§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill was intended to consolidate the law with reference to the conveyance of the Queen's Forces by railway. It was also the purpose of the framers of the Bill to carry out the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. That promise was that he would make some reduction in the Railway Passenger Duty if the Companies would make certain concessions. The sum which the right hon. Gentleman stated would be remitted amounted to £400,000. The chief benefits that would be conferred on the Railway Companies by the Bill were—first, that all fares not exceeding 1d. per mile would be exempted from duty in the future; and, secondly, that duty would only be payable at the rate of 2 per cent, instead of at 5 per cent, on fares exceeding 1d. per mile between stations on urban lines. Certain reductions would 1612 be made in the rates charged for the conveyance of troops. The present scale of charges was fixed in 1844 at 2d. per mile for first-class passengers, and 1d. per mile for third-class passengers. Since 1844 ordinary passenger rates had been greatly reduced; and the Bill aimed at making such a reduction in the rates charged for troops as should be in accord with the original proportion between the rates charged for the public and the rates charged for troops. This was a Revenue Bill; and it was based on arrangements come to with the representatives of the principal lines of railways in the Kingdom, and on mutual concessions made to and by them. The Bill gave the Board of Trade power to regulate workmen's trains. There had been no opposition to the Bill in the House of Commons; and he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now road 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
§ LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that since he had been connected with the railway management of the country he had—for reasons which their Lordships would understand—forborne from taking part in discussions in that House upon railway matters. This Bill, however, was of such an exceptional character, and involved such serious consequences, that he must humbly crave their Lordships' attention for a brief space of time. Of course, their Lordships could simply accept or reject a Money Bill, but could not alter it; and if this Bill dealt simply with the abolition of a tax, he should be the last to raise any question as to it, more especially as he had himself brought the subject of the Passenger Duty before the other House of Parliament, had served upon the Committee which had inquired into it, and had a full, share of responsibility in the Report of that Committee condemnatory of the duty. Incidentally he might observe that this duty had been imposed because there were duties leviable upon other public conveyances; and these latter duties having all been removed, it was claimed, and recommended by the Committee, that this duty should share the same fate, without any question of a quid pro quo. The 3rd clause in this Bill, however, gave power to the Board of Trade to interfere with private enter-prize by regulating the time and man- 1613 ner of running workmen's trains, and regulating the fares already authorized in each case by special Act of Parliament; and if the Railway Companies did not agree to what the Board of Trade proposed, they were not to have the benefits conferred by the Bill. The House of Commons endeavoured to interfere with private enterprize; and their Lordships were told that they had no power to interfere, because an allusion to a tax was tacked on to the end of the clause. Again, the arrangements for the conveyance of troops had nothing to do with Imperial taxation; and yet their Lordships were told that they could not interfere with it; whereas this clause had relation to railway rates and fares, which might be a very proper question for arrangement between the Department of Government and Railway Companies, but had no place, by right, in a Revenue Bill. The novel powers which were given to the Board of Trade in this Bill, and the powers to lower the rates of conveyance of troops, were powers which the House of Commons had no right to give alone, but which, if right to be given, should be given by the concurrent legislation of both Houses of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question of principle seemed to him quite plain. Any noble Lord might move the rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, a Bill for the conditional remission of taxation must be dealt with on the same principle as a Bill for the unconditional remission of taxation. They must either accept it as it stood, or reject it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there could be no doubt, according to the practice of the House and the precedents which guided their Lordships, remissions of taxation were not matters with which they dealt. It might also be fairly said that if the remission was conditional, and if the House of Commons proposed to receive certain work done in the place of a tax, their Lordships should not interfere so far as concerned the remission or condition. But the precedent brought forward in the celebrated speech of Lord Lyndhurst on the question of the Paper Duty 20 years ago bore him out in saying that if the conditional remission of taxation was directed towards the attainment of any object of public policy, and that public 1614 policy was one in which their Lordships' House could not concur, it was entirely open to them to give effect to their view by their votes. Were it otherwise, the House of Commons would be enabled, by its management of the public purse, to affect the legislative rights of that House. He did not, however, take an attitude hostile to the Bill, because he believed there was a good deal of foundation in the remarks made by the noble Earl, and the object it had in view was a very good one, and dealt with a grievance which the House would be anxious to remove. At the same time he thought a good deal might be said as to the inequality of the Bill in its bearing upon the Railway Companies.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the great
question of Privilege relating to the tacking on of Money Bills might be so managed as to exclude the House of Lords from the whole legislative Business of the country. On that principle they were bound to object to such a course, which would curtail the Privileges of the House in a most objectionable manner.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had only referred to bonâ fide Money Bills.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.