Lords Sitting of 1 April 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Army (Annual) * (55); Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment* (51).
Committee—Railway and Canal Traffic (32–60).
Committee—Report—Sheriffs (Consolidation) * (50); County Courts (Expenses)* (48).
Third Reading—Church Patronage * (52); Lunacy* (8), and passed.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BRABOURNEbegged to ask the Lord Privy Seal a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. In the report of the able speech of his noble Friend on the previous evening, in introducing the Irish Land Law Bill, he was represented in the usual channels of information as having said that the clauses relating to equitable jurisdiction would only be applicable to holdings of an annual value of more than £25; as, from the general tenour of the observations of his noble Friend, he (Lord Brabourne) thought there must have been some misapprehension upon this point, he wished to ask for an explanation.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): The Question of my noble Friend gives me an opportunity, of which I am glad to avail myself, of explaining the point to which I have referred. There has certainly been some mistake in what I am supposed to have said with reference to the value of holdings to which the equitable jurisdiction clauses of the Irish Land Bill will refer. Those clauses will be limited in their application to all holdings the rent of which does not exceed £50 a-year.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL
  (The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
  (NO. 32.) COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).

  PART II.—TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD, in moving the insertion of a clause before Clause 24, said, that the cost of providing stations was mentioned in the Bill as being a legitimate subject for making terminal charges. The object of the Amendment was to define what charges were to be included in the maximum rate or toll. The effect would be to restore the law to what it had been before the decision in Hall's case, by which the decision of the House of Lords had been reversed by an inferior Court, to the great alarm and dismay of all traders. An expensive station might be erected and the rates thereby materially increased on all classes of goods, although some of them might not benefit in any way by the erection of a station. It seemed to him that a classification covered terminal charges.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 26, after ("Part II. Traffic") insert following clause:—"23A. The maximum toll, rate, or charge contained in every Act of Parliament relating to railways and canals in the United Kingdom shall include the charges for station accommodation, use of sidings, weighing, checking, clerkage, lighting, watching, and labelling goods, and no railway company or canal company shall be entitled to make any additional charges for such services or any of them.
  "Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall hereafter be read and construed as if the words 'and provide all reasonable works, machinery, and conveniences' were inserted in the said section immediately after the word 'facilities' and before the words 'for the receiving and forwarding and delivery of traffic'"—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the 43rd clause contained a definition of "terminal charges," and it would be far more convenient if his noble Friend would postpone the discussion upon this point until the Committee had arrived at that clause. By the 15th clause of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1873, the Commissioners were empowered to decide disputes as to terminal charges, and their jurisdiction was extended by Clause 10 of the present Bill. It was impossible to add the definitions proposed without creating confusion and inflicting injustice. There was no wish on the part of the Railway Companies to do anything dishonest; but a great many services were now performed by the Railway Companies which were not contemplated when the maximum rates were fixed, and in respect of which they were entitled to some remuneration. It appeared to him that there was no necessity for this new clause, and that the subject was sufficiently dealt with in other parts of the Bill, and, at all events, he urged that any discussion upon these points would be more fitly postponed until the Committee came to the Definition Clause.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he supported the Amendment, for he thought the law on the question of terminals was now in a most unsatisfactory condition, and it was desirable the matter should be dealt with. It was quite fair that Railway Companies should be allowed to charge for warehousing; but it was absolutely essential to have a clear definition in the Bill as to what terminal charges were to be.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not object to the principle of the noble Earl's Amendment; but noble Lords sitting in that part of the House were quite in the dark as to the exact nature of his proposal, as they could not hear his statement, and the clause was not on the Paper.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was not at all sure that the clause, as now framed, would carry out the object the noble Earl had in view, as it would only apply to future Acts of Parliament, and not to those already in existence. With respect to the question of terminals, he (Lord Herschell) agreed that the law with respect to them was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and as it was very desirable that the question should
  190
  be settled it would be well that the Legislature should deal with them by the Bill.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the noble Earl's Amendment would have the effect of preventing all Railway Companies from making these charges, notwithstanding that it had been held that the London and Brighton Railway Company had a right, under the terms of their Act, to make terminal charges. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, would be to take from that Company a right which the law said they possessed. For himself, he should have thought that no Railway Company had power to make these charges at present, unless specially empowered by the Act.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that the subject might be more conveniently discussed when they came to the Definition Clause.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he opposed the clause on the ground that it was a question which ought to be left to the Commissioners. They ought to have the power of saying whether station accommodation should be paid for or not.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsuggested that it should be left over for the Report.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, he fully concurred in the suggestion that that was not the most convenient way of discussing the question, which had better be left for the Definition Clause, or the Report.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that his opinion was generally in favour of the noble Earl the Mover of the Amendment; but he thought that the least likely way for him to get his view adopted was to force their Lordships to a Division upon his clause.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, the object of the Amendment was to say what was not to be included in terminal charges. He did not desire to define what were to be terminal charges.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, it would be very inconvenient if the Amendment were pressed at this stage. He would appeal to the noble Earl to withdraw it for the present, and to raise the question at the proper time—namely, on the Definition Clause.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and move it again on the Report.

  191
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 24 (Revised classification of traffic and schedule of rates).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in moving an Amendment to leave out the words "applicable thereto," in order to insert "equivalent to such rates and charges," said, he understood that the intention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was, that though the rates might be raised in some cases and lowered in others, yet, on the whole, the alteration should not prejudice the Railway Companies. The words "applicable thereto" did not seem to convey that intention very clearly, and he accordingly proposed the substitution of the words of the Amendment. That a new classification was necessary was not the fault of the Railway Companies, but was due to the fact that the present classification was not suitable to the circumstances of the time.
  Amendment moved, in page 8, line 34, leave out ("applicable thereto") and insert ("equivalent to such rates and charges.")—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, however desirous their Lordships might be not to interfere with the general result of the charges made, or with the rights of the Companies, on the faith of which so great an outlay had been made, he thought the words proposed were too limiting, and would bind more closely than was desirable. The proper words were, in his opinion, such classification as it would, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be just and reasonable to substitute for the existing maximum rates and charges, having regard to the general result of such rates and charges. While he did not desire to act in a spirit different from that which the noble Marquess gave him credit for, he could not ask the House to accept the Amendment.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, the words proposed might not be the best, but they could not be worse than the words in the clause. It was very consolatory to him to learn that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Preston) did not propose to reduce the profits of the Railway Companies. It was certain now that Parliament had not reserved to itself the right to reduce those rates, and the only reason for doing so was the great con-
  192
  venience of doing wrong in the matter. He would like to ask the draftsman what definite idea he attached to the words "just and reasonable." What on earth were "just and reasonable charges" in the abstract? He knew what were just and reasonable charges in fact, and they were the charges which, by law, Companies were entitled to make. "Just and reasonable" were equivalent to "fair." Had not their Lordships had enough of that word? Similar difficulties as arose on this word would arise if the words "just and reasonable" remained in the clause.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) argued that because the word "fair" in an Act of Parliament had given rise to difficulties, the interpretation of the words "just and reasonable" would occasion similar difficulties. The noble and learned Lord was somewhat sophistical. Would the noble and learned Lord venture to say that even now the Courts of Law had not often to determine the meaning of the phrase "just and reasonable?" His (the Marquess of Salisbury's) own impression was that they often had to do so; and there appeared nothing very extravagant in the idea that future Courts of Law might define it, even as past Courts of Law had already done: He sympathized with the general jealousy of the noble and learned Lord as to any interference with the rights of property; but care must be taken not to strain that principle too far. What had Parliament done with regard to the Railway Companies? It had taken away land belonging to other people and had given it to them at a certain price, and, at the same time, allowed them to charge certain rates in connection with the arrangement. By some that was regarded as a contract binding for all time, upon which those who took part in the enterprize had a right to depend; and if there were no other considerations to be borne in mind he should be very much inclined to share that opinion. But some weight should be given to the fact that Railway Companies were altogether artificial creations, and were, therefore, carried out of the field in which ordinary individuals were dealt with. The main point was,

  193
  that while there were a number of questions which the Board of Trade, as the organ of Parliament, might be fairly called upon to decide, their Lordships were not by this Bill giving any sanction whatever to the decisions at which the Board of Trade might arrive. All Parliament did was to tell the Board of Trade its opinion as to whether certain charges were, or were not, just and reasonable. If there were any charge which really injured the Railway Companies, or which vitiated the guarantee which Parliament had already given, Parliament would be called upon to refuse to enforce it, lest at some future time a fraud should be committed upon Railway Companies by a strained interpretation. But to refuse to allow the list to be prepared, lest Parliament should be weak enough to commit a fraud on the Railway Companies, appeared to be a very unnecessary distrust of their own Parliamentary powers.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONaccepted the principle of the Amendment, and would be quite willing to insert the necessary words. He hoped, however, that it would be withdrawn, in order that some better form of words might be adopted.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE, having referred to the effect of the Act of 1844, said, that while the Bill might not, in direct words, give power to Parliament to reduce the rates of the Railway Companies, it did so in effect. Power would be given to the Board of Trade to recommend a Parliamentary Committee to reduce the rates; and what chance, he would like to know, would a Railway Company have of protecting its interests in a dispute of that kind coming before a promiscuous Committee, mainly consisting of persons who represented everyone but the Railway Companies. It went without saying that they could not put a check on future Parliaments; but he was very desirous to put a check on future Boards of Trade in regard to this matter. By the Act of 1844 it was provided that the rates of Railway Companies should not be reduced, so long as they did not exceed 10 per cent, and the Standing Clause, adopted concurrently with the Act, obviously referred to that revision, and was merely intended to prevent future Companies from slipping more words into their Acts which they might plead against it. Now
  194
  they barely turned 4 per cent; and if the Board of Trade were to have the power of general revision, they would be empowered to commit what was nothing less than a robbery of the Companies as proprietors of property valued at upwards of £800,000,000. He had an Amendment on the Paper, in words copied from the Act of 1844, that no revision should be made which would be likely to diminish the divisible profits of the Companies.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that good causes sometimes suffered from over-zealous advocacy. He feared that was the position taken up by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Grimthorpe). He could not agree with his noble and learned Friend, and thought the words "just and reasonable" did afford some protection to the Companies. He was sure that none of their Lordships desired to injure the Railway Companies, in which so many of them were interested. The consideration of the Bill had drifted away from the particular Amendment into a general discussion, and he would suggest that the words "on the whole" should be prefixed to the words proposed to be inserted by his noble Friend. The words would then be—"On the whole equivalent to such rates and charges."
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, that although he had no right to speak for the Railway Companies, he might mention that they had no desire whatever to strain their rights. It was quite possible that they were a little sensitive with regard to the interpretation of the words '' just and reasonable;'' but he did not think their Lordships need be much surprised at that. He was not wedded in any way to particular words of his Amendment; and as he understood the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had, in effect, accepted the principle of his proposal, he was prepared to withdraw it in favour of such more suitable words as might be suggested.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKhoped that, as the discussion had proceeded at such length, this point should be now settled. He might incidentally remark, in answer to an observation of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Grimthorpe), that many of their Lordships had very considerable interest in Railway Companies. They, fortunately, had no desire to cheat them.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Undue preference in case of unequal rates and charges and unequal services performed).
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he would move an Amendment with a view to guarding against agreements between a Company and a trader for a secret "drawback."
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 25, after ("lower") insert ("or charges, and whether by way of rebate, discount, drawback, overweight, allowance or otherwise.")—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he must point out to his noble Friend that if it were entirely secret no Act of Parliament could affect it; but if it could be proved, then it would constitute an undue preference. He would add that the Commissioners had power to compel the Companies to produce their books.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he would propose an Amendment, the object of which was to limit the operation of the clause relating to "undue preference" to "competing" traders. The clause was framed so as to throw the onus on the party accused of showing that he was not guilty. As this was contrary to the general policy of the English law, they ought to be as careful as possible what they admitted within that rule. The clause, as it stood, might work injustice. The Select Committee of 1882 had reported that "inequalities of charge"—that was, special rates—were often "to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of the public;" and this was undoubtedly the case, and one illustration would be better than a long argument. He knew of a case where a Railway Company charged 2s. 6d. a-ton for coals carried to one district, while to another district they charged 3s. 6d. In the one case a constant and large demand for coal by a particular trade justified the lower rate, whilst both rates were well within their legal maximum. In many instances there might very well be good reasons for this difference, such as difference of gradients or a smaller amount of traffic. If they were to say that there must be no difference between
  196
  rates to traders who were not competing, the simple result would be that the Rail way Company would raise its lower rate to the level of its higher one, by which action the trades which had been supplied at the lower rates might be crippled or destroyed. This was an instance of the difficulty of interfering with the details of the internal working of a great industrial undertaking, by which much mischief might be caused.
  Amendment moved, in page 9, line 27, leave out ("other"), and insert ("competing.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he was unable to see any advantage in the proposed Amendment, and he could not help thinking that it was also inconsistent with some of the clauses which their Lordships had already passed.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, if their Lordships remembered the enormous distances over which some railways extended, he thought they would agree that it did not signify to a trader at one end of the railway what rate a trader at the other end got his goods carried for, so long as he was not a competing trader.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEaid, the introduction of the word "competing" would deprive a private person of the advantage of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit Sub-section 2, which was as follows:—
  "In deciding whether a lower charge or difference of treatment does or does not amount to an undue preference, the Court having jurisdiction in the matter, or the Commissioners, as the case may be, may, so far as they think reasonable, in addition to any other considerations affecting the case, take into consideration whether such lower charge or difference of treatment is necessary for the purpose of securing the traffic in respect of which it is made,"
  said, that his object in making this provision was to withhold from the Railway Companies the power of favouring one district at the expense of another, and of giving undue preference to the carriage of foreign produce over our own. If this sub-section remained in the Bill, it would, to a great extent, nullify the 1st sub-section, which was aimed at undue preference. As an instance of the undue preference that now prevailed, he might mention that, whereas the

  197
  Railway Companies charged 25s. per ton for the conveyance of foreign meat from Liverpool to London, they charged no less than 50s. per ton for the carriage of English, meat. That was not reasonable treatment which the English trader could put up with. Undue preference was contrary to the Act of 1854; but if this sub-section were passed it would give Parliamentary sanction to what had hitherto been contrary to the intentions of Parliament. He did not urge that there should be equal mileage rate; but he contended that the Commission should be empowered to consider whether every preference was undue or unreasonable. If there were many cases such as he had quoted still in existence, it was not surprising that the great majority of the trading public wore of opinion that these rates were contrary to justice. A simple rule ought to be laid down that Railway Companies should not have power to favour one district at the expense of another, or give facilities to one trader that they denied to others, or grant ''most favoured nation "treatment to foreign produce.
  Amendment moved, in page 9, line 35, leave out Sub-section (2).—(The Earl of Jersey).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Amendment. In cases where there were differential rates, they were made because the Railway Companies would not otherwise get the traffic. Nothing could better illustrate the unreasonableness of the cry about undue preference than a case which appeared in The Times that day. It appeared that coals from North Wales were carried to Birkenhead for 2s. per ton for the whole distance, or about ¾d. per ton per mile. South Wales coals were taken to Birkenhead, from eight to ten times the distance, for a charge of 6s. per ton for the whole distance, or only three times as much as the charge from North Wales. And why was that done? Because, if the Railway Company did not make this reduction in their charge per mile for the long distance coal, that coal would not go to Birkenhead at all, and the only persons benefited would be the North Wales coalowners, who, being freed from the competition with the South Wales coal, would be able to raise their prices. He denied that that would be any benefit
  198
  to the consumer. It had been said that it was very hard upon the English grazier that American beef should be landed at Liverpool and should be brought by railway thence to London at a lower rate than that paid by the English producer. Why did the Railway Companies carry the American beef at a less rate than English beef? It certainly was not out of any love for the American grazier or the importer; but it was because, if they did not do so, the American beef would go straight to London by ship instead of being landed at Liverpool. That would be a gain, not to the consumer, but to the shipowners who traded between New York and London. These differential rates were made, not for the sake of the persons who appeared to benefit by them, but because the Railway Companies would not get the traffic unless they made them. What would a good paterfamilias do in this matter supposing he had the regulation of all these things? Would it not be reasonable of him to say to the South Wales coalowners—" You are at a long distance from an excellent market for your goods, and we will endeavour to give you some compensation by providing that your coals shall be taken to Birkenhead at a less rate than that which is charged the North Wales coalowners." It had been said that the consequence of carrying from a long distance at a low rate was that the Railway Companies were obliged to charge a higher rate for the shorter distance; but it was nothing of the sort. Let him speak with regard to this matter with a cynical plainness. The reason that the Railway Companies charged a high rate to the North Wales coalowner was because they had a right to make that high charge, and could do it, and if they could charge more they would do so; and the reason why they did not charge a higher rate from South Wales was because, though they had a right to charge more, they could not get more; if they could they would. He might take the opportunity of saying, in reply to an observation of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) earlier in the evening, that he did not, for one moment, deny the power of Parliament to modify the railway rates and charges making compensation. He opposed the Amendment, because he believed that the omission of

  199
  the sub-section would take away from the Railway Companies the right which, according to decisions already given in the Courts of Law upon Acts of Parliament, they possessed, as a means of eking out the miserable dividends they earned. It would entail an absolute loss and detriment upon the consumer, and the only persons who could possibly gain by it would be those who were at a less distance from the markets of consumption than others.
  LORD BRABOURNEremarked, that this was not a question between the traders and the Railway Companies, but between the traders and the public, and in justice to the latter he felt bound to oppose the Amendment. Where there was undue preference the law now provided a remedy. He entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite, that in all cases the Railway Companies charged as high rates as they could charge consistently with the maintenance and development of their traffic; but in the question now before the Committee their interests were identical with that of the public—namely, that by special rates they should be able to bring larger supplies into the markets from a distance. There was no need for any concealment in the matter; every Railway Company desired to get over its line as large an amount as possible of remunerative traffic, but competition kept rates down, and the protest against special low rates for long distances really meant a desire on the part of traders residing near the markets for a protective duty in their own favour. There ought to be some discretion left in the hands of those who managed these great Companies with regard to the regulation of their rates. He strongly supported the retention of the sub-section, and stated that he withdrew his Amendments to it, as they were entirely met by words to which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had consented, providing that the Commissioners should take into consideration whether lower rates complained of were charged in the interest of the public.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, if the noble Earl (the Earl of Jersey) went to a Division, he should vote with him, on the ground that the 1st sub-section alone would give the proper authority power to take into consideration all reasonable matters. The 2nd sub-
  200
  section was perfectly new, and went a long way to strike at the present law of undue preference.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he differed from the view of the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Selborne). He believed that this question affected trader and trader, district and district, infinitely more than it affected railways, because particular districts and particular traders might be ruined. If the 1st sub-section were passed without qualification, the contest would be no longer between the Railway Companies and the traders. It would be a matter of trader and trader, town and town, district and district, and the whole of the trade of the country would be dislocated. He quite admitted the preferential treatment of foreign goods as against British, which had excited a good deal of feeling. There might be something in the nature of a bounty created by those preferential rates in favour of the foreigner. He would object to exclude from the 2nd sub-section the whole of that case. Suppose a Staffordshire coalowner were to say to a Railway Company—"You bring my coal to London at a higher rate than yon charge for Wigan coal. That is an undue preference." How could the Railway Company defend itself? The railway Company was denied the right of showing that if they charged Wigan coal the same rate of mileage as the Staffordshire coal, the Wigan coal would never come to London at all. What would be the effect on the Wigan coal trade and the Wigan coalowners? The Staffordshire coalowner would benefit, because he would be saved from the competition of the Lancashire coalowner, but what would the Lancashire coalowner say if he were charged a prohibitive rate with regard to the London market? Again, Staffordshire wanted to get its iron to the sea. How was it to compete with the Lancashire ironmaster, who was near to the sea, if there was no difference of rate? In the one case the Staffordshire coalowner would be benefited at the expense of the Lancashire coalowner; in the other, the Lancashire ironmaster would be benefited at the expense of the Staffordshire ironmaster. People were not awake to the effect; they had not thought out how it would work, if every person could claim the same treatment in mileage rates.

  201
  Again, Lancashire and Staffordshire were on the same railway, and therefore the Staffordshire coalowner could complain of undue preference shown to his rival, if the Lancashire coalowner was charged a lower mileage rate; but if Yorkshire coal was brought to London at a lower rate he could not complain, because the Yorkshire coal was not carried on the same line of railway. The great reasons which Railway Companies had for charging different mileage rates was to secure traffic, and why should the Legislature step in and interfere to disturb the natural laws that otherwise applied to the case? The more he had considered this matter, the more he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to conceive how far-reaching the consequences of such interference would be. It would injure trade, it would operate against the interests of particular districts, it would be disastrous to particular traders, and it would be opposed to the interests of the Railway Companies. Moreover, he contended that there was no necessity for this interference. He thought the sub-section needed amendment, to exclude the cases which the noble and learned Lord had referred to, and he should be willing to see the sub-section excluded from particular application to the first case mentioned in the 1st sub-section. The rest of the sub-section ought to stand with the modification that had been suggested. That was to say, that while objecting to the total abolition of the rates, he should be in favour of their abolition so far as they favoured the foreign producer as against the home producer.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down (Lord Horschell), but he had by no means been convinced by it. The noble and learned Lord commenced by throwing away more than half of his case.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Oh, no.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: At any rate, the noble and learned Lord threw away a very important part of his case. He (the Earl of Camperdown) was himself by no means in favour of allowing foreign goods to be carried on more favourable terms than British goods; but, according to the noble and learned Lord's argument, why not? The
  202
  foreigner had the advantage of his geographical position, to which his noble and learned Friend alluded. Why should he not be allowed the benefit of it?
  LORD HERSCHELL: Because he is not subject to the same taxation.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat is the old argument of Protection.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to explain I did not put this as a matter which I advocated at all. I said myself that, on strict principles of political economy, it might be objectionable; but that there was a very strong feeling in the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was content to take the argument that way. He assured his noble and learned Friend that there was a most excessive feeling on the matter throughout the United Kingdom. Many persons seemed to think that the feeling was limited to a small class; but he could assure the noble and learned Lord that he had heard it, not only in agricultural and commercial circles, but elsewhere, over and over again. He must confess that hitherto he heard no sufficient answer to the course which the Railway Companies had taken. The noble and learned Lord admitted, that as this question of carrying foreign goods cheaper than British goods had of late become so unpopular, and had produced such an outcry throughout the country, it might be expedient to withdraw that power from the Railway Companies; but then his second argument was that of the consumer, and he said—"If I am not allowed to carry Wigan coals at a lower rate than Staffordshire, Wigan coals cannot come to London." The consumer did not object to low rates. What the producer said was this— "If you are to be content with a low rate at Wigan, and if it pays you to carry at a low rate from Wigan, why cannot you extend that same rule to me?" The fact was that the Railway Companies appealed to the consumers in the one case, and to their own shareholders in the other. With regard to the Wigan coals, they said to the consumer—"Well, you see, consumer, we are consulting your interest. We Railway Companies are most impartial and patriotic people, and we wish to benefit you." On the other hand, they turned round to the shareholder, and said—

  203
  "Oh, shareholders, that is quite true that we make very little profit, or, perhaps, no profit at all out of carrying this Wigan coal; but we will make it up in the rates. We shall put on the Staffordshire coal." Practically, that was what they did, and that was practically what was admitted by the noble and learned Lord, when he said that the Railway Companies charged them rates because they had the power to do it. Another argument that was used was this. Trade had grown up in particular localities on the faith of certain arrangements, and, therefore, Parliament had no power to alter that arrangement. If it were true, as was stated, that preferential arrangements were made for the carriage of coal in favour of the town of Newcastle, as against the town of Hull, were those arrangements to be perpetuated for ever; and if it were true that millions of money had been laid out by the town of Newcastle in the making of railways, was Parliament for that reason to be precluded from insisting that Railway Companies should act in an impartial manner between the town of Newcastle and the town of Hull? Was it not by far the more proper attitude of Parliament to care neither for the town of Newcastle nor for the town of Hull, and to insist that Railway Companies, which were common carriers, and which enjoyed, to a certain extent, a monopoly, should deal fairly and equally between their different customers? The introduction of the principle that lower rates might be charged for the purpose of securing the traffic was absolutely new of railway legislation. Hitherto, the principle had been that rates were to be reasonable; and if now their Lordships said that, in order to secure traffic, Railway Companies might charge one rate in one part of the country, and a different rate in another, they would be taking a highly inexpedient course.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he joined issue entirely with his noble Friend who had just sat down, and thought the question ought to be considered from the point of view of the consumer as well as of the trader. This was not a question for the carriers, or for the traders. It was undoubtedly a question in which a much larger body, including the consumers, were interested. He sympathized with those
  204
  who, living in agricultural districts, saw produce from elsewhere pass their doors at cheaper rates than they could supply them. But if there were no differential rates as between long and short distances, enormous injury would be done to several trades—for example, milk, fish, and greengrocery, all of which were exclusively British. The foreign goods carried on our railways bore a very small proportion to the British, being only about 25,000,000 tons as compared with 257,250,000 tons. If this subsection were struck out, their Lordships would deliberately declare that they wished to exclude competition. The complaint of a great many of the deputations which waited upon him was, not that the rates were differential, but that they were not sufficiently differential with regard to long distances. Hitherto, all legislation had been directed against giving a monopoly. Were their Lordships, by throwing out the sub-section, going to turn round and supplant all the decisions which Parliament had arrived at in former times? Competing lines had always been encouraged, and some persons thought they had been almost unduly encouraged; but there was one branch of competition with which no legislation could deal, and that was our insular position. If the sub-section were thrown out, and the Railway Companies were not entitled to lower their rates in any cases, it would only be the Steamship Companies which would be benefited. It was in the interest of the general consumer that the clause was inserted, and he hoped their Lordships would pass it.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 11: Majority 38.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 2, add—" Provided that where for the purpose of securing traffic, or for any other reason, any railway company charge a lower toll or rate than the maximum between two distant places, no person consigning the same class of goods from any intermediate station between such places to the same place of consignment, shall be charged more then is charged between the two such distant places."—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD BRABOURNE, in opposing the Amendment, desired to give an instance

  205
  to show how it would work. Two railways ran from London to Bristol, the distance by one being 210, by the other 118 miles. To obtain through traffic, the railway with the longer mileage could only charge the same through rates as its rival. But if, by the noble Earl's clause, it was enacted that everybody who lived on the longer line, it might be 120, 150, or 180 miles from the terminus, should pay no higher rate than this, the result would be that the through traffic low charges would have to be abandoned, and the public would be deprived of the choice of a second route.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 2, at end of clause add—"Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall hereafter be read and construed as if the words 'or at the request of any trader' were inserted in such section immediately after the words 'at the request of any other such company' and before the words 'of through traffic'"—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (group rates to be chargeable by railway companies).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 19, at end of clause add—"Where any group rate exists, the consignor of any goods to a point of destination between the group and such point of destination shall not be charged more for the same class of goods than the group rate, and where any imported goods are carried to a group or district at a group rate, no person between the point of importation and the group or place of consignment shall he charged more than such group rate, and no group rate shall affect the tolls as between persons situated within the group as between places within such group."—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONopposed the Amendment, saying the Government could not accept it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Complaints to Board of Trade of unreasonable charges by railway companies).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in moving, said, that under the clause the expenses of the inquiry were to be borne by the Treasury. After the Board of Trade had made the inquiry at the ex-
  206
  pense of the Treasury, they were practically to got no further, because they had no power whatever to enforce any decision or opinion at which they might have arrived. All they could do was to attempt to reconcile the parties, and if they failed to do that, they had to make a Report to Parliament of every case which came before them. The great objection to the clause was, that it really imposed upon the Board of Trade functions which were entirely foreign to that Department; because every opinion expressed in this capacity by the Board of Trade would be tantamount to a decision on the merits of the case. It could not be otherwise. There would arise this condition of things. There was certain to be a conflict of opinion, if not a conflict of decision; because the Board of Trade would make a Report to Parliament, while the Party aggrieved would probably go before the Commissioners' Court and have his case tried over again, with the probability, or, at any rate, the possibility, of securing an entirely different decision. That could not fail to cause great confusion and litigation of a very harassing character. But not only would it do that, it would impose new and very arduous duties upon a Department of the Government which was already overburdened with work, for there was probably no Department in the country which had to perform more multifarious duties. This Bill would impose upon the Board the very heavy duty of reclassifying, and of revising all the rates and charges of the Railway Companies. That was in itself an enormous additional burden, and one which they would have very great difficulty in coping with. His third objection to the clause was, that it would inevitably encourage litigation, and litigation of a most costly kind. At present, railway litigation was a very expensive matter, and that was its chief check; but this Bill provided a sort of paradise of litigation, for all proceedings before the Board of Trade were to be taken, not at the expense of the parties, but at the expense of the Treasury; and when concluded, this litigation had the disadvantage of not binding the parties by the result. Upon the second reading of the Bill, this Committee of Inquiry was called an Arbitration Court; but it was by no means an Arbitration Court. A Court of Arbitra-

  207
  tion was a very valuable Court. It had this special advantage, that when a case was decided by it, it was decided for ever, and the parties were bound by the agreement, which could be enforced by a Court of Law. But nothing of the sort could occur in this Court of Inquiry. It was argued that in other countries this Court of Conciliation had answered, for example, in America, where it was first heard of. But the circumstances in America were entirely different. The reason for its establishment there was, because at that time there was no other Court to go to, and certainly so unpractical a proposal as the establishment of a powerless Court alongside a Court of Law would never have entered into the American mind. This Court would have power to annoy Railway Companies and not sufficient power to benefit the public.
  Moved, "To omit the clause."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, that a similar clause was in the Bill of last year; but he felt bound to say there was a great deal to be said from the point of view of the noble Marquess, although its operation might prove exactly opposite to that described by his noble Friend. It was a matter upon which there was a great diversity of opinion, and it was thought that this means of investigating complaints would save the Railway Companies considerable litigation; but if the noble Marquess was of a different opinion, the Government had no desire to support the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should offer no opposition to the omission.
  Motion agreed to; Clause struck out.
  Clause 28 (Annual returns by railway companies to contain such statistics as the Board of Trade shall require).
  LORD BRABOURNE, in moving the omission of Sub-section 1, said, it was impracticable, and that it would cause a useless and enormous expense to the Railway Companies.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, but he would undertake to consider what modification could be made in the words of the Sub-section upon the Report.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, leave out Sub-section 1.—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Publication of all tolls and charges).
  On the Motion of The Lord BRABOURNE, Clause struck out.
  Clauses 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Returns by canal companies).
  On the Motion of The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, Amendment made, in page 13, line 27, after ("stopped"), insert ("for more than two days").
  LORD GRIMTHORPE, in moving to omit Sub-section 5 altogether, contended that it was unnecessary that notice of the stoppage of a canal should be given to the Board of Trade, as the public could be better informed of it by the Canal Company.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, to leave out Sub-section (5).—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, that, unfortunately, some canals had got into certain hands in which they were not treated in the most friendly manner. Repairs were sometimes unduly prolonged, and it was desirable the Board of Trade should have notice of the time for which it was intended to stop the canal.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEalso moved to omit Sub-section 6, which made Companies and their officers, failing to comply with the requirements of the section, and not giving the Board of Trade the notices therein enumerated, liable to a penalty of £5.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, to leave out Sub-section (6).—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, there was no way of enforcing the provisions of the section. But he promised to re-consider it.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 34 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
  Postponed Clause 20 agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday the 21st instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 60.)

CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN—PROCLAMATION OF A HOLY WAR.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government had received any information as to the reported proclamation of a Holy War against Russia by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the alleged disturbances in that country, as stated in recent telegrams in the public Press?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am not unaware of the rumours as to the proclamation of a Holy War to which the noble Lord refers, but I do not attach importance to them. They have not been in any way confirmed, or even commented upon by the Government of India, and I do not believe that the Ameer of Afghanistan has any hostile intentions whatever towards Russia. With regard to the alleged disturbances in Afghanistan, some rumours were reported to the Indian Government a short time ago, but of late no more has been heard of them, and I have reason to suppose that tranquillity has been maintained.

ALLOTMENTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I rise to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with the question of allotments? I ask the Question because it seems to me that an Answer given a short time ago to a similar Question was somewhat ambiguous. The Lord President of the Council said it would not be brought in before Easter, but he did not say whether it would be brought in after Easter. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) declared that the introduction of such a Bill would depend upon the state of Business in "another place," and that he could not pledge himself to anything definite. This question of allotments is one of great importance. It affects the welfare of a large and well-deserving set of men, and I venture to think it affects us on this side of the House, and our credit as a Party who are anxious, as far as practicable, to fulfil in Parliament pledges which we have made in the country. No question of domestic policy, leaving Ireland on
  210
  one side, has attracted so much attention as this question of allotments. The Prime Minister mentioned it long ago in his speech at Newport. It was given a prominent place in the Dartford speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, a speech in which he set out the programme of the Government. That programme was fully endorsed by the present Leader of the House of Commons, who, shortly after The Dartford speech, declared that Lord Randolph Churchill spoke with the "knowledge and assent and consent" of all his Colleagues. The Government fulfilled their pledges to a certain extent by giving the question of allotments a prominent place in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I believe a great expectation has been raised in the minds of the agricultural population on this question. With few exceptions there is a consensus of opinion that a large and comprehensive measure—a measure containing provisions which ensure that labourers can obtain sufficient allotments at reasonable rents—is desirable and necessary; and I am sure that such a measure will have the best effect on the population, will educate them in the best sense of the word in self-respect and self-reliance, and make them feel that a responsibility rests upon them as respectable citizens, and will not fail to have a good effect in giving stability and vitality to the whole land system. I can well understand that there will be great difficulty in getting many measures through the other House, but that difficulty is all the more reason for bringing a measure of this kind into this House. We have ample time. We have passed measures of great importance, and we hare two Bills of first-class importance before us now, one dealing with land in Ireland and the other dealing with the transfer of land—a Bill which affects primarily the landlords—and I think it would be an expedient thing that a Bill of this kind affecting those engaged in agriculture at the other extreme of the social scale should be brought into Parliament this Session. I hope the Government will recognize the importance of this question and will introduce a Bill of this kind into this House, and even if it passes this House and does not pass the other, I do not see that the question would be any worse off than if it was not included at all.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I quite concur with my noble Friend as to the great importance of this subject, and that it is one of the subjects which the Government hoped to have dealt with; but, whatever its importance, nothing will make it pass through Parliament this Session unless the state of Business in the other House is such as to enable the Government to carry it through. I am afraid that in the present state of affairs I cannot give any other answer to my noble Friend than that which I gave the other night, that such a Bill depends upon the state and progress of Business in the other House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday the 18th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.