HL Deb 16 May 1873 vol 216 cc8-10

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

proposed to add to Clause 20 (Power to Commis- sioners to fix terminal charges), the words— Any decision of the Commissioners under this section shall be binding on all Courts and in all legal proceedings whatsoever, and to transpose the clause to follow Clause 14. The effect of the alteration would be to make the decision of the Commissioners in any dispute between a Railway Company and the public as to rates and charges binding on all Courts and in all legal proceedings whatsoever. The Amendment would remove the concurrent jurisdiction which it had been thought the clause as framed established.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

claimed an apology from the Government for dividing against him in Committee on this point; and still thought, even when these words were inserted, there would yet be concurrent jurisdiction. The parties would not be compelled to go before the Commissioners, but would still be at liberty to apply to a Court of Law.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that in the debate in Committee he promised to consider the point, and he had redeemed his promise.

LORD REDESDALE

suggested that some words might be added which would make it appear that the Commissioners alone should have power to decide these questions. He thought it was extremely desirable that the power should be confined to them, and he believed it was so intended by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to; Amendments made.

Clause 26 (Orders of Commissioners).

On Motion of Marquess of RIPON, Amendments made for the purpose of making the decision of the Court to which a ease may be transmitted final and conclusive on all parties.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

proposed a clause enabling the Commissioners, on the application of three justices, to institute an inquiry in cases where it was alleged that owing to the absence of a bridge over or passage under any railway or canal, the public traffic was incommoded; and after inquiry by Provisional Order to direct the remedy, and to apportion the expenses to the parties by whom, in their judgment, the expense ought to be borne. It was not fair, he maintained, that a Railway Company should be put to the whole expense involved in purchasing for the purpose adjacent property the value of which had been increased by the railway, and that the burden ought to be shared by the public and by private owners.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, this matter did not come properly within the scope of the Bill, because the functions of the Commissioners were confined to questions relating to traffic upon railways, and they had nothing to do with traffic on roads. It was not quite accurate to say the Commissioners would have to deal with all railway matters, because questions of safety would still be dealt with by the Board of Trade.

Clause withdrawn.

Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 120.)