HL Deb 29 March 1887 vol 312 cc1745-61

Establishment of Railway and Canal Commission.

Clause 2 (Establishment of now Railway and Canal Commission).

THE EARL OF JERSEY

said, he moved to omit the first "three" and to insert "two," as he thought two appointed Commissioners with a Judge of the Supreme Court to preside on all occasions would he much better than having such a Judge to preside every now and then. It was for the interest of all that the Court should be a strong one, and he was sure that his noble Friends who took special care of the railway interest would agree with him that it was essential that the new tribunal should be one which would inspire confidence. The fact of one of Her Majesty's Judges being a Member of the Commission would give it a status which it would not otherwise possess.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, leave out the first ("three") and insert ("two.")—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he had spoken in that sense on the second reading of the Bill, and he supported the Amendment in the interests of traders and economy. The proposed change would be of advantage to all the parties who came before the tribunal. The existing Railway Commissioners sat on 30 days in 1873; on 114 days in 1874; on 88 days in 1876; on 81 days in 1877; on 42 days in 1878; on So days in 1879; on 30 days in 1880; on 49 days in 1881; on 48 days in 1882; on 42 days in 1883; on 59 days in 1884; on 44 days in 1885; and on 23 days in 1886. It was obvious that if the tribunal had a legal Commissioner assisted by a Judge in all important matters there would be a great waste of judicial force. There would be a large number of days in the year on which the legal Commissioner would be entirely unoccupied: whereas, if they had a Judge in all cases, it seemed to him the Judge would be able to do the whole of the work of the Commission; and, in addition, he could do a great deal of most excellent public work in performing the ordinary duties of a Judge of the High Court. It would, therefore, be an economical arrangement to the public to have the Chief Commissioner a Judge.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, the noble Earl, in introducing the Bill, said the Commission had worked satisfactorily; but the opinions of at least some of the counsel who practised before it did not bear out that statement. He did not see why those questions should be tried in a different way from the ordinary cases which came before the Courts of Law. To have a Judge to preside would involve no extra expense, because, when not engaged in the railway business, he could perform ordinary judicial duties. If it were thought desirable that a Judge should have assessors that could be provided for, as in the case of the Admiralty Division of the High Court. The Amendment seemed to him a desirable one.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)

said, it had been the wish of the framers of the Bill to make the Court as strong as possible, so that it should have the complete confidence of those—traders and others—who resorted to it. The proposed form would, in his opinion, tend to a continuity in the decisions of the tribunal. He did not think the figures quoted by the noble Lord supported his conclusions, and he thought that they rather proved that the legal Commissioner would amply suffice for the work which had to be done. There would be many things to do which would not require the attendance of a Judge of the Supreme Court; but any man who had some legal knowledge would be able to transact the business, He submitted that the clause, as it stood, would be the most advantageous, would work satisfactorily, and would do all that the trading community required. He could not, therefore, agree to the Amendment.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he strongly maintained the necessity of having legal authority on the Commission. Lawyers were in the habit of seeing both sides of a question, which few of what lawyers called laymen were able to do, even if they were clergymen. In the long run, it would be far cheaper to have a good Judge constantly engaged in this tribunal, because there would then be fewer appeals. He did not see that it need add to the cost, seeing that such Judges already existed. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade had been induced to make the proposal contained in the Bill by people who wanted a strong Court—not a legal one, and strong enough to overrule law and everything else. It was put forward as a reason for continuing the present Railway Commissioners in office, or some of the same kind, that they had a great deal more experience in railway matters than Her Majesty's Judges. Were their Lordships aware of the nature of the decisions given by them? In one case they ordered the South Eastern and the London. Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies to expend money in making a new station. Luckily, in that case there was a remedy by prohibition, and they wore told they could do nothing of the kind. If it were left to the discretion of Sir Frederick Peel and Mr. Price, the aid of a Judge would never be invoked. That was shown by the fact that in nearly every case in which there was a discretionary appeal they refused to allow it. There were other reasons why a Judge should be placed permanently on this tribunal. Many fresh matters, some of which had hitherto been under the sole cognizance of the Courts, were to be placed in the jurisdiction of the new tribunal created by the Bill. They were to have authority in the matter of parish rates; they were to decide on the expediency of new works; and they were to decide as to what were reasonable facilities and undue preferences. These were not powers which should be intrusted to a tribunal not presided over by a Judge. The fact was that traders really wanted protection, and to have the legitimate effect of rail- way competition in reducing rates abolished. The only persons qualified to decide questions of mixed law and fact in a manner which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned were Judges.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

maintained that the railway and trading interests would be better satisfied by the Court as constituted by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Preston). He did not know whether the noble Lord who had just spoken was against the proposed tribunal altogether, or only against that particular form of it which was touched by the Amendment. He was aware that there were some persons who attached more importance to the decision of a Judge than they did to that of a jury. But the question was whether, when they were about to erect a new tribunal, it was not better to appoint at its head those who were familiar with the peculiar class of questions that would have to come before it? The noble Lord had remarked that a Judge would cost nothing, because we had plenty of them already; but the fact was, that our Judges had at present more work than they could get through, and that was the reason why the arrears of causes in the Courts had become almost a national scandal. If one of these Judges was to form part of the tribunal, he would have to accompany it to different parts of the country, so that the cost would certainly not be thereby decreased. The noble Lord had said that Judges would be better able to decide questions as to undue preference; but if some inflexible principle of law were to determine those questions this tribunal was not required at all; while if they were to be determined according to some equitable principle as between the railways and the traders, then a Judge would not be wanted. The noble Lord appeared to forget that under the present Bill an appeal was to be given in these cases for the first time. For his own part, he could not see that in a tribunal specially selected, with an appeal to the Judges, as was proposed by this Bill, there would be any element of weakness.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, that it was desirable to settle one thing at a time. The question immediately before their Lordships was whether there should be a Judge at the head of this Commission, and if it was decided in the affirmative, the details could easily be arranged. He (Lord Brabourne) would leave it to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to settle how the Judge should be obtained; and he could, at the same time, settle with his Colleagues whether, in all cases and in all parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, a jury was so infallible and superior a tribunal as he had seemed to indicate. This Commission would have to deal with cases which affected most important interests and property of very great magnitude, and such property and interests should not be dealt with by an inferior tribunal. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Grimthorpe) did not often understate a case; but in the instance which he had quoted—that of the Hastings case against the South Eastern and Brighton Companies—he had omitted one important point. In spite of the objection raised by the Companies, the Commissioners had insisted upon taking the facts before the points of law involved. For seven days they were thus engaged, and the parties were put to an entirely useless expense; because at the end of that time, their decision having been given against the Companies, the latter proceeded by way of prohibition, and the Superior Courts of Law reversed the decision, and pronounced that the Commissioners had acted ultra vires. This would never have happened if the Court had been presided over by a Judge. It was most desirable, in the interests of the public as well as of the Railway Companies and the traders, that this should be a strong tribunal; and, therefore, he was in favour of the proposal that it should be presided over by a Judge. He said that the Railway Companies desired that quite as much on behalf of the public as on their own behalf, and they did so emphatically in the interests of cheapness. For if the tribunal was strong, it would command the confidence of the suitors and the public, and the number of appeals would be much fewer than if the case were otherwise. He (Lord Brabourne) had not gathered from the speech of his noble Friend in charge of the Bill that he had a very strong feeling against the proposed alteration, and he earnestly pressed upon him its adoption.

LORD HENNIKER

said, that last year the traders were very much opposed to the appointment of a Judge upon this tribunal, and they still held that view. He hoped the Government would consider very carefully before agreeing to the appointment of a permanent Judge. The traders desired a tribunal that should be easily available, and not one that would entail great expense on those appearing before it—a Court, too, which would command the confidence of both the traders and the Railway Companies. At the same time, he believed the traders would be glad to give way to some extent, and would be content to accept the proposition of the noble Lord that a Judge should be called in on certain special occasions.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, that, in the interests of the traders, no useful purpose would be served by calling in a Judge for special occasions. He did not think that the cost of appealing to the Commission was likely to be greater because of a Judge being permanently appointed to preside.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECEETAHY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

said, the question appeared to be whether the Court ought to be dominated by a legal official or by expert laymen? So far as questions of policy were concerned—questions of policy as apart from the pure interpretation of the law—he apprehended that a body of expert laymen was as reliable a tribunal as a body of Judges. The only question was whether the intention of the Bill was purely to establish a tribunal to determine questions of law, or whether there was something beyond? If it were only to determine questions of law, why not go to the ordinary Courts of Law? Why need they have a special tribunal at all? In the determination of those questions some element of policy must be introduced. In the interpretation of the principles laid down in the exercise of the powers and discretion of the Commission there was an element of policy of a grave character in which the balance had to be held fairly between the two great and important interests of the trader and the Railway Companies—a policy which required knowledge of a special kind that Judges, with all their omniscience, did not possess in a greater degree than other subjects of Her Majesty. For those reasons it seemed to him that it was wise to provide that the expert element should predominate in the Court. As to the argument that if they were to have a lawyer they should have one of the best, his only answer to that was the question of expense, and who was to pay it. He did not feel any objection to a Judge as such; nor did he feel any objection to a£5,000-lawyer as compared with a £3,000-lawyer. It was very possible that the £5,000-lawyer might be the better lawyer of the two, but he certainly would cost £2,000 more. What he wished to impress upon their Lordships was that if they had a Judge they must have the whole of a Judge, as there was no portion of the existing judicial strength which could be cut off and applied to this purpose. He was not certain, however, that the same feeling would prevail in the other House. At the same time, if the House of Commons were inclined to appoint a special Judge, he was not disposed to withstand what appeared to be the dominant desire.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, the objection was that a Judge of an inferior character was to be appointed and was to sit with two laymen, who would hare an equal voice with him both on questions of law and fact.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved, in page 1, line 19, after the word ("shall") insert ("be a superior Court of record and.")—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, that the proposed Amendment would make a considerable alteration in the constitution of the Commission. He would, therefore, ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment at present, and it could then be considered on Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Appointment and tenure of office of ex officio Commissioners).

LORD GRIMTIIORPE

, in moving to leave out the words "styled the Chief Commissioner and shall be of experience in the law," in order to insert "a barrister who has been in practice for ton years," said, that if two members were lawyers, one of them being a Judge and the other a lawyer of experience, there was no objection to their being assisted by an expert. The question was whether the Court should be mainly legal or mainly non-legal.

Amendment moved, in sub-section (2), page 1, lines 25 and 26. leave out from ("shall") to ("law,") and insert ("a barrister who has had a practice for ten years.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of JERSEY, Sub-section 2 omitted.

Amendment moved, in page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out Sub-section C.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD FITZGERALD

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Appointment and attendance of ex officio Commissioners).

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 23, after ("years,") add— And in case of the inability of the ex officio Commissioner to attend, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord President of the Court of Session, or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as the case may be, may appoint another Judge as deputy for the one who is unable to attend, for such time as may be necessary."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

said, he would accept the Amendment, with the alteration that the Judge appointed should be "in lieu of" instead of "as deputy for" the one unable to attend.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD BRAMWELL

suggested that before Report this clause should be amended so that a Judge might not be appointed a Commissioner without his consent. That was done by Lord Cairns at his (Lord Bramwell's) suggestion, with reference to the Court of Appeal.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Cases requiring attendance of ex officio Commissioner) struck out.

Clause 6 (Sittings of Commissioners).

On the Motion of The Lord BRABOURNE, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 11, after ("preside ") insert ("and his opinion upon any question of law shall prevail.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provision for complaints by public authority in certain cases).

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

bogged to move an Amendment, the object of which was to give a locus standi before the Commissioners to any association of traders or freighters, or Chamber of Commerce or Agriculture, duly certificated by the Hoard of Trade as being associated. The Bill proposed to make it necessary that such association should receive a certificate from the Board of Trade that it was a proper body to make complaint, the object of the Amendment being to withdraw the option of refusal from the Board of Trade.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 25, leave out ("may obtain,") and insert ("shall have obtained.")—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, he objected to the Amendment on the ground that it went a great deal too far, and might cause great inconvenience.

Amendment negatived.

LORD BRABOUENE

said, that he had given Notice of Amendments requiring that authorities complaining of Railway Companies should show that their cases were proper subjects of complaint, and that those whom they represented had been aggrieved by the action of such Companies. As, however, he found that there wore practical difficulties in the way of these Amendments, and that the strengthening of the Court by the enactment that a Judge should preside would lessen the fear of ill consequences, he would withdraw those Amendments, and only move to amend the clause by inserting words requiring associations of traders and Chambers of Commerce and of Agriculture to give security for costs, so that the Companies might not be exposed to wanton attacks from penniless suitors.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 29, after ("determine,") leave out all the words to the end of the clause, and insert— ("Provided always that the Commissioners shall first be satisfied that such authority has, or those whom it represents have, been aggrieved by the matter complained of, and that such authority shall, previous to the hearing of the said complaint, give such secu- rity as may he approved of by the court for the costs of such hearing.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, he thought the proposal was a very strong one.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

thought that it would be impossible to obtain costs from these associations.

LORD HALSBURY

pointed out that the individual members of such associations might be made personally liable.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he was desirous that it should be clearly understood that the individual members of such associations were to be personally liable, in which case there would be no necessity for requiring security for costs.

LORD BRABOURNE

expressed himself satisfied with the understanding that the Government would introduce words carrying out the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

On the Motion of Lord STANLEY of PRESTON, Amendment made, in page 3, line 30, at end of clause, by inserting— ("And any of such authorities may appear in opposition to any complaint which the commissioners have jurisdiction to determine in any case where such authority, or the persons represented by them, may be aggrieved by any determination of the Commissioners upon such complaint.")

LORD BRABOURNE

said, he had a similar Amendment on the Paper; but he would accept that of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Preston) in lieu thereof.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Jurisdiction.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Jurisdiction over tolls and rates).

Amendment moved, In line 17, at end of clause, add—"In addition to the difference mentioned in section eight of the Railway Act, 1873, any difference arising between an individual, company, or corporation, and a railway company, under any agreement in writing between such individual, company, or corporation, shall be one of the matters of difference which shall, on the application of either party, be settled by the Commissioners. Section nine of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, shall be read so that the Commissioners shall hear and determine the difference therein referred to on the application of either party to the difference."—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

opposed the Amendment.

LORD BRABOURNE

also objected, on the ground that the tribunals selected by the parties to an agreement was often of the essence of the agreement, and it would be a strong and unjust measure to alter that tribunal, in the interest of one party to the agreement, by a clause in this Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert, after Clause 10, the following new clause:— A railway company shall, at the request of any person delivering or desiring to deliver to thorn goods for transmission, furnish a through rate, and shall, for that purpose, take such action as may be necessary under section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and section eleven of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and such person shall be entitled to be heard before and to obtain the decision of the Commissioners in relation to such through rate. The rate to he charged for the carriage of merchandise traffic shall be calculated by the shortest route for such traffic between the point of departure and the point of destination. He would observe that he had proposed the addition for the convenience of traders.

Loan BRABOURNE

said, that there was no difficulty in obtaining through rates at present where there was sufficient traffic to justify the demand. There was no public need of this clause, and a similar one, after full discussion, in 1873 had been refused.

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, he must oppose the introduction of the new clause on the ground that it was unnecessary.

New Clause negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to, with Amendments.

Amendment moved, In page 4, line 26, at end of clause, insert new clause—"11A. All questions arising under section seventy-six of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, who shall have power, notwithstanding the restrictions and conditions in such section, to make such order as they may think reasonable for enabling the junctions of the branch railways in such section referred to to be made with any railway at such point or points as the Commissioners may determine, and no agreement already made or to be made with any railway company shall prevent the use of any existing or future branch railway by any person or persons for any traffic which the owners of such branch railway may authorise, and every facility shall be given for the passing of such traffic on, to, and from the line of railway with which such branch railway communicates or shall hereafter communicate, and the before-mentioned section seventy-six and this Act shall apply to the making of branch canals to communicate with any existing or future canal: Provided that no future branch railway shall run parallel with the railway so as to compete for traffic with the railway."—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, he was unable to assent to the introduction of the clause, because the subject to which it related did not come within the proper scope of the Bill.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

said, he would appeal to his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), as representing the Railway Companies.

LORD BRABOURNE

stated that, in his view, the proposed clause would be an unwise and unjust interference with the engineering of railways, and would have a tendency to restrict the giving of sidings and other facilities by Companies. Extraordinary demands were made nowadays, and he had recently received a circular from a gentleman who proposed that Railway Companies should provide sidings at every station for the reception of perishable produce, to be sent off to market by the next available train. On the ground of safety, however, as well as for other reasons, the clause proposed by his noble Friend was open to grave objection.

New Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause 12 (Power to award damages).

LORD BRABOURNE,

who had an Amendment to substitute for (" for such damages as they may think fit") the words ("any damages to which he may be entitled by law,") said, he would withdraw it on the understanding that it should be considered on the Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Amendment moved, In page 4, line 32, at the end of clause, insert ("Provided that such damages shall not be awarded in respect of any matter arising more than one year before the complaint was made.")—(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, it was not clear that the word "damage" included "overcharge."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Orders on two or more Companies).

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he rose to move to add, at the end of the clause— But no company shall be required to execute any work which the Commissioners do not find and declare that they ought to have done out of their ordinary working expenses without raising any fresh capital. So far as he could make out there was no limit whatever on the powers of the Commissioners. They might order the Companies to make a new station, and there was to be no appeal from their decision. Nothing could be more serious than such a possibility. How were the Companies to raise the necessary capital if they had not enough to carry out the works ordered by the Commissioners? Some restriction ought to be put upon the unreasonable exercise of those powers.

Amendment moved, In page 5, line 2, add ("but no company shall be required to execute any work which the Commissioners do not find and declare that they ought to have done out of their ordinary working expenses without raising any fresh capital.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, that with regard to the Amendment of his noble Friend, he thought some limiting words would be required in some part of the section. Undoubtedly, as the words now stood, they were without limitation, and required some amendment. If the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and give him the benefit of his advice with regard to the matter, he would move an Amendment on Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Jurisdiction as to rating appeals).

LORD BRABOURNE

said, he wished to amend the clause by providing that rating appeals, to which any Railway Company was a party, should be transferred to the Commissioners, either on the motion of the Court of Quarter or Assessment Sessions itself, or upon the application of either party. As the clause stood, a Court of Quarter Sessions or Assessment Sessions could only transfer rating appeals to the Commission with the consent of both parties.

Amendment moved, In page 5, line 5, leave out ("with the consent of both parties,") and insert ("either of its own motion or upon the application of any party.")—(The Lord Brubourne.)

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, he would accept the Amendment now, subject to its being freely considered in ''another place."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

On the Motion of The Lord BRABOURNE, Clause 10 omitted.

Appeals.

Clause 17 (Appeals on certain questions to superior court of appeal).

LORD GRIMTHORPE

begged to move an Amendment permitting an appeal from the Commissioners to a Superior Court of Appeal on questions of fact. He contended that, considering the importance of many of the cases which would come before the Commissioners, and the fact that the majority of the Commissioners was not likely to be composed of lawyers, it was of extreme importance that appeals on questions of fact should be allowed.

Amendment moved, in page 6, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("upon a question of fact.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he should support the Amendment. In his opinion it was most unreasonable not to allow appeals on questions of fact. Confessedly, this tribunal would be an inferior one to the Superior Courts, and he could conceive no possible ground on which appeals on questions of fact, which existed and always had in the Superior Courts, should be denied in the admittedly inferior tribunal. Moreover, until an appeal was heard, it was impossible to say whether it was upon a matter of fact or law; but, as the Bill stood, the Court of Appeal, after hearing a case and coming to the conclusion that the Commissioners made a mistake of fact, would yet be powerless to interfere.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the object of not permitting appeals on questions of fact was to reduce the expenses of litigation as far as possible. Ho feared that if these appeals were allowed, the Railway Companies, having the longest purse, would render the cost of litigation with them so great that people would be afraid of seeking justice against them. The limitation of appeals to questions of law was not unknown in our legislation.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, that it was a dangerous doctrine that rich men should have a less effectual remedy than poor ones. Questions of law and fact were so mixed in these cases that unless an appeal was allowed on the facts justice could not be done. The present Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had expressed a strong opinion, before the Committee of 1882, that "an appeal, both in law and fact, from the Commissioners should be as of right." With regard to the long purse of the Railway Companies, it should be borne in mind that the expenses to which they wore put by these proceedings really fell upon their shareholders, many of whom were comparatively poor men, in the shape of diminution of dividends. He trusted the Amendment would be adopted.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 18: Majority 2.

Amendment disagreed to.

Amendment moved, In page 6, line 18, to leave out ("unless special leave be given by such Court to appeal to the House of Lords.")—(The Lord Henniker.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said, he thought that the noble Lord appeared to be unduly afraid of giving Railways a power of appealing to the House of Lords. During the last five years, although the Railway Companies had had the right to appeal in hundreds of cases in which they were concerned, they had only exercised that right in 12 instances, and the appeals against decisions in their favour had been 9. Where the parties had been left perfectly free, therefore, appeals had been very rare and infrequent. Leave to appeal would not be given in frivolous cases; it would only be granted when there was a really serious and important question of law to decide. If they rigidly shut the door to such appeals, they would have this difficulty—that when some important question had been decided, perhaps adversely to the traders, it would not be seen till afterwards, neither by those interested, nor even by the Court itself, how grave were the results of the decision that had been come to; and, in the absence of appeal, there would be no power of alteration or modification. The refusal of the power of appeal would tend to create a condition of uncertainty which would become a fruitful source of litigation.

LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON

said, he was decidedly opposed to the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19, separately, agreed to.

Clause 20 postponed.

Clause 21 (Appointment of officers, clerks, &c.)

Amendment moved, In page 7, line l5, after ("appoints") add:—"One of such officers, who is to be designated for that duty by the Chief Commissioner, shall be an ex officio member of the committee for (he time being acting under the Railway Clearing Act, 1850, and shall have access to all (he minutes of its proceedings, and shall be supplied with copies of all its bye-laws, resolutions, and regulations, and shall, subject to the approval of the Commissioners, give directions for the publication of such bye-laws, resolutions, and regulations as he shall judge to be of public interest."—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD BRABOURNE

said, he strongly objected to the Amendment, and thought his noble Friend could hardly be serious in proposing it. There was certainly an Act of Parliament which enabled the secretary of the Railway Clearing House to sue and be sued; but the association itself was of a voluntary character to facilitate the internal working of the Companies, and apportion the receipts of through traffic between the Companies interested. It had nothing to do with the relations between the Companies and the public; and if his noble Friend was right in principle, he did not go nearly far enough, but should, to be consistent, propose that an officer of the Court should be an ex officio member of every Railway Board. The clause was a monstrous one, and his noble Friend must have been imposed upon by some clever outsider, since he never would have proposed such a clause as his own idea.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23, severally, agreed to.

House resumed (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos sitting Speaker).

House to be again in Committee on Friday next.

Back to