HL Deb 13 May 1873 vol 215 cc1843-9

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

moved a new clause to follow Clause 4:— It shall not be lawful for any person appointed a Commissioner under this Act, so long as he shall hold office as such Commissioner, to own or be interested directly or indirectly in any stock, share, debenture stock, or debenture of any Railway or Canal Company in England; and if any such stock, share, debenture stock, or debenture, or any interest therein, shall come to or vest in such Commissioner by will or succession, he shall within one month after the same shall so come to or vest in him absolutely sell and dispose of the same or his interest therein.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke provided the time was limited to "three months" instead of "one."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

assented.

Amendment made accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power for Commissioners to enable Companies to explain alleged violation of law).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he thought that in every case where a complaint was made the Commissioners should give the Company notice before permitting formal proceedings. With the view therefore of making the clause compulsory, he moved that the word "shall" be substituted for the words "may if they think fit."

Amendment moved to leave out ("may if they think fit") and insert ("shall.")

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

thought it was inexpedient to limit the discretion of the Commissioners in this manner, and could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Explanation of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31. s. 2. as to through traffic).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, the clause with its sub-sections as it stood would make exceptional laws in respect of docks and harbours held by Railway Companies. Why should this be? He thought such docks and harbours should be regulated by the laws applying to docks and harbours generally. He therefore begged to move the following as a new sub-section:— (8.) "The Commissioners shall not have power to alter any rates lawfully made for the use of any dock, harbour, or pier belonging to a Railway Company when such rates are separate and distinct from the rates upon the railway.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he thought he might reply to the question of the noble Duke by asking why should a railway terminus of a dock or a harbour be exempt from the laws applying to every other railway terminus?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought it was scarcely worth while to press the Amendment, because, after all, the sub-section which his noble Friend proposed to qualify was not of very great importance. A Railway Company having a harbour or clock might lease it.

LORD HOUGHTON

said, he did not think the clause was quite fair as it stood; but, as the noble Marquess had just observed, any Railway Company having a harbour or dock might evade this law by leasing it.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Provision for complaints by public authority in certain cases).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the wide power of annoying Railway Companies the clause as it stood would confer on public bodies. The clause provided that complaint of any contravention of sec. 2 of the Act of 1854 might be made "by a municipal or other public Corporation, Local or Harbour Board, without proof that the complainants are aggrieved by the contravention." He thought such a power as this was very extraordinary, and might lead to great abuses. It seemed to him that the power ought, at the least, to be restricted to bodies having a bonâ fide interest in the cause of complaint. For this purpose he would move an Amendment to insert after the word "Board" the words "of the place at which the cause of complaint has arisen."

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, as the noble Duke had urged his objection to this clause in the discussion on the second reading, he had looked into the matter with the view of meeting his objection. He did not think the words now proposed by his noble Friend would be quite satisfactory. It would, he suggested, be better to introduce words conferring the power on the corporation or other bodies "of the place in which the cause of complaint had arisen," or "of any place injuriously affected by the cause of complaint.''

LORD CAIRNS

said, he thought it would not be well in a matter like this to give large powers to municipal corporations. Such bodies were anxious to extend their own influence, and this clause held out a means and encouragement for them to do so in a way which might press with undue severity on Railway Companies. He was for protection the travelling public in all parts of the country; but he did not see why the usual course of applying to the Attorney General should not be adopted by bodies or individuals who had complaints to make against Railway Companies. Any person who thought he had a good ground for prosecution might now apply to the Attorney General for the use of his name. Such an application was accompanied by a guarantee for costs, and if the case was a fit one the application was granted as a matter of course.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he would accept the Amendment of the noble Duke for the present, and consider the matter further before the bringing up of the Report.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

LORD HOUGHTON

moved to omit the clause, as one which could be made an improper use of for the undue annoyance of Railway Companies.

LORD ROMILLY

concurred with his noble Friend in thinking the clause an objectionable one.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

suggested that the noble Lord should not press his Amendment at present. He would have an opportunity of moving it on the Report, if the clause were not altered in the meantime in such a manner as to make it satisfactory.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the better course would be to strike out the clause; but after the promise of the Lord President, he thought it an inopportune moment to press such an Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Conveyance of mails).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, the clause provided that— Every railway company should convey by any train all such mails as might he tendered for conveyance by such train, whether such mails were under the charge of a guard appointed by the Postmaster General or not, and not with standing that no notice in writing requiring mails to conveyed such train had been given to the company by the Postmaster General. It appeared to him unfair to make the Railway Companies responsible for the custody and safe delivery of the mails if the Government did not take the trouble to make contracts or to communicate with them, or even when they forced a mail on them did not send a guard to take charge of it. He, therefore, moved after ("General") to insert—("The railway company shall not be responsible for the safe custody or delivery of any mails so sent.")

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

objected to the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he supposed the object to be to enable the Post Office to save the wretched salary of a guard now and then. The letters might be valuable; the loss of them might inflict great injury; and the Railway Company would have to pay heavy penalties because the Government was too stingy to pay for a guard. He was surprised at the way in which this House dealt with railway property.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Power to Commissioners to fix terminal charges).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, it seemed to him that the clause had no business in the Bill at all, and it might occasion difficulty, because it would give the Commissioners concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of Law in eases involving their decision on terminal charges, and might result in conflicting decisions by two differently constituted tribunals. He did not see how the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law was to be got rid of; and, as it was impolitic to have two Courts of concurrent jurisdiction, he hoped the noble Marquess would consent to the omission of the clause.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The Amalgamation Committee, of which he was a Member, had assumed that the clause they were now discussing would become law, and they had formed some of their conclusions upon that supposition. It would, therefore, be very awkward if the clause should be struck out. He thought it would be easy to prevent any conflict of jurisdiction by introducing a few words into this Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

reminded the Committee that the clause was introduced into that Bill in the other House after a division, and was entirely in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Committee of last year on this subject. He would remind the noble Duke that the Commissioners would have to determine many questions, such as through rates, which would involve the question of terminal charges.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the effect of the clause would be to establish two concurrent jurisdictions, and we might have the Commissioners deciding one way and a Court of Law another. The Commissioners, moreover, had no power to enforce the payment of charges, which must be sued for in a Court. He thought there could be no difficulty in a Court and jury deciding what were reasonable charges. At any rate the clause could not be left as it at present stood.

EARL GREY

said, there would be no difficulty in providing that the decisions of the Commissioners as to what were proper terminal charges should be accepted and enforced by Courts of Law.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was under the impression that that would be the operation of the Bill as it stood; but saw no objection to introducing a provision to the effect of the noble Earl's suggestion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that would not meet the case, because the Commissioners could not lay down broad rules applicable in all cases. There must be a distinct decision in each case of dispute.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he must leave it to their Lordships to decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill? The Committee divided:—Contents 66; Not-Contents 50: Majority 16.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.

Clause 25 (Orders of Commissioners).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

proposed to make the clause compulsory, and would move, in page 11, line 3, to leave out "may also, if they think fit," and insert "shall." The effect of this Amendment would be that the Commissioners at the instance of any party to the proceedings before them, and upon such security being given by the appellant as they might direct, must state a case in writing for the opinion of any Superior Court upon any question of law on which the Commissioners should differ.

An Amendment moved, to leave out ("may also, if they think fit,") and insert ("shall.")—(The Dale of Richmond.)

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

could not help thinking the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke would be where an individual trader appeared before the Commissioners to complain against a Railway Company that due facilities for the transmission of traffic were not given, the Company, which was seldom averse to litigation, would insist on an appeal to a Superior Court of Law, and the individual trader would have to contend against the almost unlimited resources of a powerful Company.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he had little doubt that the Commission, as constituted, would, under this clause, grant an appeal when asked by the poor man and refuse it when asked by a Railway Company. If they were to give an appeal at all on a point of law it would be better to give it as a matter of right.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was also of opinion that the matter had better not be left to the discretion of the Commissioners.

Motion agreed to; Amendment made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 (Power by Order in Council to extend the duties of Commissioners) struck out.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 112.)