Lords Sitting of 30 July 1891

Lord DUNSANY.—Lord MULGRAVE.
  CLAIMS TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
  Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Dunsany and the Lord Mulgrave to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Dudley, after the death of his father.
RETURNING OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 191.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No 269.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment.
COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 123.)
  SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. 233.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment to each Bill agreed to.
  CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 16.)
  Message from the Commons for Report, &c. of the Select Committee of this House: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
  METROPOLITAN HOSRITALS, &c.
  Message from the House of Commons for Report, &c. of the Select Committee of this House: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
    *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I wish to say one word, and I will not detain your Lordships one minute in saying it. I wish to say that the London County Council since its establishment has confirmed all the apprehensions felt by many and expressed by myself when the Bill for establishing it was in progress through this House. I ventured to predict that its members, or the majority of them, would court popularity by discussing questions beyond the range of the duties intrusted to them, and that they would waste precious time and let their business get into arrear. They did so in reference to the election of female Councillors, and the claim on the management of the police. I predicted that they would try to avoid unpopularity when they found themselves obliged to levy heavy rates by having recourse to confiscation. Your Lordships are all familiar with their betterment scheme—that was one kind of confiscation—and with their atttempt to pull down gates on private property without giving compensation, which was another kind. Happily they were unable to carry either of those attempts into effect. And I earnestly hope that the ratepayers of London will choose wiser, juster, and more economical County Councillors when the time of election comes.
    Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FOREIGN MARRIAGES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 282.)
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow: (The Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 283.)
  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SCOTLAND) WORKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Ker [M. Lothian]).
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    House in Committee (according to order).
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Schedule.
    *LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have an Amendment, the effect of which I admit at once is very considerable; but if it does nothing else, it will give the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill an opportunity of stating why it is that charges so exceptionally heavy upon the chief article of commerce in the South of Wales should have been inserted in this Bill. I will at once state what is the difference between the charges over the South Wales portion of the line and those on other parts of the Great Western system, and upon lines in other parts of England and Wales. The South Wales Railway was made in 1845–46 years ago. It ran from a place called Grange Court, not very far to the west of Gloucester, through the whole county of Monmouth, and the counties of Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, and Pembrokeshire, until it reached Milford. Its length was 164 miles, of which about half, that is to say, from Grange Court to Newport, was mainly through agricultural country, and another portion was also agricultural, from Carmarthen to Newport; but the railway between those two points, that is, between Newport and Carmarthen, traversed the rich basin of the South Wales Coalfield. In 1846 this basin was very slightly developed, and the population of Glamorgan, the most populous and important of all those counties, was very different to what it is now. I hold in my hand a
    708
    statement of the gradual rise in population in Glamorgan. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with it beyond saying this, that the population in Glamorganshire in 1841 was 171,000, and in 1891 it is 687,000, so that the population has quadrupled. The wealth of the district has increased in still greater proportion, and the coal trade, which was then very inconsiderable, has been stated, I believe not inaccurately, by persons who have the opportunity of knowing (that is, the coal trade which runs over that portion of the Great Western Railway which belongs to the South Wales district), as about 10,000,000 tons. The railways were amalgamated in 1855. At that time it is not a matter of surprise if the rate for carrying coal was somewhat high. The coal was undeveloped, and the district was, on the whole, a poor one, and the rate was fixed at 2d. It was fixed at 2d., however, I may add, without any terminal charge, and the railway found the wagons. In 1888 a Bill, as your Lordships well know, was passed, called the Railway Traffic and Canals Act, the object of which I have always understood was to assimilate as much as possible the charges for carrying goods of various descriptions in different parts of England. Now, to a great extent, with respect to five or six classes, this most desirable object has been effected, and the rates are the same everywhere. But the important articles of commerce in South Wales are coal and iron, and here one finds a very broad discrepancy. I daresay the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will be able to explain it, but it is a matter which in the opinion of the South Wales traders affects them rather grievously. Over the general system of the Great Western Railway, for instance, from London to Bristol and Gloucester, and from Didcot into Stafford shire and on to Birkenhead, the charge is something near 1d. a ton, 0·95d. per ton; but when you come to South Wales the charge has been diminished, indeed, from what it was, but it remains still at 1½d. a ton, and in addition to this there are terminal charges in London. Now, I need not say that this great difference of 55/100ths affects very heavily the South Wales traffic in competition with other districts. That a heavy charge should have been originally authorised is

    709
    natural and right. When traffic is small the charge must naturally be high, and the Committees which have been sitting considering this matter have recognised that distinction in making on various railways heavier charges for short distances, and where the circumstances are adverse to a large trade. But where you come to long lines, and especially a line of the length and importance of the South Wales line, the case is different. Now, I will read to the House what are the charges over the other railways for conveyance of coal. I have told your Lordships that in South Wales the charge along the main line is 1½d.—1·50d.;on the Midland it is 1·15d., without making any exception; on the Great Northern it is 0·95d. for main lines and certain limited branches; on the North Western it is 0·95 over all the lines. Now, I well know that all these charges have received very careful attention. We know that they were referred to two Members of the Board of Trade—to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) and to Mr. Courtenay Boyle; and I think we must all have heard but one expression of approbation of the manner in which their duties were discharged. They sat over 80 days, they worked most laboriously, and their work was marked with great ability. But that was not all. These rates and charges, so important both to the trading interest and to the Railway Companies themselves, were further considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and I, for one, would naturally have been inclined to accept, without any further discussion, whatever was found was right and proper by a powerful Committee representing the best business heads of both Houses. But when I look at the subsequent history of this case, I am bound to say that however able the men, and however great the attention they may have given to the subject, such is the complexity of these affairs that error may slip in. In fact, two Members of the House of Commons (Mr. Hanbury and Dr. Hunter) who were members of this Joint Committee stated that had they known there had been no terminal charge made under the South Wales Act previously to the present Bill, their decision would have been influenced by the knowledge of that fact. I know it is stated that if
    710
    they did not know it, it is their own fault; but that is not the real question. The question is, did they, or did they not, know it, and if they did not know it would this knowledge have affected their decision? They themselves say it would. But I think I have a much stronger argument in my favour in the fact that the Bill as it stood was considered a hardship by no less a person than the President of the Board of Trade himself, because he suggested—admitting that the South Wales traders did labour under disadvantages—a clause which is now in the Bill, and the effect of which is that if for any three consecutive years a dividend of 6 per cent. shall be paid upon the ordinary stock of a Railway Company, then that the charges shall no longer be 1½d. per ton, but shall be diminished to 0·95d. Now, the two provisoes hang together. I see that my noble Friend (the Earl of Cork) has given notice of an Amendment for striking out the clause which was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade, and as to which many questions were asked him. For instance, he was asked whether it applied to the ordinary stock of the Railway Company or to the dividends upon the entire property of the railway's—upon other Stocks; and he said No. He took the view that it applied only to the original capital of the company. Then, again, the question was raised when it should come into operation. And he stated that it should come into operation whenever after the passing of this Act it could be shown that the Great Western Company had provided 6 per cent. upon its ordinary capital. Now, these two Amendments hang together. I beg to move the first, and I shall be very glad to hear what the noble Lord has to say against propositions which, upon the face of them, I think must be admitted to be so reasonable as those I suggest. That is to say, what reason there is why this great distinction to the disadvantage of South Wales should be made, and why over every other railway, except the South Wales line, and even over the Great Western line in its other portions, a lower charge is made than that which is made upon coal carried through South Wales. I may add that the same difference exists in the case of iron, and that iron under

    711
    this Bill is carried at a higher rate throughout South Wales than it is carried at over any of the other principal lines in Great Britain. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment moved,
    In page 10, line 15, after "Tetbury" to insert "Railways governed by the South Wales Act, 1845, namely, Pembroke Dock to Chepstow."—(The Lord Aberdare.)
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am sorry I shall not be able to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed. At the same time I should like to say at the outset I am not surprised that anyone who is so much interested in South Wales as is the noble Lord should have thought it right to bring it forward, upon this occasion; and least of all should I desire to complain of the manner in which he has brought it forward, which has been courteous and temperate in the extreme. As a matter of fact I gravely doubt whether the Amendment proposed would effect the purpose which the noble Lord has in view. The Act of 1845 has long ago been repealed, and, therefore, no railway can be said to be governed by it. But, of course, all of us who have been accustomed to discuss these matters know that the railway which the noble Lord intends to put into this lower scale of charges is that governed by the South Wales and Great Western Amalgamation Act of 1855. But the noble Lord does not take the whole of it. I have every reason to believe that the noble Lord does not wish to ask for more than is reasonable. He admits that the district was mainly agricultural between Gloucester and Chepstow, and it is that part of the line upon which the heavy traffic of coal and iron is carried in South Wales. I have some doubt whether the effect of the Amendment would be as he supposes, and whether it would have any effect at all. But I do not desire to meet this as a matter of form. I desire to go at once to the merits of the matter, and to say, on the merits, that I do not think that it is possible the Amendment can be accepted, and, in as few words as possible, I will endeavour to tell the House why. The noble Lord said, in the course of his speech, that the object of the Act of 1888 was to assimilate as
    712
    much as possible the charges upon railways. I cannot accept that remark without some qualification. I do not think the noble Lord intended to say that the Act of 1888 intended to prescribe what are known as equal mileage rates. What was intended by it was, as far as possible, to secure a greater amount of uniformity between the maximum rates which might be charged by the different railways. But, my Lords, while uniformity is a good thing in itself, and one which we set before us to be attained as much as possible, it must not be acquired at the expense of justice either to the companies or to the traders. In considering these matters there is one important element to be taken into account, and that is, what are the present powers which are enjoyed by any Railway Company those under which they have constructed their railway, and which Parliament has given to them in their Act? Most of the lines which the noble Lord quoted, the main line of the Great Western governed by the Act of 1847, the main line of the London and North Western, and the main line of the Great Northern, which he instanced as being placed on a lower scale than this one, have now much lower powers. But it is different in the case of the South Wales line. There the power is 2d. for coal and the other minerals which have been mentioned. I am speaking now—and I put this in here to avoid any chance of misrepresentation—of the Rate Clauses and not of the Toll Clauses. We have nothing to do here with the Toll Clauses, which are entirely different to what we are dealing with. The Rate Clauses of the South Wales Act gave a power to the Great Western Company upon amalgamation, of charging 2d. inclusive of the provision of wagons. The proposal which the Board of Trade has made upon the inquiry which was conducted by the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament gives an unusual figure of 1½d. per ton per mile exclusive of wagons. There is, therefore, at the worst, a reduction in the power of the company of ½d. per ton per mile, leaving out the charge for wagons which probably may be estimated at about one-eighth of 1d. per ton per mile. The noble Lord stated in the course of his remarks that some Members of the other House had intimated that had

    713
    they known that the terminal power in the South Wales Act was not very distinct, they would have in all probability been influenced by that fact to give a decision different to what they did. I think it right to point out that at the time at which the Committee gave their decision the fact that there was no terminal power in this Act must have been known to them, because a very few minutes before the decision was given the last witness who was examined was asked by Counsel—
    "In that Act are there any terminals—is there a clause similar to Hall's Clause?"
    and he replied—
    "There are no terminals in that Act at all."
    That question was asked, and that answer was given within a few minutes prior to the decision being come to by the Committee. After that the representative of the Board of Trade was called upon, and he did not specially mention that there was no terminal in the Act. I think, under the circumstances, it having been mentioned only a very few minutes previously, it is not surprising, considering the magnitude of the inquiry as a whole that the representative of the Board of Trade did not go out of his way to state a thing which he had a right to presume was present to the minds of the Committee at the moment. But as regards these common articles, important as they are, iron and coal, the question of terminals does not arise so much as it does in the other classes. The whole terminal of Class A, which is under discussion, is 3d., and as we have reduced the conveyance power of the company from 2d. to 1½d., your Lordships will see that a very few miles indeed of run will more than compensate the trader for any definiteness and exigibility as to terminal charges. I have only one other point to refer to, and that is as regards even the terminal power—no great point must be made of it because those heavy articles, as a rule, go from siding to siding, or from station to station, and when it is from siding to siding simply, there are no terminal charges at all because there are provisions for that purpose in our schedule. Therefore, whenever traffic goes from siding to siding there is no point to be made of the terminals being made definite and exigible, because even
    714
    under our proposal no terminal can be chargeable. Another reason why I cannot accept this Amendment is that I think it would be unduly hard upon the Railway Company. The noble Lord said there were important articles in Classes A and B to which he especially referred. If the articles are important to the trader they are not less important to the Railway Company as a means of earning their revenue. It was stated in evidence by the representative of the Great Western Railway Company that under the proposal as they now stand the Great Western will lose £2,500 a year on coal and coke alone, besides their other losses on Classes A and B, and if the proposal of the noble Lord is given effect to they would in addition lose £1,750 more and an additional loss upon Class B. I have nothing more to say upon this Amendment, which I hope your Lordships will not accept. When we come to the other part of it, which the noble Lord wishes to amend in one respect, and which another noble Lord wishes to strike out altogether, we can have a discussion upon it. Bat it points out this moral. No sooner does the President of the Board of Trade in the other House accept a fair measure of equity between the two parties than the Representatives on the one side in this House wish to amend it in one way and the Representatives on the other side in this House wish to amend it in the other. So that it is not very easy in these circumstances to reach finality in discussing an important measure of this character, and I ask your Lordships, under these circumstances, not to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
    LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone very fully into the comparatively insignificant matter of the 3d. for the terminal charge, but upon the other point that whereas the Great Western has only power to charge this sum, while other Railway Companies have power to charge Id., he has given no reason why this great difference exists between coal carried over the South Wales line and that carried over lines in other parts of the country. It is certainly not on account of distance, or the distance being a short one, because the coal travels to London, Southampton, and Birkenhead,

    715
    and other places, going to considerable distances off. But I understand the Board have the power to make an arrangement which would be fair as between the Companies. As it stands under this Bill, the great bulk of the coal carried over the Great Western which comes from South Wales will be carried at least at a 50 per cent. higher rate than over other railways in England; and, more than that, higher than over the other portions of the Great Western line itself. I do not think the noble Lord has explained the reason of that very large difference, or that he has given any other explanation than that the charge was fixed in 1846, since which many extraordinary changes have taken place in the population and wealth and commerce in coal and iron in that part of the country, or why so exceptionally high a charge should be allowed to continue.
    *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, as I was a member of the Joint Committee, which was appointed by your Lordships to inquire into this matter, and which did inquire into it at very great length, I should like to say a word, and only a word or two in support of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) and in opposition to this Amendment. The point I will address myself to is the point which has just been put forward by the noble Lord near me (Lord Aberdare), namely, why a higher charge is allowed in the case of South Wales than in the case of some of the other companies.
    *LORD ABERDARE: All the other Railway Companies?
    *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All the others. Now, my Lords, in the first place, in anything I say to your Lordships upon these Bills I hope your Lordships will understand that I am speaking as not at all advocating the conclusions of the Committee, but from another point of view altogether. I believe that your Lordships intended we should act as judges, perfectly impartial and fair as between the railways and the traders, and for the purpose of reviewing the proposal which had in the first place been made by the Board of Trade according to the Act of 1888. Of course, it is very natural that the railways in some cases, and the traders in
    716
    others, should think that the charges which were either proposed in the Bills or which are in the Bills as they are now before Parliament are unfair to them, and, of course, the case of South Wales is one of the more prominent cases. That Committee heard the argument which has been heard by your Lordships to-night from Lord Aberdare at very considerable length, and they finally decided that it was desirable to retain in the Bill the figures which the Board of Trade have proposed. I think that all the members of the Committee took a much more active part in the examination during the inquiry than is ordinarily taken by members of a Committee, and in many of the cases many of the conclusions were arrived at after long examinations of the witnesses, and even I might almost say of the Counsel by the various members of the Committee. This is one of the cases in point, and it does so happen that the individual who asked the particular question in this case was myself; and after a long inquiry, and when we had called upon the Board of Trade representatives, as we did in almost every case, to state what were their reasons for inserting the figures which they had inserted in the schedule, they gave certain answers which your Lordships will find at Question 27,717 of the evidence. Perhaps the House will allow me to read a few of the questions which were put. The Chairman asked the Board of Trade representatives if they had anything to say. Mr. Hanbury said—
    "I should like to ask this question: Is there anything exceptional in the position of the South Wales Railway which we are now asked to take out of Class 2 where the Board of Trade have put it, and to put it into Class 1 besides the original high maximum price?"
    Mr. Courtenay Boyle said—
    "That was a great factor in our decision; I am sorry to say the position of this railway gave us very anxious consideration and some sleepless nights. First of all, we found the great factor of the Act of 1885, the 2d. per ton; "—
    that is the original maximum charge—
    "secondly, we found a great number of small rates—coal rates—along the line, and where there were a number of coal rates along the line. The consequence was those rates have been piled, involving a considerable amount and involving a decided loss of revenue to the company if the maximum was very largely cat down."

    717
    Then he pursues that for some time, and his conclusion is—
    "We could not, as far as our view went, in fairness to the company cut down the 2d. per ton to 0·95d. for a long portion of the railway."
    Your Lordships will see what an enormous reduction is asked for, from the maximum rate of 2d. to 0·95d.—more than 50 per cent. That is simply the broad question. Then I asked him this question—
    "Did you make a calculation whether your proposed maximum would cover the actual rates charged at short distances on those lines?"
    And he said—
    "I cannot pledge myself to every actual rate; it is impossible for any human being to do that; but, as far as I can say, 2d. covers the entire rate, and 0·95d. does not."
    So that your Lordships will see, if you were to adopt the proposal now made by my noble Friend Lord Aberdare, you would adopt a rate which, according to the best knowledge that could be obtained by the Board of Trade, is a rate not covered by the entire rate now charged by the Railway Company; and your Lordships will remember what we are now speaking about is not the rate to be charged, but the maximum rate beyond which the company cannot go, and which, of course, is subject in cases where there is competition—I am bound to say there is not very much competition in this case—but which in such cases is guarded by the competition. It is for that reason that, to the best of my recollection, the Committee mainly determined to confirm the figures of the Board of Trade, and that, I believe, was the reason why we did so.
    *LORD ABERDARE: I shall not give your Lordships the trouble of dividing upon this matter. I beg to withdraw the first Amendment and move the other one which stands in my name.
    Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before the noble Lord goes on I have an Amendment. This is rather technical. It is on page 11, lines 28 to 33. As your Lordships will see, three paragraphs in small print dealing with certain railways between Bala and Festiniog, Corwen and Bala, and Corwen and Llangollen—those
    718
    three paragraphs were inserted in the Provisional Order during its passage through the other House. They were inserted on the Motion of an individual Member who is interested in the district, and at the time they were accepted by the Board of Trade. Further inquiry, however, has shown us that it is impossible in fairness to accept this Amendment, and impossible in the terms of the Statute to deal with the railway there mentioned within the four corners of this Provisional Order. That is a fact I do not elaborate, because it will not be denied; and a communication has been made to the hon. Member who moved the insertion of those three paragraphs, and I have no reason to doubt he will be satisfied with the explanation which has been given. The object of my Amendment is to omit from this Schedule four railways which ought not to be there and to leave in the one which should be there—the Bala and Dolgelly—which is owned and worked by the Great Western. I therefore move the omission of the railways I have mentioned, and to insert the railway governed by the Bala and Dolgelly Railway Act, 1862.
    Amendment moved, in page 11, lines 28 to 33, to leave out from ("Railways" to…, 1873), paragraphs numbered 18, 19, and 20, and to insert 18 ("Railway governed by the Bala and Dolgelly Act, 1862").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    *LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I stated that during the discussion in the other House the President of the Board of Trade, who had charge of the Bill, himself suggested what he thought a means of diminishing, at any rate, the injustice of which I have just been complaining.
    THE CHAIRMAN (The Earl of): I think the Amendment of the other noble Lord comes first.
    THE EARL OF CORK: My Lords, the object of my Amendment, and I think the noble Lord opposite will consider it a very fair one, is to strike out the word "hereafter" and to insert "after the commencement of this Act." The object of the Amendment is that if the change which has been made in this Bill in the House of

    719
    Commons is to come into force it will work very hardly indeed upon the Great Western Railway Company. As the clause is now worded, I think there can be no doubt that, inasmuch as that company have recently paid, and supposing to pay, a dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. for the last half-year, the additional rates will immediately come into force. I think your Lordships will see that is a very great hardship this Company should not have had the opportunity of seeing what will be the effect upon the working of the line consequent upon the great reduction of rates which have been made by the Joint Committee. For that reason, my Lords, it would be only fair that the Company should have time to consider the matter, and I think your Lordships will agree, therefore, that my proposal is only a fair one, and that the question of past dividends should not be taken into account at all, but that it should only, as I understand it, take effect after the commencement of this Act. I hope the noble Lord will agree to that Amendment, as I have said I think it is a very fair one. I think it would be better to leave out from "provided" to the end of the clause. My object is exactly what I have stated. The clause runs—
    "Provided that if at any time hereafter the clear annual profits divisible upon the whole subscribed and paid-up capital ordinary stock of the Great Western Railway Company, upon an average of the three then last preceding years, shall equal or exceed the rate of £6 for every £100 by such paid-up capital stock, scale I., shall become and shall continue to be applicable to the railways governed by the South Wales Railway Act, 1845."
    That is the object of my Amendment. I propose to leave out the whole of that, my Lords, for the reasons I have before stated: that I think it would be very hard, considering the Company have been pay-ign 6 per cent. for several years past, that that should be brought into the calculations made. I, therefore, do hope that the noble and learned Lord will allow the latter part of the clause to be struck out.
    Amendment moved, in page 11, line 49, to leave out from ("provided ") to the end of the Clause.—(The Earl of Cork.)
    *LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, when I gave way to ray noble Friend, I did it with the full understanding not that he
    720
    was going to move the rejection of the whole clause, but that my Amendment would come first.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question will be that the words down to "hereafter" be omitted, and then the noble Lord will have the opportunity of moving his Amendment.
    *THE EARL OF CORK: I think the noble Lord will find I was perfectly in, order the first time. I move to leave out from "provided" to the end of the clause. Then I have an amended clause which I propose to put in instead of it—to omit "hereafter" and insert "after the passing of this Act." That is an Amendment upon the amended clause, and that is the Amendment which I propose to make. I do not know-whether the noble Lord has seen it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment of which he has given notice?
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Lord Aberdare is moving to make what he contends is the meaning of the clause quite clear in one way, and the noble Lord who is now moving wants it in one alternative to be struck out altogether, and in the other to amend it. Under those circumstances, I do not think it would be a breach of order if we take the discussion upon the original Amendment, which I understood the noble Lord moved at first, to leave out the first three lines of this part of the Schedule, because, being on the Schedule and not on a Clause, I think that is the way we must proceed. As far as the intention of the noble Lord is concerned his Amendment on the Paper, is to leave out the clause as a whole, that I certainly could not con sent to. It was accepted deliberately by the President of the Board of Trade in the other House of Parliament. It was pointed out to the President of the Board of Trade that in the Amalgamation Act there was a clause giving authority to the Board of Trade—the exact words of it I need not read—but that gave power to the Board of Trade to fix such new rates, and such a scale of charges as they might think fit to apply to the company, provided the dividend on the ordinary Stock of the Great Western had been an average of 6 per cent. for the preceding three years; provided that the charges

    721
    so fixed were not to be below the scale of the Great Western Railway Company under the Act of 1847. It was pointed out to the President of the Board of Trade that if this high scale to which Lord Aberdare has referred were allowed without any such proviso, the South Wales traders would be in a worse position in future than they have been in the past. To meet that view the President of the Board of Trade consented to insert the proviso as it appears in the Bill. There must, therefore, be a proviso of some such kind as this. I understand the noble Earl now to suggest, by what he has said, that it shall not take effect as from the passing of the Act, but that it shall only take effect after the new regulations have been in force for three years, or for a sufficient time, to show the Board of Trade, the traders, and the Railway Company what the effect of the new scale will be upon the dividends of that company. I think there is something to be said for that view. I should not like to pledge myself absolutely to accept it, but at the present time I am inclined to do so. I do not like to speak definitely about it, because if I accepted it offhand at the present time, I should prevent the noble Lord opposite having the opportunity of expressing his opinion before I commit myself to it. My bias is rather to accept the second Amendment of the noble Earl, but before doing so I should like to give an opportunity to the noble Lord opposite of expressing his opinion on the subject.
    *LORD ABERDARE: I think the difference between the noble Lord and myself is simply this: that I want the direction to be made whenever it I can be shown that for three consecutive years the Great Western has declared a dividend upon its ordinary capital of 6 per cent. The noble Earl is desirous that this reduction shall not take effect until three years after what is practically the passing of this Act.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Three years from 1892.
    *LORD ABERDARE: I daresay my noble Friend has read the discussion which took place in the other House, which I have taken the opportunity of reading in Hansard, as well as that which is given very fully in the Times. There the question was put most clearly
    722
    by Sir Hussey Vivian, on the part of the traders as to whether, in the first instance, the dividend was to be on the ordinary Stock, and the President admitted it was to be on the ordinary Stock. The next question was, whether the reduction was to take place immediately upon its being shown that for three consecutive years there had been a dividend at the rate of 6 per cent., and to that he gave just as clear and distinct an answer as in the other case, and an answer in the affirmative. I came here to support the Amendment, and my Amendment is only an explanation, and, as I thought, putting in a clearer way the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Trade. Of course, a great deal may be said, especially on behalf of the Railway Companies, for the postponement for three years. All I can say is, if that postponement is made it is in violation of that undertaking upon which my noble Friend withdrew his Amendment immediately afterwards. Nothing could be more distinct and clear than the statement of the President of the Board of Trade upon that point. If the President of the Board of Trade had made the suggestion which I understand to be the gist of my noble Friend Lord Cork's Amendment, I should not be here to dispute it; but he made altogether another suggestion, and gave that explanation which the traders were anxious for in the fullest and clearest manner. How, therefore, the noble Lord, in the face of this direction of the President of the Board of Trade, can propose to accept the Amendment of my noble Friend I cannot understand.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord has not sufficiently recognised this fact: that the original clause provided that the Board of Trade could reduce the rates after a dividend had been paid for three consecutive years at the rate of 6 per cent., to the scale of rates in the Act of 1847. If this proviso stands as it is in the Bill, it will reduce in the same event the payment of a dividend of 6 per cent. upon the ordinary Stock for three years to a lower scale than the scale in the Act of 1847, because there is no doubt whatever that the main line scale of the Great Western Railway under this Order is lower than the scale in the Act of 1847. That

    723
    point was brought prominently to the notice of the Board of Trade, and as there will be very considerable changes in the rates of the Great Western in consequence of the passing of this Order, it is not thought unfair that the Amendment should provide that this new scale of rates for the South Wales line should not be brought into effect until the Great Western Railway Company has paid 6 per cent. upon its ordinary Stock for three years after the commencement of the new system. I should be sorry if the noble Lord thought that to be a breach of faith. To my mind, it is not. It seems to me to be a necessary corollary upon a state of circumstances which was not fully present to those dealing with the matter when the Amendment was made in the other House of Parliament. As I have told the noble Earl, I cannot accept his first Amendment, but I do think there is matter for consideration, and what I propose is to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, subject to that consideration, because if we allow this clause to pass without amending it, and the Bill goes back to the other House without being amended, there will be no possibility of putting it in the Bill at all. I do, therefore, think it necessary to keep the matter open for consideration, and, as the matter stands, I propose to resist the noble Lord's proposal to strike out the clause altogether, maintaining that part of the Amendment which provides with regard to the payment of dividend, and to maintain that part of it as to the three years after the commencement of the new order of things, in case we should inflict, as I believe might be the great and unintentional injustice on the Great Western Company.
    Amendment of Lord Aberdare negatived; and the words, "after the commencement of this Order," inserted.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then, my Lords, on page 11, line 51, I move to omit the words "the three then last preceding," and to insert "three consecutive."
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I merely desire to say one word upon this. It is no doubt a matter of great delicacy and difficulty dealing between
    724
    the carrying industries and the other industries of this country, because, of course, it is perfectly intelligible that those who are carrying on the trade of carriers desire to get as much from their customers as possible, and, on the other hand, those who have to get goods carried like to get them carried for as little as possible, and even for nothing if they possibly can. But for reasons of policy it has been considered right to undertake this extremely delicate and difficult task of adjusting the respective rights of these parties. It is a very delicate and somewhat dangerous proceeding, but nevertheless, being undertaken, the matter was submitted to an impartial Committee, composed of Members of both Houses. They revised the consideration of it by the Board of Trade; but I cannot help thinking it is extremely unfortunate, as a precedent, that where the matter has been considered in that way it should be made by other parties interested a matter for discussion in this or in the other House of Parliament. Because you do, after all, get something like a judicial determination when it is submitted to the Board of Trade or to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. But when after it has been discussed in that way such a question as this has to be re-considered in a popular assembly or even in your Lordships' House there is great risk of injustice being done, because it is obvious that everybody likes to get the best terms he can for himself. The public are only affected and somewhat remotely interested in many of the questions which have been raised here. I only desire as the result of this discussion, rather as a matter of precedent than otherwise, to utter a warning voice, because it seems to me to be entering upon a somewhat dangerous course if these matters, after they have been considered by a judicial Committee are to be discussed, and perhaps varied in the manner now sought.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble and learned Lord has laid down with his customary clearness some exceedingly sound maxims, and if there was not in the matter a suggestion of application in their conduct, I should

    725
    have nothing to do except to express my full agreement in the general doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord. I believe up to this point all we have done is to sustain the opinions of the Hybrid Committee. All cases have their exceptions—I do not bind myself absolutely in all cases to follow the view which the noble and learned Lord has taken; but I cannot refuse my very full assent to his doctrine in its general aspect, that when you have the decision of an influential Hybrid Committee such as this, which was eminently capable of adjusting claims between conflicting parties, to give due weight to each of those claims, and to solve that difficult problem of deciding between past pledges and present necessities with which we all have to contend, I quite agree with him that neither the crowded Benches in the other House nor the less crowded Benches in this House are suitable tribunals to reverse its decision.
    LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not rising in the least for the purpose of disputing the position laid down by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Marquess opposite. I simply wish to point out that these Bills come here amended from the House of Commons, and that it was in consequence of those Amendments being inserted that I have ventured to introduce the Amendments I have brought forward.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Standing Committee negatived.
    The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow: and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. Bill to be printed as amended. (No 285.)

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    House in Committee (according to order).
    Clauses agreed to.
    Schedule.
    *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the first Amendment which appears is one standing in
    726
    I propose, on page 11, after line 40, to insert as an addition to Scale 2 certain railways with certain maximum rates for conveyance and certain maximum scales attached to them, and a certain Amendment follows which has reference to another class. I was considering whether I could put these Amendments before your Lordships more clearly by putting them together or by taking them apart, and I think, seeing that the subject-matter is of some complexity, it will be probably more convenient if I take the first one first. And my noble Friend near me (Lord Belper), who was also on the Standing Committee, will explain to your Lordships the circumstances under which we propose to insert the second. With regard to the first Amendment of mine, the effect is to restore the Bill to the same condition as it was in when it left the Joint Committee, and I propose the Amendment chiefly for this reason, that I should like to know what are the reasons why these railways have been removed from the scale in which they were placed when it left us, and why they have been placed in another scale. I may explain to your Lordships that the schedule as it left the Committee was the schedule as originally proposed by the Board of Trade, and as confirmed by the Standing Joint Committee after careful examination. Perhaps I ought to explain to your Lordships that certain portions of the London and North Western it was necessary should have rates for conveyance and station terminals not of the same amounts as those applicable to the main portion of the line. It was only natural, of course, that there should be certain branch lines and short lines in which the circumstances were so different that it was desirable and, indeed, necessary if justice was to be done that special rates should be attached to them. The Board of Trade in this schedule inserted certain railways, and those railways were the subject of detailed examination by the Committee. I have one remark to make, which is that some of the railways which have been now removed from the schedule were placed there by the Board of Trade, approved of by the Committee, and that no objection was taken to them by any of the opponents of the Bill. They were three in number: The Mold

    727
    Junction, the Mold and Denbigh Junction, and the Bangor and Bethesda. No reason was shown to the Committee for making a change, and none was made. With regard to the other railways which are mentioned in the Amendment they were the subject of inquiry. Objection was made, and after considerable examination the Committee affirmed the conclusions of the Board of Trade; and I do not think I can put them more shortly to your Lordships than by reading what the representatives of the Board of Trade said before the Committee just before the conclusion of the case, after we had heard all the arguments for removing them and for placing them in the clause, Mr. Courtenay Boyle said this in answer to the Chairman—
    "I should like to hear what the Board of Trade have to say in this case. "
    and Mr. Courtenay Boyle said:—
    "We had not much difficulty about these lines The present figures are very high indeed; we cut them down to a considerable extent, and we do not see our way to go any further."
    In all these cases which appear in this special schedule the existing maximum rates were reduced, and in many cases they were largely reduced. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with details, but that is generally the statement of the case. So the Bill left the Committee. What I should like to know now is, what are the reasons why these changes have been made?
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the statement of the noble Lord as to what has taken place is correct. The scale as he proposes to restore it was in the Provisional Order Bill laid by the Board of Trade upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The considerations which guided us were that these special lines had less powers and higher rates, as a rule, than the other portions of the line—certainly the main line. We reduced their maximum powers to some extent, and the figures which were in the Amendments of the noble Lord were proposed to the Board of Trade, and by the Board of Trade to Parliament. Having all the advantages of amalgamation, of a large company, and of an increase of traffic; and the general change of circumstances justifies some departure from the high powers
    728
    authorised by the Act of Parliament, the change we made in these high powers did not satisfy those interested in the district who were interested in the trade upon the line, and a strong contest was finally made before the Committee by many of the traders in regard at least to a considerable proportion of these lines. The matter, as the noble Lord says, was very fully discussed and inquired into. Of course, I have not the full knowledge that he has of what went on when the Committee were deliberating on their judgment, I only know what the effect of their decision was. Their decision was, as he-says, to confirm the action of the Board of Trade. Those who were interested in the matter were not satisfied with that decision; in fact, as far as information reaches us, very considerable dissatisfaction was caused, both by our action and by the action of the Committee, in the districts of North Wales which were chiefly concerned. That feeling culminated in several Amendments being proposed in the House of Commons on this part of the schedule of the London and North Western Company's Bill. Those Amendments were considered very carefully by the President of the Board of Trade, and in the last resort he accepted the proposal to strike out the clauses from the special scale which are now the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment. I am authorised especially to say to the House that that Amendment was only consented to by him after he had consulted the three Members of the House of Commons who were members of the Committee. He authorises me to say that he had their full assent to the changes-which are now the subject of discussion. We are now in this position. The matter is being inquired into, and when it goes back to the other House of Parliament Amendments are made there upon the representation of those locally interested. They are accepted by the President of the Board of Trade—upon that they are confirmed without any protest on the part of the Railway Companies by the other House of Parliament. I am afraid that under those circumstances, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, I cannot willingly consent to the re-insertion of the lines of railway on the higher scale exactly

    729
    in the form in which they have been deleted by the other House of Parliament. I do not deny that the effect of the Amendment may be to cause some decrease of charging power and some decrease of revenue to the Railway Company; but under all the circumstances, with, perhaps, the possible exception of the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway, which is not an owned railway, but is worked by the Company on an arrangement with the Great Western, I am afraid I cannot consent to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
    *LORD BELPER: As a Member of the Joint Committee of both Houses I should like to say one word upon this question, and before doing so I should like to repeat what has been stated by the noble Lord near me, as a member of that Committee that in anything I say in this House I am simply speaking as a Representative of this House upon that Committee, and, as far as possible, I shall give expression to the views of the Committee upon the different cases which were brought before it. I am aware that in a matter of such great difficulty and complexity as this, it is impossible that any Committee can claim infallibility upon such a subject, and, therefore, if good cause is shown for saying that the Committee came to a wrong decision, I can only say, person ally, I should be willing to accept it, as would, I am sure, any other member of the Committee also. But with regard to what fell from the noble Lord, there are one or two other points which re quire clearing up. In the first place, be stated that three members of the Committee in the other House had assented to the alteration proposed by the Board of Trade—
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No, we did not propose the Amendment.
    *LORD BELPER: At all events, they assented to the Amendment to which consent was given by the Board of Trade. Of course, it was quite impossible to know under what circumstances that assent was given, but I am sure I am right in saying that there was no division of opinion in the Committee when they came to their decision. With regard to the points themselves, there are certainly two which require consideration. One of them has been touched upon by the
    730
    noble Lord who moved this Amendment, which is that the traders themselves, who were represented by a large number of Counsel before the Committee, moved no Amendment as regards certain of these lines which have been now struck out of the special scale by the Board of Trade. That is to say, as far as assent is given by silence; and when you sit for 48 days upon an inquiry you may naturally suppose if no Amendment is moved that consent is given by silence. So far as three or four of these Railways went they did assent to being put in the special scale, and did not ask the Committee to put them in the lower scale of the North Western Bill. There is another point which I think also requires some consideration. In the original scale as proposed by the Board of Trade, and as sanctioned by the Committee, several of these Railway Companies appear at different rates. Although they are in the Scale 2, they are not in the same rate in Scale 2. Three of them have a rate given them of 1·25d.—1¼d. per mile—two of them 1·50 or 1½d. per mile, and two of them have 2d. per mile. By the action taken in the other House, the result is that all these railways with all these different rates affixed to them, after inquiry by the Board of Trade and assented to by the Committee are all put down into one scale with the same rate. Therefore, as a matter of fact, while you are reducing one part of the railway by something like 50 percent., you are reducing another by 30 percent., and another by something like 20 per cent. I think this original scale having probably been fixed on some principle it requires some explanation to show why they are not now reduced to the same scale or principle, but are all reduced to Scale 1 of the schedule. I quite understand an answer might be given to that if it was proposed to strike out the whole of Scale 2; but that is not proposed. A large number of railways are put in at different figures, and, therefore, there would be no difficulty in reducing the rates from those given to the Committee if the Board of Trade think them too high, putting them at a fair reduction, each on its own merits. I must say for myself I feel considerable sympathy with the case of those small traders who have to compete on small lines in many cases

    731
    with other traders who may have exceptional advantages, and I am sure neither the Committee nor the Board of Trade would wish to press hardly or to express their opinion too strongly as to the rate at which this small traffic should be carried. But I venture to think, at all events, if the noble Lord does not accept the Amendment which is proposed by my noble Friend that there is at least some room for a fair settlement of rates between what has been fixed by the Committee and what has been finally fixed by the Board of Trade after putting them into the schedule, and I hope, at all events, if that is not assented to, I shall have some reasons given in answer to the two points which I have mentioned with respect to those different classes being treated in the same way, and also to the effect that no Amendments were moved upon them.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is no doubt considerable force in what the noble Lord has stated as regards the railways which were not the subject of opposition before the Committee, and I think perhaps the Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon and the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway might be re-inserted. I have great hesitation in going further than that, in consequence of the unanimity of the decision which was given in the House of Commons, and, my Lords, I certainly feel that both the President of the Board of Trade and myself are placed to some extent in a difficult position by the different views given by various members of the Committee in the two Houses. I have nothing to find fault with, as far as principle is concerned, in the remarks which the noble Lord upon the Front Bench uttered a few moments ago. I should say, as a rule, the principles which he uttered were sound. I have very great hesitation in accepting an Amendment in the form in which it is moved, which would have the effect absolutely of re-inserting the scale, as it was left out as a whole by the House of Commons, because I think in these matters when an amendment is accepted by the President of the Board of Trade, and it is confirmed by a unanimous decision of the Members of the House of Commons' Committee, it is unwise in this House at this stage of the proceedings to re-insert the Amendment
    732
    in the form in which it was deleted in the House of Commons. If there was any proposal short of that which the noble Lords could make, I should be glad to accept it subject to consideration.
    *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I very much wish the noble Lord had been able to give us some reasons which actuated those who proposed this Amendment, because I have looked at the reports in the newspapers. I am bound to say the speeches were not reported at great length; but whatever may have been said with regard to the Amendment at the Board of Trade or in private, I did not myself observe that the members of the House of Commons Committee made any speeches in the other House. But I quite recognise the difficulty; and, as far as those small railways which are mentioned are concerned, of course it would meet my point completely as far as these railways are concerned if their names were omitted from the Bill. But the truth is that the case of all these railways with one exception, the Chester and Holy head, is peculiar. All these other railways are very peculiar. They are little, short, mostly slate lines, which carry slate down and coal up, and the coal is the rate which comes under Class A, the class which we are now discussing, and it is, of course, with regard to that particular matter that I am now addressing your Lordships. I, of course, am under the difficulty that I do not know what the reasons were which were advanced for making this change, and, as far as I remember, in the Committee we were perfectly unanimous upon the subject. I have not got the Divisions with me, but to the best of my recollection there was no division of opinion among us upon this subject. As the noble Lord was so good as to say he might possibly consider a further Amendment if suggested, I should be, of course, perfectly ready to accept what he has been so good as to give me upon this point, and I would make this further suggestion to him, with regard to the line from Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen Junction, that, instead of 2d. as it is proposed, and also with regard to the Chester and Nantlle branch, and to the Chester and Holyhead line—that is the long line—and the Bangor and Bethesdaline, as to which the 1·50d.

    733
    is proposed, to make the best of a bad business be should give me 1·25d.—that is 1¼d., which is not a large concession in the direction in which the Amendment is made. If he will consider that before the Report, I shall be ready to leave the matter for his consideration. But I wish to press once more upon him, and upon the House, that this matter did receive very careful and thorough consideration. These small railways have special and peculiar features, especially the Chester and Holyhead line, which, as the House knows, is a very expensive line to maintain; it was a very expensive line to make, and it has specially high rates. If we cut down that rate, which, I think, is now 2d. up to 15 miles, and, after that, 1½d.—if we cut that down to 1¼d.—and now I am only speaking of maximum rates—I think your Lordships will have made a very large change in the direction of the traders, beyond what was made by the Committee.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to be considerable complication and difficulty here. The Members of the Committee now speak with different voices to those with which apparently they spoke elsewhere. From private information—if I may refer to that—I rather think the Chairman of the Committee takes a different view from what was taken by the Members of the House of Commons. I think, on the whole, the wisest proposal is that made by the noble Lord as a compromise. If it will bring the parties together, that, I think, is the one which it is wisest to accept. I do not feel that we should be justified in simply re-inserting the clause as it was left after the decision of the Committee, but the change proposed by the noble Lord seems fair and reasonable, and I should be disposed to advise your Lordships to accept it.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The effect of that will be that the Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon, the Carnarvon and Llanberis, the Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen, the Nantlle branch, the Chester and Holyhead, and the Bangor and Bethesda, which are all in one bracket, will be at 1·25d. That will go in at line 34, page 11.
    Amendment moved,
    In page 11, after line 40, to insert as an addition to Scale 11., the following railways,
    734
    all at a maximum rate of conveyance per ton per mile of l·25d., and the maximum terminal station rate of 3d;—

    —

    Maximum Rate for Conveyance per Ton per Mile.

    Maximum Station Terminal at each end.

    d.

    d.

    Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon

    1·25

    3

    Carnarvon to Llanberis

    The Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway worked by the Company

    Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen Junction Nantlle Branch

    Chester and Holyhead

    Bangor and Bethesda

    —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    *LORD BELPER: My Lords, the next Amendment which my noble Friend has asked me to move is, not absolutely but very much, a consequential one upon the Amendment which has just been accepted. The Amendment as placed upon the Paper is, of course, to replace the rates as fixed for these short railways for Class B. as they were fixed by the Joint Committee of both Houses. But at the outset I must admit there is a difference, in one respect, with regard to the B class—that the Board of Trade did not insert any second Schedule in respect to the B rates, although they do so with regard to the A rates. With regard to that, I should like to point out the difficulty the Committee were in if high rates are given in a special class, for Class A, and then if no high or special rates are given in Class B for the same railway. The effect is that if

    735
    that is done, as in many cases it has happened, the actual rate in Class A for inferior articles is higher than the rate in Class B, which is for articles not in the rough, but which are slightly manufactured. For instance, to take an actual case in point on this railway: Clay in bulk is carried in Class A; and if the rate of Class A was put higher than in B, the rate for clay would be higher than the rate for bricks in B, which would be obviously an anomaly. I would just state what took place in the Committee with regard to Class B. The gentleman who gave evidence with respect to this particular class' in favour of not having any special rates was a Mr. Darbishire. Mr. Darbishire, in his evidence, asked that the high rates which the Railway Company proposed to move should not be accepted; and perhaps I ought to state that the North Western Railway's original proposal was for 2d. per mile. Mr. Darbishire objected to that; but he admitted in his evidence, which I could quote if it were necessary, that he thought the Board of Trade figures, as placed in the first scale for Class B, were "too tight," to use his own words, and that it did not even give enough latitude for the Railway Companies. Therefore, we had here a trader opposing the Amendment of the Railway Company, and admitting himself that the Board of Trade figure was not sufficient to give the Railway Company a fair remuneration for the traffic they have to carry. Mr. Darbishire gave his evidence in a very fair way, but it was the end of the sitting; and on the next occasion when the Committee met Mr. Darbishire was not present. After some discussion the London and North Western Railway Company then modified the proposal they had made. The London and North Western Railway Company originally asked for 2d. per mile. They then modified their proposal and asked for 1¾d., and then they modified it still further by saying they would accept for long distances over 20 miles 1¼d. Upon that the counsel who represented Mr. Darbishire was asked whether he accepted that. He stated he could not actually accept it, because he was not authorised, his principal having gone away, but he offered on his part to take 1½d. on the
    736
    short lines, and 1¼d. on the Chester and Holyhead line; and, therefore, as will be seen, he actually offered himself, for Mr. Darbishire, who also represented the other traders, a higher rate for the other Railway Companies than is now proposed by the Board of Trade. I remember the discussion which took place; and my strong impression is, if Mr. Darbishire had been able to be present, a compromise might have been arrived at which would have been satisfactory to both parties. Unfortunately he was not, and the Committee had to decide; and after full con sideration they accepted the modified proposal of the Railway Company of 1¾d., with a lower rate on the Chester and Holyhead for the longer distances. I ought also to state, and I ask the noble Lord's attention to this, that although Mr. Boyle had opposed the 2d. rate, when he was asked the question whether he any longer opposed the proposal of the London and North Western he said "We oppose the 2d. We no longer oppose the 1¾d.; but if the Committee are satisfied that it would be better to have two distances, we shall not make any strenuous opposition to that." Under those circumstances, seeing that the representative of the traders himself offered a higher rate than has now been fixed in the other House, seeing that the Railway Companies made a considerable concession, and that that concession was thought fair by the Board of Trade, I think that following the precedent now arrived at in Class A, that, as a fair arrangement, something between the two rates might be a reasonable one. My Amendment is to put back the scale as it was fixed by the Committee; and if the Board of Trade see their way to making the concession in any modified form, I would, if necessary, modify that proposal.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think this stands in the same position as the last. The noble Lord has very fairly said this was put in by the Committee and not by the Board of Trade. That makes a considerable difference as far as the position of the Board of Trade in the matter is concerned. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think the authority

    737
    of Mr. Darbishire in this matter will quite bear all the strain which the noble Lord seeks to put upon it. He will not dispute this at any rate—that the Amendment which stands in his name, or a modification of it down to 1·50d., is such as would be higher than Mr. Darbishire or his counsel assented to when the Committee was sitting.
    *LORD BELPER: Mr. Darbishire offered 1·50d. for the short lines, and 1¼d. for the Chester and Holyhead.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As far as the Chester and Holyhead is concerned, I do not think Mr. Darbishire can be accepted as a representative of the traders upon a great line of that kind. It is quite likely, if Mr. Darbishire had made the offer for one of the small lines, it might have been accepted.
    *LORD BELPER: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he will find that 1¼d. is the figure already in the Schedule.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What I understood the noble Lord was proposing was 1·75d.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For the first 20 miles.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: And for that I understand he claims the authority of Mr. Darbishire or his counsel.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord. What I wanted to point out was that the Chester and Holyhead is really the main line of the North Western. It is upon that, really, that the great through traffic runs between Ireland and the North of England. All that traffic goes over it. When we considered this matter we did not think it necessary to put in a special scale for Class B as regards the Chester line; and I must say, as far as that is concerned, that remains my opinion at the present time. Upon the other matter, I know, as a matter of fact, that since the decision of the Committee was given Mr. Darbishire has taken means to pro-
    738
    test against it to various Members of Parliament, and I have no doubt his protest had some effect in the deletion of the scale in the other House. As I have already said, this was not a proposal made by the Board of Trade in laying the Bills upon the Table in Parliament, and I am sure the Committee considered it with every care. As I have said before, the Members of the Committee in the House of Commons seem to have taken a different view. As it was not the original proposal on behalf of the Board of Trade, I should not be acting consistently were I to hold out any hope of accepting the Amendment with regard to Scale B.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not understand that the noble Lord has taken sufficiently into consideration, or, at all events, I doubt whether the House thoroughly understands, how very large the effect of this Amendment is. The striking out of these lines, from Scale II. has this effect that they reduce for the future the charges which the railways are entitled to make under Class B to 1·25d. for the first 20 miles; to 1d. for the next 30 miles; to 0·80d. for the next 50 miles, and for the remainder of the distance to 0·50d. My Lords, you must give due weight to what are the existing maximum charges of the railways at the present time. I do not at all say that it is a conclusive argument, or that it is the only element to be considered in the case; but, at the same time, it is one of the elements which the House is in fairness bound to consider. Here are-the present rates for these lines: The Chester and Holyhead has up to the first 15 miles the right at the present time of charging up to 2½d., and after that 2d. You are going to give it 1·25d. for the first 20 miles, and then after that it falls to 1d. and below that figure, or, in other words, a reduction in the maximum rate of 50 per cent. or more. Exactly the same remark applies to the other lines. The Bangor and Bethesda is precisely in the position of the Chester and Holyhead. Then follow three more lines with at present the maximum charge of 2½d.; then there are two more

    739
    which are in the same condition. I believe there is one which has a maximum rate of 3d.; and all these are going to be cut down to figures running from 1¼d. downwards. I think the noble Lord was perfectly accurate in saying just now that the Board of Trade did not in the first instance propose any special scale for this; but Mr. Darbishire, the only witness who appeared against this proposal, distinctly stated that this proposal of the Board of Trade is "too tight "—that was his own expression—and he said he certainly thought they ought to have something more than was proposed by the Board of Trade. Then his counsel the next day said: "I think if you take 1½d. upon the short lines "—and most of these lines are small; in fact, all of them are small except the Chester and Holyhead—" and 1¼d. on the Chester and Holyhead that would be fair." It was under consideration for some time, and when finally it came under the consideration of the Board of Trade they did not oppose it. Having heard the whole discussion, either Mr. Courtenay Boyle or Lord Balfour being generally there, they said, "We oppose the 2d., but we do not oppose the 1¾d.," and these figures were put in. If the noble Lord will not go the length which my noble Friend asks; yet, at all events, I would ask him to consider whether, seeing what you have done in Class A, it does not follow almost as a necessity, and, further than that, whether it does not follow as a matter of justice, that you should give some special charges for these lines under Class B? Slate is almost entirely the article in question here, and, of course, the gradients are peculiar, and the circumstances under which these lines were made are peculiar. I was so successful last time that I am going to invite the noble Lord's attention, and even perhaps the attention of the noble Marquess, who may, perhaps, be in a benevolent frame of mind, to this reduction from 1·50d. or 1·25d. rather than leave the matter in the position in which it now stands, which, I think, is not fair to the Railway Companies. I am not in any way urging this as the advocate of the Railway Companies, for I sat 48 days trying to find fault with them, and trying to find fault with the traders; and the result of all my
    740
    examinations and lucubrations is that if your Lordships sanction this as it now stands in the Schedule you will be doing what is not fair towards the railways.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The first line in regard to which the Motion is made is the Chester and Holyhead. The noble Lord quoted—we have both quoted—more than once the authority of Mr. Darbishire, and he said quite distinctly that his counsel assented to a small scale on the smaller lines, but what he assented to was l·25d. for the Chester and Holyhead. 1·25d. is the scale now in the Bill, even if this Amendment is not accepted, and, therefore, upon the noble Lord's authority, and for the reasons I have stated before, I really cannot go back from what I have said, or accept this Amendment in any form.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But what does the noble Lord say with regard to the other line? He has only mentioned the Chester and Holyhead. The noble Lord will also remember, of course, that the waggons are included.
    *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is that difference, certainly, between Class A and Class B; but I am unable to accept the Amendment for a special scale to Class B in any form.
    *LORD BELPER: It is extremely difficult to discuss details in this House, but I think the result is that the rate in Class A is decidedly higher than in Class B; that is to say, a trader can carry an unmanufactured article in the rough more cheaply than he can carry the same article if it is in a partly manufactured state. Take bricks, for example, which I mentioned before. There is a large traffic upon this line of that kind, and they actually have to carry the bricks cheaper than the clay that is to be made into bricks. As regards the traffic upon the Chester and Holyhead Line, Mr. Darbishire is no authority, as the noble Lord says, because he did not offer anything; bat as far as the small lines are concerned, the Board of Trade are giving less than even the traders are willing to accept.
    Moved, in page 12, scale 2, after the words ("Cockermouth and Workington") insert as an addition to such scale:

    —

    Maximum Rate for Conveyance per Ton per Mile.

    Maximum Station Terminal at each end.

    d.

    Chester and Holyhead

    1·75d. for the first 20 miles, and 1·25d. for the remainder of the distance.

    6

    Bangor and Bethesda

    d. 1·75

    6

    Bettws and Festiniog

    Bettws Extension

    Dyffws Junction

    Bangor and Carnarvon

    Carnarvonshire

    Carnarvon and Llanberis

    Nantlle Branch

    —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
    On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 19.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment.
    Standing Committee negatived.

  SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 262.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 287.)
  HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES BILL. (No. 334.)
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TURBARY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 265.)

    THIRD READING.
    Bill read 3a (according to order).
    EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, before the Motion is put that this Bill do pass, I should like to say a few words upon it. I do so simply as a moral protest against this kind of legislation. This Bill probably follows necessarily on the Land Bill, which has occupied so much of the time of Parliament during the present Session. Those who have from the first, during the past 21 years, protested
    742
    against all this kind of legislation as one; evil leading to another, are bound, and, I think, justified, in saying, as I shall say, simply as a moral protest against its passing—Not-Content. Your Lordships must have observed from the beginning that no sooner has one measure of this kind passed than it has been followed by another. This is a corollary of the Land Bill. It is not only as regards Ireland that we have the evil of subsequent mischievous legislation, but the principles which have been adopted in Ireland find their way across the Channel to other countries. Take the Irish legislation and the Land Court. You find that the same principles have crossed the Channel and taken root in Scotland. You have the Crofters' Commission, you have the Courts fixing rents there, and you may possibly have a Turbary Bill made in reference to Scotland. Not only that, my Lords, but I think the principle goes a great deal further, for it appears to me—and I should be glad if my noble Friend can draw any distinction between the cases—that there is no more reason for legislation of this kind in Ireland and Scotland than there is in England and Wales, and, further than that, in the shops of London. Why should not the shopkeepers of London have money provided for them to buy

    743
    their shops on the estates of the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Westminster? This is the only reason I can see for drawing a distinction, and I should like to know whether the noble Lord is able to draw any other than that, as yet, the farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland, and in England, and Wales, pay their rent, and do not take pot shots at their landlords; that one set of people are obedient, and law abiding, while the other is lawless and violent? and you have encouraged them by this utterly rotten kind of legislation. All I have to say is that in this kind of legislation there is a racy Irish flavour about it which makes it really comical. What has been the great complaint in Ireland? Why, landlordism. The one wish of the Irish tenant was to abolish landlordism, and here you have been engaged the whole of this Session in encouraging landlordism a hundredfold. We who hold other views have nothing for it but to say as a moral protest "Not-Content "to the passing of such a Bill as this.
    Bill passed.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.—(No. 225.)
    POST OFFICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 254.)
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No 269.)
  Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE VACCINATION ACTS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was within the power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to cause persons fined for non-compliance with the Vaccination Laws to be treated otherwise than as simple imprisonment prisoners—i.e., as convicted criminal prisoners not sentenced to hard labour, by ordering them to be treated as first-class misdemeanants, or in any other
  744
  way; and, if so, whether he would consider the expediency of giving directions that they should be so treated, said: My Lords, this question arises out of another question which I put to Her Majesty's Government the other day with reference to the treatment of persons who are committed to prison in consequence of breaches of the Vaccination Laws, the question being whether it is competent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to treat them otherwise than as criminal prisoners not sentenced to hard labour, which, as I understand, is now stated to be the form of imprisonment now imposed upon them, or whether he can subject them to some different kind of treatment. I pointed out on the last occasion why it seemed to me expedient, if it were possible in the interests of vaccination quite as much as on account of the protests of those who object to it, to adopt such a course. I observe in the answer given in another place, if it was correctly reported, to a somewhat similar question asked since I put down this question on the Paper, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no power at all to treat persons imprisoned for breach of the Vaccination Laws otherwise than as ordinary criminal prisoners. I do-not quite understand on what that is founded, or whether it results, from some reading of the 38th section of the Prisons Act, 1877, which was passed at the instance of the noble Viscount opposite," and which seems to me, I confess, to apply to such cases, because it provides that the Secretary of State may make, alter, or add rules with regard to the classification of prisoners imprisoned for failure to pay sums of money under an order, or sums of money which have been adjudged to be paid by order of a Justice or Justices, so that such rules are made in accordance with the Act of 1865. I have only lately looked at the Act, and the impression on my mind is that it enables the Secretary of State to mitigate the course of imprisonment imposed for default of payment, or in default of distress, to satisfy a sum of money ordered to be paid. That seems to me to be just the position of many, if not all, those persons who are committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination Laws, and, therefore, I do not understand why it is suggested

  745
  there is no power to mitigate the punishment, and that such persons must be treated as convicted criminals not sentenced to "hard labour."
  LORD DE RAMSEY: The Secretary of State has, in his opinion, no power to do that which the noble and learned Lord wishes to see done—that is to say, the power of ordering convicted prisoners to be treated as first-class misdemeanants does not belong to the Secretary of State. This power has been given to a Judge, and, perhaps, also—though this is not free from doubt—to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Secretary of State has not, therefore, by law the authority which the noble and Learned Lord suggests he has. I gather from the noble and learned Lord's remarks that he takes a different view of this altogether, and, of course, I shall consider it my duty to lay those remarks before the Home Secretary, and to mention to him the Act which the noble and learned Lord has quoted to-night.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My question, if I may be allowed to say so, pointed to this: I understood these persons were receiving the treatment of convicted criminal prisoners not sentenced to "hard labour." That was the statement made to me; but what I was pointing out was that there is power in the Secretary of State by classification to mitigate, though not to increase, the punishment if it is imprisonment inflicted on persons for non-payment of a sum ordered to be paid or in default of distress. Whether they ought to be called convicted persons or not I do not know, but I would venture to call the attention of the Secretary of State to their treatment.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: I quite understand—"convicted offenders" is the point. I can only say that I will lay the noble and learned Lord's view before the Home Secretary.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Eleven o'clock.