§ 41. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state whether the Clause in the Railways (No. 1) Bill of last Session which provided for a cheaper and less cumbrous tribunal for hearing traders' grievances than the Railway and Canal Commission was omitted from the Railways (No. 2) Bill owing to the opposition of the railway companies, or, if not, for what reason; and whether, seeing that an application to the Commission is, owing to its expense, a luxury of the rich, and that consequently farmers and the smaller traders have no remedy whatever against unfair treatment by the railway companies, the Government will forthwith introduce legislation for their adequate protection?
Mr. BUXTONThe sole reason for the omission of this and several other Clauses of the first Railways Bill of last. Session was that owing to want of time it was found necessary to confine the legislation of last Session to the single object of carrying out the Government pledge to the railway companies. No representations were made to me by the railway companies in respect of Clause 14 of the first Bill, which dealt with the cheapening of the procedure. I may add that there is no necessity for a farmer or small trader to take individual proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission, as under Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, any association of traders or freighters or chamber of commerce or agriculture that may obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade that it is a proper body to make a complaint can institute such proceedings. I have already stated that time will not permit the reintroduction this Session of the first Bill of last year.