Lords Sitting of 11 March 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. (Scotland). Public.—1a. Fresh Water Fishing (Scotland).
2a. Stamp Duties Assimilation.
Private.—2a. Calvert's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Strangford, from Cambridge University, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Earl of Minto, from Presbytery of Jed-burgh, against the granting of Spirit Licenses to Toll Houses (Scotlapd).—By Earl Rosebery, from Inverness, against any Alteration of the present system of Banking (Scotland).—From Ardmayle, and Kinawly, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Lord Campbell, from Birmingham Canal Navigation Company, for regulating Charges for Conveyance of Passengers and Goods by Railway.

RALWAYS AND CANALS.
Lord Campbell: My Lords, I have to present a petition to your Lordships on a very important subject—it is one respecting railroads. The petition is from the Birmingham Canal Navigation Company, who may be considered as representing the canal interest of this country, in opposition to the railway interest. I have, fortunately, or unfortunately, as it may be, no personal concern either with one or the other of those two great interests; but I feel it my duty to state to your Lordships the canal interest as set out in this petition. The parties say they are no enemies to railways; but are perfectly willing to enter into a fair competition with them; but they ask protection against a most unfair attempt that is being made against them

631
by the railway companies. They admit that as far as the carriage of passengers is concerned, the canal companies are beaten by the railways, and they are quite willing to yield to that superiority; but they say that with regard to the carriage of goods, with fair play, they can beat the railways. But the railways have entered into this scheme; namely, that of carrying goods for the present at such a low rate of charge as shall utterly ruin the canals, and then, when the canals are ruined, and the railroads have got into their own hands the carriage of goods as well as passengers, and have thus succeeded in obtaining a complete monopoly, not only will the holders of shares in canals be ruined, but the public also will greatly suffer. They state facts to show what the railroads are now doing. They say that the carriage of a ton of passengers is not more expensive to the railroads than the carriage of a ton of goods; but for the purpose of ruining the canals, what do the railroads do? They charge ten times as much for the carriage of passengers in the third-rate carriages, and in the first-rate carriages they charge thirty times as much as they would do for carrying a ton of goods. They thus charge a great deal too much for passengers, and a great deal too little for goods. The railways would be entirely ruined if they carried nothing but goods; but by the excessive charge for passengers they are enabled to carry goods at a price that would be ruinous to the canals. I think your Lordships ought to provide some remedy for this. What the petitioners ask is, that your Lordships in any general Bill would provide against this mischief, and require that there should be some ratio preserved between the charge for passengers and the charge for goods, and thereby afford the canal companies protection against this powerful combination of railways.
The Duke of Wellingtonremembered that a noble Friend of his (Lord Hatherton), not now in his place, presented a similar petition, and that noble Lord suggested a remedy, which was, that there should be some impediment placed in the way of any railway company raising the charge for the carriage of goods after having once determined the amount of that charge.
Lord Campbelldid not recollect the suggestion, but he was aware that parties had been induced to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel
632
railway companies to preserve a ratio between the two descriptions of charge.
Petition laid on the Table.

TEMPERANCE.
The Earl of Mintopresented a petition from the Presbytery of Jedburgh, in Scotland, complaining of the granting of licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors to toll-houses, and small ale-houses in Scotland.
The Duke of Buccleuchadmitted the evils of the existing system; but it only obtained in certain districts of Scotland. He should beglad to see the whole system abolished; but there was a difficulty in doing this, in consequence of money having been lent on the security of the roads, and these toll-houses, by selling spirits, were supposed to add to the security looked to by the lenders.
Lord Abingerbore testimony to the evils complained of, and thought both the spirit-licensing system and the licenses for the sale of beer were fit subjects for their Lordships' consideration.

TRINITY CHURCH, CHELSEA.
The Earl of Cadoganmoved for certain Papers relating to the application of a surplus fund, derived from pew rents in Trinity Church, Chelsea, and which the noble Earl contended had been applied by the Church Commissioners contrary to the provisions of the 58th and 59th George III.
The Bishop of Londondefended the Church Commissioners against the imputations which the noble Earl had cast upon them, and maintained that the application of the surplus fund had been made in accordance with the request of the clergy and the congregation, for the purpose of promoting divine worship. The right rev. Prelate said he would reserve to himself the right of entering into details when the Papers which the noble Earl moved for should be laid on their Lordships' Table.
Papers ordered.
House adjourned.