§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the Railway Companies have exercised the powers conferred upon them by the Railway Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891 and 1892, and to consider whether it is desirable to adopt any other than the existing means of settling differences arising between the Companies and the public with respect to the rates and conditions of charge for the conveyance of goods, and to report what means they recommend. That the Committee do consist of Nineteen, Members."—(Mr. Mundella.)
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACH (Bristol, W.)I understand that not only will the Reference be agreed to, but also the names of the Committee on the Paper.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Burnie, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Field, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Hickman, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jacks, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Patrick M'Hugh, Mr. Mitford, Mr. Mount, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. David Plunket, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Bern-hard Samuelson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and Sir James Whitehead be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That Five be the quorum."—(Mr. Munddla.)
§ MR. HUNTERobjected. He said objection had previously been taken to the proposed Committee of 17, on the ground that out of the 17 four were Railway Directors, while the Railway Directors, in proportion to their number in the House, were entitled only to one out of 15. A meeting was held, at which, in order to get over this difficulty, it was decided that one Scotch Agricultural Member and one English Agricultural Member should be added to the Committee. But instead of an English Agricultural Member another Railway Director was put on the Committee, so that there were five Railway Directors on the Committee, a proceeding which he thought was most unfair.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI must protest against the action of the hon. Member. I rose when the Reference was put to the House, and said that I understood that not only was the Reference to be agreed to, but also the names, as if the names were not agreed to I intended to object to the Reference being adopted, and the hon. Member made no sign. The hon. Member representing the English agricultural interest, to whom the hon. Gentleman has described as a Railway Director, is a Director of a small line which is worked by a largo Railway Company, which starves it for the benefit of its own undertaking. He surely cannot be said to be a Railway Director in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman?
§ MR. MUNDELLAI ask my hon. Friend to allow the Committee to go. 1153 There is agreement between us on the subject.
§ MR. HUNTERsaid, that after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol he would withdraw his opposition.
§ MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)said, the Ulster Unionists, who it could not be denied represented the commerce of Ireland, had reason to complain that they had no representative on the Committee.
§ MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)also considered that the Ulster Members, who were largely interested in railway rates, should be represented on the Committee.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThe Ulster Members, if they have any cause of complaint, must complain of their own friends, for no Ulster Member was nominated.
§ SIR JAMES WHITEHEAD (Leicester)said, a strong feeling prevailed that the railway interest was unduly represented on the Committee, and that there was not an adequate representation of the agricultural interest. But he would accept the Committee, in the hope that some good would come of it for the benefit of trade and agriculture.
§ Question put, and agreed to.