TABLE A. (Hansard, 9 August 1894)

§ * MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
said, he had to move the following Proviso:— Provided always, that the tolls from time to time actually charged shall not exceed such amount as may, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be sufficient to provide for the reasonable expenses of adequately maintaining the navigation in the interests of the traders thereon. He did not intend to press the Amendment provided he could get from the President of the Board of Trade an expression of sympathy with its object. As the House was aware, the land in the valley of the Weaver was subject to subsidences, and the small property owners had suffered great hardships. The trade of the Valley had been taxed to an enormous extent for the benefit of the County of Chester, the county having, in fact, received from the surplus funds of the Navigation no less than £1,000,000. Appeal after appeal had been made to the trustees for some compensation to the small property owners, but those appeals had always been met with a very decided refusal. He now asked that when the Weaver Trustees came to Parliament next year, as they were bound to do under an Instruction of the House of Commons embodied in an Act of last year, the President of the Board of Trade would take into his full consideration the various Reports that had been made by his Department on the constitution and management of the Weaver Navigation. The first Report, he found, was issued in 1872, and signed by Sir Thomas Fairer. The Board of Trade informed Parliament at that time that the constitution of the trustees was very peculiar; that their Acts left them at liberty either to expend their surplus income on new works or not; that they were not bound to have a surplus, but that if they had a surplus it must go to the County of Chester; that the Trust had been from the beginning a Public Trust; and that the tax was one of the same character as local charges on shipping, which had in so many eases been condemned by Parliament. The last sentence of the Report was as follows:— Under these circumstances it seems to deserve consideration whether the practice pursued by Parliament in similar cases should not be pursued in this case, and whether an endeavour should not be made to effect some arrangement by which, without too hastiiy depriving Cheshire of an income which it has so long en- 433 joyed, the trade may ultimately be freed from this anomalous arid ever-increasing burden. He thought that if an arrangement carrying out this suggestion were made next Session it could not be said that Cheshire had been too hastily deprived of its income. The House might know that in 1866 a cattle plague rate was imposed on Cheshire. The Cheshire landowners of that date asked that this rate should be made a national one, but Parliament decided that inasmuch as Cheshire was in receipt of the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, Cheshire should pay the rate itself. The subsiding district of Cheshire had been paying this rate in common with the rest of the county, and in addition this tax had been got out of the very bowels of this unfortunate district. The cattle plague rate came to an end in 1896, and it seemed to him that if the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, under authority and command of Parliament, were thereupon used for the benefit of the trade, and not for the benefit of the county, no ratepayer in Cheshire would feel the burden of any result from the change. Parliament would therefore, to his mind, have an additional reason for the action which he hoped would be taken, and be begged that at any rate the President of the Hoard of Trade would give him a sympathetic answer. He moved the Proviso.

§ MR. TOLLEMACHE (Cheshire, Eddisbury)
said, he opposed the Amendment not only as a trustee of the River Weaver, but as representing all the different parties who assembled at the Conference at the Board of Trade on Tuesday last, and who entered into what he understood was an honourable compromise, which should be faithfully maintained. There were a number of conflicting interests represented there, including 434 the Weaver Trustees, traders on the river, the County Council, and the Board of Trade. They had a very exhaustive discussion, and certain suggestions made by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade were accepted by everyone who was present, including the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner). The hon. Member in moving the Amendment did not speak for the traders of the districts, who were perfectly in accord with him and others in saying that the arrangement come to in an honourable and amicable way on Tuesday ought not to be upset at the present moment. He had a letter from the President of the Salt Union authorising him to say that he was no party to this attempt to upset that arrangement. As to the extracts which the hon. Gentleman had read, and the well-known animus which he bore towards the Trustees of the River Weaver, he might say that this was not an occasion when any notice should be taken of this matter. The whole question would come up next year of the reconstruction of the Trust, and it would then be perfectly competent for the hon. Member to move any Amendment he thought fit. He understood that the hon. Member, if he could get a sympathetic answer from the President of the Board of Trade, would not press his Amendment to a Division. But if the hon. Member got an unsympathetic answer, and if he were assured of a majority in the House, he wondered if the hon. Member would then press his Amendment.

§ MR. BRUNNER
I certainly should not.

§ MR. TOLLEMACHE
thought that in that case they had been brought there under somewhat false pretences. The hon. Gentleman had appealed for a sympathetic answer. He would also make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, and would urge upon him that the friendly arrangement come to at his Department was quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The hon. Member sought to prejudice the position of one of the parties to this discussion by getting some answer from the President of the Board of Trade which might be used against them when the whole question came on for discussion. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point: that the whole knotty question was 435 to be considered next year, and it would be rather inexpedient to put one of the parties in an unfavourable position by any statement which he was asked to make.

§ MR. BRYCE
thought there was some little misunderstanding between the parties in regard to this matter. The parties concerned met at the Board of Trade Office on Tuesday, and after a full discussion, which lasted for three hours, entered into a compromise which was embodied in his Amendments. It was part of that compromise that the question now raised should not be raised. [Mr. BRUNNER: No, no.] He was sure his hon. Friend, who was as anxious to abide by an honourable arrangement as any Member of the House could possibly be, would not seek to elicit any statement from him (Mr. Bryce) if he thought it was inconsistent with that arrangement, but the view of the Board of Trade officials who took part in the conference was that all that should take place in the House was to be embodied in the Amendments he had moved, and that lie should express no opinion on the question raised by his hon. Friend, which was no doubt a question of considerable gravity and importance. Under these circumstances, he was not able to give his hon. Friend either a sympathetic or an unsympathetic answer. He could not enter into the points which he had raised, and which were very fit for discussion in the House or in the Committee to whom the Bill to be brought in next year would be referred. All he could say was that when the Bill was introduced next year it would probably be the duty of the Board of Trade—it would certainly be in accordance with the usual practice—to report on the Bill as regarded the application of the dues and tolls received by the Weaver Navigation, and the surplus of which now went to the county. And although he could not undertake at this stage to say what the nature of that Report would be, he thought he might safely say that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to include in it references to the Reports made in 1893 and 1872. The House would therefore, when the Bill came before it, be in possession of the views of the Board on Trade on the subject. In these circumstances, he appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

§ MR. BRUNNER,
in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said the compromise which was come to last Tuesday did not come in the first place from representatives of the Board of Trade, but from him, on behalf of his firm. He was very glad to hear from the hon. Member opposite and the President of the Board of Trade that the question would come up next year. That had not been clear to him before, and he was quite satisfied now that he knew the question of the destination of the surplus would come up.

§ MR. TOLLEMACHE
What I said was that when the question comes up it will be open to the hon. Member to raise any point as to the distribution of the surplus. I am not to be understood as expressing any opinion on the matter.

In respect of Merchandise comprised in the under-mentioned Classes.	Maximum Tolls.	Maximum Wharfage Charges.
For the first 10 miles, or any part of such Distance.	For the remainder of the Distance.
	Per ton per mile.	Per ton per mile.	Per ton.
	d.	d.	d.
A	0.45	0.25	1.50	A
B	0.70	0.35	1.50	B
(except salt).				(except salt).
C	0.85	0.50	3	C
1	3	1
2	4	2
3	4	3
4	4	4
5	4	5

In respect of Merchandise comprised in the under-mentioned Classes.	Maximum Tolls.	Maximum Wharfage Charges.
For the whole Distance or any part thereof.
	Per ton.	Per ton.
	d.	d.
A	2.00	1.50	A
B	B
(except salt).			(except salt).
For salt.	6.00	—	For salt.
C	2.00	3	C
1	3	1
2	4	2
3	4	3
4	4	4
5	4	5