been intimated, but the reduced rates are for showman's vans, ambulance waggons, and brood mares—the entire revenue from the carriage of which would scarcely pay the wages of a dozen railway porters. What the traders and agriculturists want is a reduction of the rates for raw material, 195 manufactured goods, and agricultural produce, which are carried on our railways in hundreds of thousands of tons everyday. I would again call attention to the case of Mr. James Keopp, of Arbroath, in respect to the North British charge to him for iron castings between Forfarshire and London. He has to pay 51s. 8d. per ton for the carriage of rough castings if conveyed at the company's risk, or 41s. if at his own risk. The cost of carriage is really greater than the value of pig-iron. Traders have also complained of the inconsistency of the North British and the other railways in charging more for solid castings than for water pipes, which occupy much greater space. The rates at present charged in Scotland by the Railway Companies paralyse trade, and especially the fishing industry in the North. As a matter of fact, herrings can be brought from Sweden at half the price they could be brought from the North of Scotland to London. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the figures, which he can obtain and some of which I have here, in proof of my statement. On the Highland Railway the charges are so excessive as to almost destroy the industries in the North and North-East of Scotland. What is the President of the Board of Trade going to do in the matter? Is he going to regard the cry of the traders and the agriculturists and compel the Railway Companies to reduce their rates, or is he going to smile sweetly on the Directors and let them have their will? I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will insist upon the companies reducing their charges, so as to give the industrial classes and the agriculturists a chance of living. As I have said, I will not move the Motion which stands in my name, but reserve to myself the right of raising the question on another occasion by moving the rejection of the measure at a later stage.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,) Sheffield, Brightside
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely mistaken in the attitude he has taken up, and in what he has said with regard to the action of the Board of Trade. A great deal has been done in the matter of railway rates by the Board of Trade, and since he has brought this particular case before the House, I would like to say that it was actually before the Board of Trade to-day, 196 and it is, I understand, in process of settlement. But, Sir, this case has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The Bill simply proposes the construction of a tunnel a mile long for the convenience of the people in the vicinity of Charing Cross, Glasgow, and the people of Glasgow are anxious that the Bill should pass, so that they may be enabled to have this work carried out. That being the nature of the Bill, it is most unreasonable to try and prevent the people having the accommodation required. I am sorry to say that the action of the hon. Member will not serve the cause of the traders with the companies. I was anxious to be allowed to carry out the policy of getting reduction of rates. We cannot, perhaps, have reductions in all cases. The hon. Gentleman says—he made a distinct statement—that nothing has been done, that no proposition has been made. I can say that a great deal has been done, and I hope and expect that a great deal more will be done very soon. I hope the time of the House will not be occupied with a discussion on this Bill.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
I do not agree that we are wasting the time of the House. This is the only way we have of bringing before the House such cases as that mentioned by the hon. Member; and so far as that case is concerned, I understand that satisfaction has not been given, and I think we are entitled to see that justice is done, and that this gentleman (Mr. Keith) shall be allowed to send his goods to London at reasonable rates. The right hon. Gentleman says this has nothing to do with the North British Railway Bill, that it is a Bill for new works, and the rates are not connected with the matter. I am always glad to support the right hon. Gentleman, though if we waited to have this Bill rejected I think we are strong enough to do so, unless he is willing to grant us justice. But I agree that there should be fair warning. I do not desire to blame this company more than others. Scottish Railway Companies and many English companies are doing their best in the main, and I do not want to interfere with their improvements, but it is when they ask the sanction of this House to a Bill for improvements that we can bring pressure to bear upon them to remove grievances, and, if they 197 did not consent to a policy of justice, the House has it in its power to throw out any Bill they may bring forward. Although the big traders are getting something done for them now, the small traders are still charged nearly 50 per cent. more than they ought to be called upon to pay, and I am afraid that unless this House does something in the matter, the large traders will have everything done for them, and the small traders will have nothing done for them. Now, there is another question—the question of overcrowding. This is one of the companies that has a great deal of overcrowding on its line. It is in the third-class carriages and to the inconvenience of third-class passengers that this overcrowding is allowed on the lines of these monopolist companies. I am glad to know that my calling attention to overcrowding on other railways in a recent Debate has had a good effect. I have received confirmation from many sources of what I said and thanks for having called attention to this evil. I regret the necessity of taking up the time of the House on this Bill, but it is a proper and legitimate way of dealing with the grievances that we complain of. I do not think the Board of Trade has done much good—it never did much—and I am of opinion that it never will assist us unless we make it our duty to compel it to move on, and it is only by discussing matters in this House that we can do so.