CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 8 May 1893)

§ *MR. WEIR
said, he objected to the Bill being considered. It was with extreme reluctance he opposed the measure; but it was in consequence of the failure of the President of the Board of Trade to give effect to the promise he had entered into with the House some weeks before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman promised at that time that, unless matters were satisfactorily arranged between, the traders and the Railway Companies, he would take such steps as might be necessary to compel the Railway Companies to consider the interests of the traders. What had the right hon. Gentleman done in this direction? Absolutely nothing! It was true that last Friday evening he put on the Paper a Motion for the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of Railway Rates and Charges; but he (Mr. Weir) and one or two other Members objected to the composition of that Committee, and, therefore, it stood over. For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman he might tell him he would continue to object to that Committee unless its proposed composition were altered, and that he would stay every night, and all night, if necessary, for the purpose of doing so. The constitution of the Committee was most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was proposed to give Scotland only one Member—England was to have 12, Ireland 3, Wales land Scotland 1: he insisted that Scotland should have a larger representation. There were nine Scotch Members on the Treasury Bench—what had they to say to the composition of this Committee? How would they face their constituents if they allowed, without a protest, Scotland to be treated thus? Whilst there was only one Member for Scotland on the Committee, places had been found for four Railway Directors. With the names submitted to the House for the constitution of that Committee he and other Members, both behind Ministers and below the Gangway on this side of the House, thoroughly disagreed, and they did not intend to allow the Committee to be appointed in its present form. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
My hon. Friend objects to the consideration of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, as it comes back from the Committee to the House, because he is not satisfied with the proposal on the Paper for the appointment of a Committee on Railway Rates and Charges. I fail to see how the hon. Gentleman finds any connection between the two matters. If all the Railway Bills before the House were rejected, it would have nothing whatever to do with the composition of the Committee. That Committee is composed, as old Members of the House know, of those hon. Gentlemen who represent the different sections of the House. The names are now before the House, and it is for the House to deal with them, and, if it is thought to be necessary to make alterations in its composition, the House will do it. But I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should oppose the consideration of this Bill on that account. The hon. Member for Peterborough has said that when we allowed the First and Second Reading of this and other Railway Bills, it was on the condition that something should be done in the matter of railway rates and charges. Something has been done, and we have proposed the appointment of this Committee to report to the House how these disputes between the Railway Companies and the traders shall be arranged. I hope we are not going to waste the time of the House this afternoon in the discussion of a Private Bill which has passed through Committee, and only comes before us for consideration. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in opposing this Bill.

§ *SIR J. WHITEHEAD (Leicester)
said that, having taken some part in the House in the discussion of railway rates, he thought he ought to say that he sympathised, to a very great extent, with what had been said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. But, at the same time, he could not help 320 saying that the course the hon. Member had taken in moving the rejection of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Bill did not altogether meet with his approval, or with the approval of those who were associated with him. In all probability, in the course of that Sitting, there would be an opportunity of discussing the Reference which had been put on the Paper with regard to railway rates, and also the names suggested. When that time arrived, he should probably have something to say upon the proposed constitution of the Committee, and also upon the terms of the Reference; but, in the meantime, he desired to make an earnest appeal to the hon. Member not to interrupt the progress of the Bill.

§ *MR. A. C. MORTON
said, this was their only way of dealing with the question of railway rates. If they allowed the Railway Companies to get all their Bills through they would then laugh at the House. He did not say the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty should go to a Division on this Bill; but he did say he had done quite right in calling attention to the matter. In his opinion, they were being played with by the Board of Trade, and so long as they gave way to the officials of the Board of Trade so long would they get nothing done. He hoped the House would have the courage some day before long to throw out one of those Bills, and so teach the railway monopolists and the Board of Trade that the traders and agriculturists of the country were not to be played with.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Does the hou. Member withdraw his objection?

§ *MR. WEIR
said that, after the discussion which had taken place and the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, he would withdraw his objection to the Bill; but he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that he would oppose any and every attempt to appoint the proposed Committee unless the claims of Scotland were fairly considered.