(NO. 167.) THIRD READING. (Hansard, 9 August 1883)

§ LORD BRABOURNE
moved the omission of certain clauses in the Bill. The first clause to which he took objection was the 3rd clause, which conferred on the Board of Trade the power to regulate railway fares and trains. He objected to the clause, both on its merits, and also on account of the manner in which it came before their Lordships. As to the merits of the clause, he would ask their Lordships to consider what a railway really was. It was something constructed for the public benefit by the contributions of private enterprize; but in each case it had been constructed under the provisions of a special Act of Parliament, carefully considered before a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and having its rate of fares duly fixed by the Act, subject to which it was governed by Directors appointed by the shareholders. Now, this clause really infringed, if it did not put an end to, this self-government, and proposed to give the Board of Trade power practically to regulate all trains; because, if they had power to regulate the workmen's trains, they would not allow a reduction of the duty unless they considered there were a sufficient number of workmen's trains, and so the other traffic would have to be regulated accordingly. The Board of Trade was a Department of the Government against which he wished to make no attack; but it should be borne in mind that whilst this and every other Government Department had only to consider what was for the public convenience in deciding the amount of railway accommodation to be provided, Railway Directors had something to consider besides—namely, the interests of those who had contributed to create the railway by their capital, and who had a right to expect to get some fair return for their money. He would also submit that some little debt of gratitude was owing from the public to the railway shareholders, for if they had not subscribed their capital for the construction of railways, it would have been necessary to construct them out of 2062 funds raised by public taxation. This was not like a question of large public Companies, such as Water and Gas Companies, who supplied the public with a necessary commodity, and reaped large dividends; the average railway dividend was only about 4 per cent, which was not a very remarkable amount considering the risk which shareholders ran; and he (Lord Brabourne) must contend that after the public had, through the Houses of Parliament, deliberately made a bargain with Companies of individuals to construct railways for the public advantage, upon the faith of which bargain those individuals had subscribed their money, it was a little hard to come down upon them and afterwards alter that bargain in the manner now proposed. He had a greater objection to this clause. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill had told them it was a Revenue Bill, and that their Lordships must either accept or reject it; but this clause created the Board of Trade as a new taxation Department of the Government, and incidentally in its last words it said that if the Board of Trade conditions were not complied with the Railway Company should not receive the benefit of a remission of the Passenger Duty. He knew that the answer would be that this was simply the removing or lightening a tax upon certain conditions; but he wished to point out that although it was true that the non-remission of the tax was hold over the Companies as a punishment for not obeying the orders of the Board of Trade at the end of the clause, yet the gist and the kernel of the clause was to give the Board of Trade powers of interference and regulation under which no question of the tax would arise until their action became positively unbearable; because, of course, no Railway Company would wish to fight or oppose the action of a Government Department so long as they could possibly help it, and oppression would be submitted to as long as it could be endured. At any rate, if the power proposed ought to be given to the Board of Trade, and private enterprize ought to be handed over to a public Department, it ought to be done by a measure which the House had full power to discuss, and ought not to be tacked on to a Money Bill. He respectfully protested that this clause ought not to be in the Bill, and he begged to move its omission.

LORD THURLOW
, in opposing the Amendment of the noble Lord, said, he would not discuss the Constitutional question, but would say a few words upon the merits of the clause. The main object of the Bill was to remit taxation, so as to induce Railway Companies to provide better third-class accommodation in workmen's trains, which now were so extensively used, and which were so useful in carrying workmen at reduced fares. It was a matter on which Her Majesty's Government held very strong opinions; and he desired to remind the House that it was a subject on which very strong opinions were held on both sides of the other House of Parliament, and had been referred to more than once by the late Home Secretary in Committee on the Artizans' Dwellings Act. The Bill had been carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, in concert with the representatives of a number of Railway Companies, and he thought he was perfectly correct in stating that they all concurred in the propriety of it. The noble Lord objected to the 3rd clause. That clause pro-vided—

"(1.) If at any time the Board of Trade have reason to believe—

(a.) that upon any railway or part of a railway, or upon any line or system of railways, whether belonging to one company or to two or more companies, which forms a continuous means of communication, a due and sufficient proportion of the accommodation provided by such company or companies is not provided for passengers at fares not exceeding the rate of one penny a mile; or

(b) that upon any railway carrying passengers proper and sufficient workmen's trains are not provided for workmen going to and returning from their work at such fares and at such times between six o'clock in the evening and eight o'clock in morning as appear to the Board of Trade to be reasonable,

then and in either case the Board of Trade may make such inquiry as they think necessary, or may, if required by the company or any of the companies concerned, refer the matter for the decision of the Railway Commissioners, who shall have the same power therein as if it had been referred to their decision in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873.

"(2.) If on an inquiry under this Act it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade or the Railway Commissioners, as the case may be, that such proper and sufficient accommoda- 2064 tion or workmen's trains as aforesaid are not provided by any railway company, the Board of Trade or the Railway Commissioners, as the case may be, may order the company to provide such accommodation or workmen's trains at such fares as, having regard to the circumstances, may appear to the said Board or the Commissioners to be reasonable.

"(3.) If any company on whom an order is made under this Act to provide proper and sufficient accommodation or workmen's trains refuse, or at any time after the expiration of one month from the making thereof, neglect to comply with the order, the Board of Trade shall issue a certificate to that effect to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and after the date of such certificate the company shall lose the benefit of this Act and be liable to pay in respect of the fares received after such date the same amount of passenger duty as would be payable if the passenger duty had not been varied as provided by this Act, and shall continue so liable in respect of all fares received up to the date at which the Board of Trade certify that the company lies complied with the said order. Where two or more companies are concerned, the certificate shall state whether both or all, or one or more, and which of them is in default.

"(4.) A company on whom an order is made by the Board of Trade under this section may within six months after the making of the order appeal to the Railway Commissioners, who shall have the same power in the matter as if it had been originally referred to their decision.

"(5.) The Board of Trade or the Railway Commissioners, as the case may be, may rescind or vary any order made by them under this section."

He thought the section both proper and moderate, and it was impossible to make a substantial grievance out of it. If it erred at all, it erred on the side of leniency. The 4th clause was entirely to the advantage of Railway Companies, enabling them to charge higher fares in certain circumstances. The Government load undertaken to provide a remedy for a state of things which Sir Stafford Northcote, so long ago as April, 1877, had declared ought not to continue. The Government had attempted a remedy, and he trusted it might prove efficacious.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
called attention to the Constitutional question involved in tacking to a Money Bill matters which thus were removed from the consideration of their Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he could not help thinking the noble Earl had entirely mistaken the character of the Bill. He was just as anxious as the noble Earl was that the rights of that House should not be interfered with. The Bill was as distinctly a remission of 2065 taxation as anything could be. In the clause which his noble Friend desired to amend the substance was that the Railway Companies should obey the orders of the Board of Trade or of the Railway Commissioners as to the number of workmen's trains, and that if they did not do so they should not enjoy the remission of taxation. That, he thought, was as fair an arrangement as could be made.

§ LORD BRABOURNE
said, that as the decision of the House had been so clearly against him, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of another Division; but he must protest against the presence in a Money Bill of a clause which dealt, not with Imperial taxation, but only with railway rates and fares, which their Lordships had as good a right to discuss as the other House of Parliament; and he should like to hear from the Government what justification 2066 there could be for this clause appearing in the present Bill?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
pointed out that the Bill was in the nature of a bargain with conditions on both sides, and the clause was an integral part of the arrangement.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
pointed out that exactly the same objection applied to this Amendment. The clause provided for the conveyance of troops by the Railway Companies; and, in the case of a Company which did not comply with orders made by the Act, it left the incidence of taxation, and the terms on which troops were to be conveyed, the same as at present.

CONTENTS.
Selborne, E. (L. Chancellos.)	Churchill, L.
	Coleridge, L.
	Harlech, L.
Grafton, D.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Camperdown, E.	Lovat, L.
Derby, E.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Granville, E.
Haddington E.	Methuen, L.
Kimberley, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Northbrook, E.	Norton, L.
Stanhope, E.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Sydney, E.
	Reay, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Ribblesdale, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Sherbrooke, V.
	Sandhurst, L.
Alcoster, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Thurlow, L.
Carlingford, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Carrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Blantyre, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Brabourne, L. [Teller.]
Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)	Ventry, L.
	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]
Stanley of Alderley, L.