Lords Sitting of 23 June 1891

MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 124.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL, now LAW AGENTS AND NOTARIES PUBLIC (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 97.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 198.)
BILLS OF SALE ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 159)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this Bill proposes to amend the Law relating to bills of sale by exempting from the operation of what I may call the later Bills of Sale Acts, a certain class of security which is a very common form, and has been, as I know personally for a great many years, of mercantile security used particularly at Liverpool. It may be used, of course, in many other places, but I know of its use largely there. The earlier Bills of Sale Acts were intended for the protection of creditors, so that persons might not make secret dispositions of their goods, and the creditors find themselves in consequence defrauded. In an Act having that object in view the widest possible definition, of course, was given to the term bill of sale. In subsequent years Acts were passed having exactly the opposite view, namely, the protection of the debtor, because it was found that ignorant and unwary debtors were often entrapped into signing documents containing complicated provisions which they did not understand, by which they were some
  1162
  times led into difficulties and very often defrauded. It will be seen at once that the stringent provisions of these laws were not applicable to the mercantile instruments which had been in use for many years. They were never intended to be applied to cases of that description. The definition of bills of sale, which was very properly made as wide as possible, when the object was to protect creditors, was applied with certain exceptions to bills of sale where the purpose was the opposite one of protecting the debtor, the result being restrictions which would never, I am quite sure, have been designedly put upon mercantile instruments in consequence of the legislation attaching to them. This Bill proposes to relieve this particular class of mercantile instruments in common use from those restrictions. Of course it would not interfere with their being subject to the law of reputed ownership, or the provisions for the protection of creditors, but it would exclude those provisions which are inserted for the protection of debtors but which are quite inapplicable to mercantile transactions of this description. I have therefore to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which has passed the other House without objection.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I entirely support the object of this Bill. The only doubt I have is one which I am sure is shared by my noble and learned Friend himself, that is to say, whether any attempt of a patchwork kind to get rid of the main objection here is not rather vain, in view of what must one of those days be undertaken, namely, the amendment of these two Acts of Parliament. They are Acts of Parliament it will be seen for totally different objects, and appointing totally different remedies, and the result is that it is extremely difficult among commercial people to know whether from the form of particular documents, they come within the definition of bills of sale or not. Speaking for myself, I may say that presiding in the Court of Appeal not long ago, the same difficulty was entertained by members of the Court as to whether a railway debenture was not a bill of sale within some of the definitions

  1163
  and therefore void unless made to comply with the provisions in regard to a bill of sale, as in the case of a person borrowing money on his household goods. Now, that is a result leading almost to an absurdity, and the consequence has been that mercantile people who have to deal with these securities, feel that sooner or later there must be an effort made to consolidate the law on this subject, and to prevent the application to ordinary commercial instruments of provisions which were intended for the protection merely of debtors. It was not intended to apply such a principle as that to commercial instruments, which it is necessary should be dealt with as rapidly as possible, and which certainly could not be managed with proper rapidity if business men had to go to a lawyer on every occasion in order to find out whether the particular instrument with which they were dealing was or not in exact form. Certainly the provision would have to be modified in some respects to bring it within the law with regard to those instruments. I think it right to say this, because I myself brought in a Bill last year applicable to these Liverpool instruments, which it was supposed at the time would be sufficient to get rid of the difficulty. I now find, however, there is another class of instruments which this Bill is supposed to affect, coming under the operation of the Act. The result, I think, is that we must, sooner or later, amend the law and put it into a more intelligible form, so as to render those two Acts of Parliament harmonious legislation, which at present they certainly are not.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I have been tempted, I was going to say—though, perhaps, it is hardly the right way—to put my hand to the task and put these two Acts into more intelligible and satisfactory form, and certainly, if my noble and learned Friend will afford me his assistance in doing so, I shall be happy to make the attempt in the coming Session.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.—(No. 160.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which has passed the other House, and it has a very simple object. The object is to enable Local Authorities, Town Councils, and others, to consolidate their loans by creating Stock so as to convert their existing securities—which are often securities which have been created at different times and, on different subjects—into a single security. The effect of this consolidation has been found in many cases very valuable to public bodies, inasmuch as it saves them a considerable amount of expense, and makes the securities of a more available character and more easily disposed of in small quantities. The power has been obtained by means of private Acts by some of the large municipalities, such as Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen; but, of course, it is an expensive proceeding if each of these Local Authorities has to come to Parliament for special Acts empowering it so to consolidate its loans; but inasmuch as a Private Act of Parliament comes before the authorities of both Houses, and the proposal of the Local Authority is therefore subject to a certain amount of scrutiny, it has been thought right in this Bill to provide a substitute for that scrutiny, and, consequently, by the 6th clause of the Bill, it is provided that the Local Authority shall not be empowered to carry out a proposed consolidation of this description until it is confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland. This, of course, affords a sufficient guarantee against any improper use of the power by the Local Authorities, and the Act contains power to the Secretary for Scotland, if need be, to cause inquiry to be made into the purport of the proposal of the Local Authorities. I think in those safeguards there can be no danger in passing the Bill, and I believe it will be an immense benefit to many of the Local Authorities in Scotland.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite. I entirely agree with him that this Bill will be an exceedingly useful one. The

  1165
  only objection I have to it is, perhaps, an official one, namely, that it appears to me the whole responsibility of administering this Bill, which is rather a large one, will fall upon the unfortunate Secretary for Scotland. However, probably it may turn out not to be so eventually, and that after the first few oases have been decided, the unfortunate Secretary for Scotland will not have to reconsider the decision in every case, but that the first few decisions will govern them all. With that caveat on behalf of the office which I have the honour to hold, I hope your Lordships will give a Second Beading to this Bill.
  Bill read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ROADS AND STREETS AND POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No 161.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, this Bill proposes to deal with certain inconveniences and anomalies which have arisen in the management of the roads and streets in some of the smaller burghs in Scotland. I think I can sufficiently show to your Lordships the necessity for the Bill by stating in a few words what the present position is. The general Act which abolished tolls in Scotland in 1878 constituted County Road bodies which have the management of all the roads, with the exception that in Royal burghs, and in police burghs of above 5,000 inhabitants, the roads fall under the Burgh Authorities, who become separate authorities for those purposes. So far as I know there is really no substantial difference between a Royal burgh and a police burgh, except, perhaps, in matter of antiquity. They have the same constituents, the same elections, the same Magistrates, the same Courts, and they perform the same functions; and least of all, is there any difference in the matter of population, because police burghs range from the burgh of Govan, which contains something like 60,000 in habitants, to the small burghs, and the Royal burghs go down even lower still till they come to the case of one having only 380 inhabitants. In fact, of the small burghs in Scotland
  1166
  there are 46 Royal burghs and 77 police burghs. It is obvious that the transference of the roads in the Royal burghs and not in the small police burghs was calculated to create some feeling of jealousy in the latter, and that has been accentuated as time went on, because, unfortunately, variations have occurred. In the first place, some burghs which had above 5,000 inhabitants have become less, and some that had less than 5,000 have become larger. But in addition to that there were certain provisions in the Act of 1878 which have increased these anomalies and inequalities. The Act provides that in a certain period after the adoption of the Act, a list of highways should be made up under each of the road authorities, and the roads which were intended to be put upon that list were roads which had been formerly maintained from public funds. After the list was made up, those roads, and those roads only, became highways, and were maintained out of the county assessments. Of course it would never have done that that list should be considered final, and accordingly there were subsequent provisions in the Act which enact that certain steps should be taken to put roads upon the list. That provision has been acted upon I should think very often, certainly it has in my own experience, but it has had a legal interpretation given to it. I am not, of course, going to argue the matter upon any legal interpretation, I am only going to state a fact in regard to the police burghs in this connection. It has been held that the list once made up in a police burgh cannot be added to; that new roads or streets cannot be added under the provisions of the Act to which I have referred in the case of those police burghs. Again, to create a still further anomaly, there have been, since the adoption of the Act, places incorporated as burghs which were not then burghs, and in those cases which sometimes referred to places of above 5,000 inhabitants, sometimes to places of below 5,000 inhabitants, in both cases the roads are under the management of the County Authorities, but different from their neighbours who were within police burghs at the time of the passing of the Act, can have all their roads placed upon the county rates. Now, it follows, therefore, that we have a variety of conditions with regard to

  1167
  burghs in Scotland. We have among the towns of above 5,000 inhabitants in the first place, Royal burghs, and in the second place, police burghs that were police burghs before 1878, who are separate road authorities, and who manage their own roads. Then we have police burghs which have been incorporated since that date, which are managed by the County Authorities, and have all their roads so managed; and in the fourth place, we have the police burghs, which were incorporated before that date, and were then below the 5,000 limit, but have now increased, which are under county management, but which have no roads put upon the rates except the roads which were included as highways. Then, in places of below 5,000 inhabitants, we have practically the same divisions. We have the Royal burghs with their own management, the police burghs of 5,000 inhabitants in 1878, but now below that number, with their own management, and then we have the two other divisions, those which have all their roads maintained because of the lateness of their incorporation, and those which can only have their roads maintained which are highways in the county sense. I think this statement will be sufficient to show your Lordships that there are very serious anomalies, and what ordinary persons would naturally consider inequalities if they are resident in a police burgh with regard to the position of the roads in the police burghs in Scotland. I shall sum up the grievances which the inhabitants feel in this matter under two heads. In the first place, there is the grievance which affects these side or new streets. I do not think I need insist upon the great importance of those streets being maintained in proper order. In fact, anyone who has had anything to do with sanitary management, will recognise at once that the necessity of maintaining those streets in proper order, and seeing that they are kept clean, is one of the reasons for the incorporation of small burghs. But besides that, many of them became very important streets in the burghs to which they belong. I have seen it stated that in the burgh of Millport, the whole rental on which the county lays its assessment abuts on these streets which are not on the county lists, and
  1168
  none of them apparently abut on any street or road which the county maintains. And in another case (Newport) with which I am acquainted, as being in my own county, of the total valuation of £18,000 no less than £10,000 abuts on streets for which no provision is made out of the county rates. Or, take another instance. A station may be put down in the neighbourhood. If a road leading to that station is in the county there can be no doubt, under the provisions of the Act, that the road will be put on the county list and maintained; but if it passes through a police burgh under the power to which I have alluded, it cannot be so put upon the list, and that, no doubt, is a great grievance. Then, in the second place, there is a grievance with regard to the main roads which are maintained by the county, because it is certainly an inconvenient state of affairs that these main roads, which are practically the main streets of these burghs in which the Commissioners must lay down gas and water pipes, and which they must break up for many purposes are entirely under the control and supervision of the officials of the county, and those officials are naturally and rightly somewhat jealous of any interference which might damage the roadway as a roadway. So far as I know, the objections which are taken to this measure from the county point of view depend chiefly on two considerations; In the first place, it is feared that allowing these police burghs to become separate Road Authorities may withdraw a certain portion of road assessment which the counties now enjoy. I do not think I need enter into the general argument on that point. It appears to me, if these small burghs are to be allowed to incorporate themselves for the various purposes for which they are so incorporated, it is almost necessary that the maintenance of the roads, and the assessments for the maintenance of the roads, should follow. But I would just point out that in this Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House, the contention which has been brought forward on behalf of the counties is given effect to in a manner which has not been done before; because what this Bill provides is not that the police burghs may by any action of their own, and without any further steps, take possession of the road

  1169
  and levy the assessment, but that if they pass a resolution that they desire to take possession of the roads, they are then to agree upon terms with the County Authorities; and if the parties do not agree themselves, it is provided that the terms shall be settled summarily by the
  "Sheriff or Sheriff of the county or counties in which the police burgh is situate, who shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the cost of maintaining the highways in the neighbourhood of such police burghs."
  That is the contention as I understand it, and I have heard a good deal of it now for many years, which has always been advanced on behalf of county management of the roads—that we have some claim upon the burghs, large and small, which formerly used to pay tolls when they used our roads, but who now got the use of the roads for nothing; and I venture to" suggest that, in the recognition of this principle in the present Bill, we have as county men received some consideration. At any rate, it is as a compromise that I regard it and that I advocate it. In the second place, I can quite sympathise with the other objection, which is naturally felt, namely, that a central administration, particularly for main roads, is exceedingly desirable, and that to cut it up among a very large number of small Road Authorities is not desirable. But I will just point out that we have to look at both sides of this question, and the consideration which I have advanced with regard to the management of the streets for other purposes by the Burgh Authorities seems to me to raise difficulties which are practically insuperable in any other way, and I would further suggest that in this Bill again there is an opportunity for a compromise on reasonable terms. I see nothing to prevent the County Authorities stipulating, in the terms which they are authorised under this Bill to make with the burghs, that a contract should be entered into either with the county directly or by the appointment of a county road surveyor as the surveyor for the burghs. The superintendence of the roads would thus be maintained in one hand. I speak with some experience in this matter, because I know a case in my own county in which that was satisfactorily done. There is
  1170
  another alternative comprised in the Bill, namely, in the 6th clause, which in cases where the burghs do not resolve to take possession of roads allows County Road Authorities to pay a small sum for the maintenance of side streets under the superintendence of the Burgh Authorities. I am quite prepared to say that in many cases with which lam acquainted that would have' settled the whole matter, if we had had the power (which we were advised we had not), long ago. I would venture to say that I speak with some experience in this particular matter, because I belong to a county which has more small burghs in it than any other county in Scotland. Fife has 18 Royal burghs, mostly under 5,000 inhabitants, and 10 police burghs, and I would only say that if for administrative purposes there is a real advantage in a Central Authority, this surely ought to be done by a measure which deals not only with the small police burghs, but also with the small Royal burghs, and I venture to suggest respectfully to my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland that if not in this matter, at any rate in sanitary matters, the time will come when he will have to consider seriously the necessity of introducing some general measure for the purpose of bringing these small burghs into line with the counties; but I do not see that there is any reason why, in the meantime, the smaller police burghs should be put at a disadvantage as compared with the position of their neighbours. One word more I would venture to say to your Lordships with regard to the history of this question. This is by no means a new question. The difficulties and friction have existed for a long time, practically since the passing of the Road Act, or very soon afterwards; but it was supposed that this matter would be dealt with in one of the largest Bills that was ever submitted to your Lordships' consideration—the Burgh Police Bill; and it was only when, I suppose from its mere weight, it failed to pass that those who are interested in these burghs brought forward this Bill last year. In the course of the history of that Burgh Police Bill the matter was very carefully sifted indeed. It went through two Select Committees I think, one of this and one of the other House;

  1171
  and in the last Select Committee, that of the other House, this particular subject received, as I know, particular attention, and the Bill, which I have the honour of presenting to your Lordships, is based essentially on the clauses which were adjusted by that Select Committee. The Bill was this Session brought forward again, and was received by both Parties in the other House cordially. It was suggested that it should stand over for some time in order that the County Councils in Scotland should have time to consider it, and that is the reason it has not reached this House before the present date; but the Lord Advocate announced himself a warm supporter of the Bill; the name of the Solicitor General of the late Government was on the back of the Bill; and, therefore, I think I am entitled to say this Bill comes up from the other House with the practical consent of both Parties. It has had considerable support outside. I believe there were about 70 Petitions in favour of the Bill and only one against it, and I have had the honour this evening of presenting to your Lordships' House a Petition from the representatives of the police burghs of Scotland, urging very strongly that your Lordships should allow this Bill to pass this Session on the ground which I have already mentioned, namely, that it is a satisfactory compromise. I venture for these reasons to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the subject which is raised by this Bill is one of considerable importance in the local administration of Scotland, and I think it requires a little attention. The proposal of the Bill is that any police burgh, without any limit of population at all, shall have it in its power to assume the management of its own roads and streets. That is accompanied, however, by the condition that the Sheriff shall name the terms upon which police burghs shall cease to be part of the county. Now, so far as principle goes, this Bill is objectionable, because it departs and recedes from the principle which is laid down in the Local Government Act for Scotland which was passed two years ago. The Local Government
  1172
  Act recognised the desirability of diminishing as far as possible the power of the small burghs. The Local Government Act insists that police burghs of under 7,000 inhabitants shall not maintain and support police, and that they shall not be Local Authorities with regard to the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. This Bill takes exactly the reverse line, and perhaps I may just mention to your Lordships the practical effect it will have. Of police burghs with a population of under 1,000 there are 6; between 1,000 and 2,000 there are 22; between 2,000 and 3,000 there are 19; between 3,000 and 4,000 there are 19; and between 4,000 and 5,000 there are 11, making a total number of 77, and therefore, if this Bill passes, it is quite possible, and not only possible but quite probable, that you will set up 77 additional Road-keeping Authorities in Scotland. Of course, these new centres of administration will be, if I may so call them, so many islands in the counties, and certainly, in themselves, if there were no other reasons for creating them, I think that what I have already said would be a very great objection against the principle of the measure. But I do not wish to discuss this question at all. My noble Friend said just now that this Bill had been attacked and opposed from the point of view of the counties. I do not wish to discuss the Bill from that point of view at all. I wish to look at it both with regard to the counties and with regard to the burghs themselves. I quite admit that, as far as the larger burghs are concerned, it is very desirable that they should have the management of their own roads and streets; but up to the present time, and until the introduction of this Bill, it has never been proposed that the very small burghs should have the management of their roads and streets. In the Police Bill which my noble Friend quoted just now the clause was that all the police burghs which had a population of 5,000 should have this power of managing their own streets; but that police burghs having a less population than 5,000 should only have the power of taking over their streets if the consent of the county was obtained. This Bill goes a great deal further, because it says that a police

  1173
  burgh, of whatever size, may, if it chooses, take over its own streets, and in the list I have mentioned to your Lordships there are several, as you have heard, which have a population of less than 1,000. Now, I readily admit that these police burghs have one undoubted grievance, which was mentioned just now; they are not able, in the first place, to control the streets and pathways which are among their own houses, and are not able to interfere with them. The county surveyor may, if he chooses, request that they shall not interfere with the surface of the streets. That, I admit, is a very considerable hardship, and, also, it is perfectly true that unless the county district consents they cannot get their side streets put upon the list of highways. I am not quite certain whether they even can if the county district does consent; and that also, I admit, is a considerable grievance. The main objection, however, which they have taken is this: that they contribute much more largely to the support of the roads than to the extent of the benefit which they themselves derive from their assessment. But these small burghs, of course, must understand this: that if in this particular they contribute more than they receive from the county, in certain other respects they receive a great deal more than they contribute. For instance with regard to the Police Force. It is quite well-known that maintaining the police in these very small burghs is a very considerable expense upon the counties; and, therefore, if you are merely looking upon questions of this sort from the point of view of money, you must remember that if in regard to roads they suffer, in other matters, such as police, they are considerable gainers from the county. I am not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but there are two or three other matters which I wish to bring under the notice of your Lordships and of those who drafted the Bill. In the first place, this Bill, as I have said, is drawn entirely in the interests of the burghs. It places the whole initiative in their hands. A burgh may say to a county, "We wish to leave you; "and, subject to the confirmation of the arrangement by the Sheriff, the burgh may do what it pleases in the matter. I cannot help thinking that, in dealing with these
  1174
  roads, the county ought to have a reciprocal power. The county ought to be able to say, if it so wishes, "We prefer that you, if a police burgh, should manage your own roads and streets." There would be more value in an Amendment of this sort than some suppose, because those who, like myself and the noble Earl who has just spoken (the Earl of Elgin), have something to do with the local administration in Scotland know that very frequently disputes and difficulties arise which, if you had the power of determining them in some such way as this, would never be heard of. There is another point which I should like to call your Lordships' attention to, and that is that the terms under which these small burghs may be removed from the county are to be settled by the Sheriff, and the Sheriff includes, of course, the Sheriff Substitute, unless express provision is made to the contrary. Now, this might easily happen: that in some counties where there are small burghs and several Sheriff Substitutes, you might have the terms arranged in the same county on quite different principles. I think it is desirable there should be as few versions of the law as possible; and that in each county it is desirable for that purpose that the Sheriff himself should settle the terms on which this alteration of jurisdiction is to take place. The same thing has been done in other matters. It was done with regard to the Corrupt Practices Act for Scotland which was passed only last year; the same thing was done in practice also, if not enforced by the law, in the case of the settlement of the electoral divisions under the Local Government Act; and I think the same arrangement would be very desirable here. There is one further point to which I would allude, and that is a matter which, I think, deserves some further consideration; it is whether there should not in these cases be some periodical revision of the terms of separation, the reason being this: that it will very probably happen that some of these police burghs will extend themselves. As the police burghs grow in size, so, of course, they will use the county roads more and more, and it is desirable, I think, that at the end of some certain term, which, of course should not be a little one, after a

  1175
  certain duration of time a revision of terms should be conceded in the interests either of the county, or of the burgh, or of both. With these few remarks, which I commend to the attention of the noble Lord, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary that I should say much regarding this Bill. It is not a Government measure, but perhaps some of your Lordships who are interested in this question may think it right that I should say a few words upon it. The question, as the noble Earl, who has just sat down has said, is one of considerable interest in Scotland, affecting as it does the interests of both burghs and counties. As a matter of fact, the reason for introducing this Bill is that the police burghs, as stated by the noble Earl, are dissatisfied with the position which they hold in the existing state of matters. The burghs have nothing to say with regard to the complicated position of the various burghs in Scotland as the noble Earl has said, referring, of course, to the various police burghs and Royal burghs which have a population of 5,000 and upwards, having the management of their own roads, and with regard to those under that number of population not having the management of their own roads. The question, which is one of supreme interest to the counties of Scotland, is whether practically under this Bill a very large amount of assessment is to be taken away from the counties, and therefore not used for the purpose of maintaining these particular roads? That is a matter which ought not to be loft an open question under this Bill. I have no doubt that the burghs, anxious as they are for this Bill, are anxious that the counties should not suffer. I think that is the basis of the compromise which they now offer. They desire to have the management of their own roads, as has been stated by the noble Earl who has introduced the measure, because under the existing state of matters they pay the valuation, and yet they have not the management of the side streets, upon which a great part of that valuation is levied. That is the first consideration; and, secondly, because in the state
  1176
  of matters which now exists very great inconvenience is felt in regard to questions of sewerage, gas lighting, and other similar subjects. I think the noble Earl who has just sat down raised a question which was well worthy the consideration of the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill. I do not intend to make any positive statement on the subject now, because I would rather see what the proposals of the noble Earl are if he introduces Amendments on the Committee stage in this House; but the point I was alluding to is the vagueness of the basis on which the Sheriffs are to estimate in the case of any burghs managing their own roads the sums they are to pay to the counties. I do not know whether, in the present form of the Bill, the word "Sheriff" would include the Sheriff Substitute, and I think that adds to the difficulty If it does include the Sheriff Substitute it need not be so stated in the Bill, because in Scotland, unless it is stated to the contrary, a reference to the Sheriff does include the Sheriff Substitute, and as the noble Earl has pointed out, if the Sheriffs and the Sheriff Substitutes are in each case to come to a decision upon the merits according to their own way of looking at the matter, there will no doubt be great divergence in the decisions and opinions they may come to. There was another point to which the noble Earl referred; and if he will put an Amendment upon the Paper with regard to it, I shall be most happy to consider it on the part of the Government. More than that I cannot say now, as I do not exactly recollect at the moment what it was.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I shall be glad if I can be of any assistance. I said that I thought the terms of separation might be periodically revised in the event of the burghs being largely extended.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That was the point to which I wished to allude. I think that also is well worthy of consideration, because the size of the burghs varies very considerably in Scotland. They sometimes increase considerably, and sometimes they decrease. I hope that is a matter which the noble Earl will consider; but upon the principle of the Bill, and quite apart from mere details, I hope your Lordships will give

  1177
  a Second Reading to the Bill. Whatever alterations may he necessary will be a question hereafter. That will depend upon another stage. I can only say that I sincerely hope the Bill will pass into law this Session.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary of Scotland that the Bill is not opposed on behalf of the Government. I only rise to say that although the noble Lord who raised this Debate spoke of the Bill as one which is demanded in the interest of the police burghs, I think it must be borne in mind that none of the counties have petitioned except Perth.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For far is not in favour of it.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: The County of Aberdeen has petitioned in favour of the Bill, with one single qualifying exception, which I do not think bears at all upon the merits of the Bill. On the whole, the counties have shown an attitude favourable to the Bill, and for that reason I am glad to hear from the noble Earl the Secretary for Scotland that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to oppose the Bill.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FISHERIES BILL—(No. 17.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."
  *THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, I wish to take the opportunity of asking a question of Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will remember, perhaps, that on the Second Reading I raised a short discussion upon a question which is very interesting to me, regarding certain grievances connected with the salmon fishery in Solway Firth; and the result of the observations I then made was that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland replied to me, and in doing so he brought out the other side of the question,
  1178
  as was natural. I thought only of the grievances connected with the English side, because I was not aware that there were grievances on the Scotch side; but the noble Lord stated that there were equally grievances on the Scotch side of the Solway. Of course, two wrongs do not make a right; but, on the other hand, from the remarks then made by the noble Marquess, the importance of the matter became much greater and the necessity of dealing with it much stronger than when I put it merely from the English point of view. I understood the noble Lord to say, at the conclusion of his speech, that he would look into the matter, and, if possible, devise some remedy for the grievances, which he admits as fully as I do. Now, I wish to know whether I may regard the remarks of the noble Marquess as pledging Her Majesty's Government to look into this question, and as a promise to endeavour to devise a remedy. I ask the question with all the more earnestness because the remarks of the noble Marquess, as reported in the daily newspapers, do not seem to me quite so emphatic as I understood them to be; and I should be very glad to know, in the interests of my poor clients, the fishermen on the English bank of the Solway, whether I am to understand his remarks as pledging Her Majesty's Government in the manner I have just now described.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in answer to the question which has been put to me by the Right Rev. relate, I have to remind him that as far as my recollection goes what I did say was this; That it is my great desire to have an inquiry made into the condition of matters with regard to the fisheries in Solway Firth, but in consequence of the remarks of the Right Rev. Prelate the other day, I have thought it desirable as the question has now extended considerably beyond the Scotch side of the question, as there is great difficulty existing both on the English and. Scotch side, to put myself in communication with the President of the Board of Trade. I have done this with the view, if possible, of obtaining the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, with the view of bringing about an assimilation of the law on both sides of the Solway Firth. Whether that may

  1179
  be possible or not I do not know, but I think I said there were great difficulties in the way of doing that. However, I can only repeat the statement which I made the other day that it is my great desire this condition of matters should be brought to an end, and that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the difficulties existing in regard to these fisheries. I am afraid I cannot go beyond that now, or pledge Her Majesty's Government to the appointment of a Commission. I hope a Commission may be appointed, and that something may be done in the matter, but if not it shall not be from any want of interest on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the condition affecting these fishermen, or from any want of desire to bring the matter to a satisfactory termination.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee accordingly, and reported, without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL.—(No 131.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment which has been suggested by the Local Government Board, for the insertion in Clause 11 of some words after the words "borough and other authorities."
  Moved, in Clause 11, page 4, line 27, after the word "authorities "to insert the words" other than the Council of the county or borough.—(The Duke of Westminster.)
  On question, agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I have put down an Amendment which I have to recommend very strongly to your Lordships. It is after the word "exceed," page 7, line 22, to insert the words "three-fourths of." My reason for proposing this Amendment is that this Bill is a very serious blow to the salt industry of Cheshire, which I may say is the staple industry of a very considerable part of that county, and is
  1180
  desirable, therefore, in the interests of trade and commerce in those districts, to endeavour to alleviate the effects of it as far as we can in a reasonable manner. I am further induced to move this Amendment because it follows the example which has been set in previous legislation in regard to the Cattle Plague Acts, and so forth. Your Lordships will remember that, under that legislation, although compensation was accorded to farmers whose cattle had to be slaughtered for the public good, provision was made that in no case should the whole amount of damage be allowed to be recovered by the farmer. I think three-fourths was the general rule that was allowed by the Acts in that respect. Your Lordships are also aware that a similar rule is adhered to very strictly by most of the fire insurance companies. Among other rules of those companies they do not compensate a man fully for any loss he may sustain. I think in this case there is this additional reason for pursuing that course: that there is a strong presumption, amounting to an almost absolute certainty, that the person who will claim compensation has benefited probably during the whole of his life, and his predecessors during their lives, that is to say, the estate has been a great gainer by the abstraction of the brine in these districts, the abstraction of which has been more or less the direct cause of these subsidences. I will not detain your Lordships further now. I will only say that I think the full amount of compensation is rather a severe tax upon an industry which is certainly not so prosperous as some of your Lordships seem to imagine. I venture, therefore, to move this Amendment.
  Moved, in Clause 22, page 7, line 22, after "exceed" to insert "three-fourths of."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I cannot quite understand upon what ground this Amendment is moved. Certain injury is supposed to be done to property by this brine pumping, and why should not the brine pumpers be called upon to pay for the immediate injury done? The noble Lord opposite says that in the case of the Cattle Plague Acts

  1181
  three-fourths, compensation only was given, but there nobody had done the injury, it was a visitation of Providence. This, on the other hand, is a case where these men have done an injury to a certain extent. Why should they pay only three-fourths, and not the whole amount of the damage? I cannot understand the ground on which this is put. Then, with regard to the practice of insurance companies, if insurance companies only choose to insure people to the extent of three-fourths of the amount of the injury, that is their affair; but upon what ground these persons are to be exempted from paying for the whole damage and are only to pay three-fourths of it I cannot understand.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I hope your Lordships will not approve of this Amendment. The noble Lord has said it must be remembered that these people who will suffer have benefited by the prosperity of the salt trade. But Northwich is a county town, and whatever prosperity it possesses I do not think it can be said to have arisen entirely from the salt trade. Agriculture is carried on; there are fields cultivated, and so forth. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the other large firm concerned, Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co. are in favour of this clause, and are not in favour of the proposal which is put forward by the noble Lord.
  LORD THURLOW: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that Brunner, Mond, and Co., who have been referred to on several occasions, though a very important firm, are not exactly in the same position as the Salt Union. We must recollect that Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co., although very large brine pumpers, are not salt makers They make an article which is much more valuable, that is to say, they make soda-ash, and other things, for which they have a practical monopoly under several patents owned by them. I think there is some little confusion in the minds of several noble Lords in regard to the position of that firm. They know that Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co., have been for several years realising 25, 30, and even 40 percent, profit, but with regard to the saltmakers, that is not so. As a matter of fact, until the Salt union
  1182
  was established, they were suffering losses instead of realising profits. The industry was threatened almost with bankruptcy, and now, without being any longer in the position of fearing bankruptcy, these salt makers are not exactly in the position supposed. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that the Salt Union up to this time have not paid more than 9 per cent. per annum on their ordinary shares, a rate of profit which contrasts very forcibly with the figures which were given to us, and which the House was led to suppose the other day came out at 35 per cent., or something of that kind. However, I do not desire to press the Amendment.
  *LORD DE TABLEY: I must protest both as a landowner and a salt proprietor against the forced analogy which the noble Lord has just made. There is nothing in common, no kind of connection between the injury which is the consequence of cattle plague and damage arising from pumping brine from underneath a man's land. When it is proposed by the noble Lord to reduce the compensation from the total amount to three-fourths, he must have forgotten that the tradesman, or whoever it may be, whose property is injured, is only compensated from the direct damage he sustains, supposing his building is pumped down. His business has been suspended; his customers have been inconvenienced and have left him; he has to go elsewhere to carry on his business, and he gets nothing for plant, fixtures, or machinery which is injured. Therefore, I think the actual amount of the damage he sustains is not too much to give him, and that it is rather hard upon him to reduce it to three-fourths.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: There are three words in this clause to be inserted after the word "likely." I believe there is no opposition to that.
  Moved, in Clause 25, page 9, line 4, after "likely," to insert the words "to recur or."—(The Duke of Westminster.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 35.
  LORD THURLOW: In this clause I have to ask your Lordships to insert the words "or salt," after the word "brine," in line 15. The reason of that is very simple. This is a clause which has been very properly introduced in the other House to protect the interest of salt makers; to protect rights which have existed for many years, and contracts which have been made for several years in advance. As the clause stands, the interests involved are chiefly in respect of brine contracts, which, no doubt, are very large, but I would call the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the contracts for salt intended for chemical and other purposes are also very large. For example, I may quote one set of chemical contracts with one only of the two Pumping Companies, the Salt Union; that is a contract for the supply of 400,000 tons of salt for five years. That contract alone amounts to 2,000,000 tons of salt. Those 2,000,000 tons of salt are not sold to ordinary buyers of salt; they are sold for the purpose of being converted into valuable chemicals, and at only 7s. 6d. per ton. Now, 7s. 6d. per ton is a great deal lower price than has been the selling price for similar quantities of salt for some time past. The price has been as high, before the formation of the Salt Union, as 17s. a ton; at the present day the Salt Union has contracted to supply to nearly all the consumers in England quantities amounting to millions of tons at a price of only 7s. 6d. Therefore, I can see no fair reason why they should not reap the same advantage from contracts made by them in respect of supplies of salt as from contracts in respect of brine. I therefore hope the noble Duke will see his way, in fairness to the salt makers, and in view of the existing contracts, to accept this Amendment. I believe it was owing to a pure accident that the word salt was omitted when this clause was drafted, and there is every reason, in fairness, if you admit it with regard to brine in respect of contracts in advance, why you should not do it in the other case. There can be no logical difference between them as far as I can see.
  Moved, in Clause 35, page 11, line 15, after "brine," to insert the words" or salt."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I believe the promoters are not very favourable to the Amendment, but I do not know whether I ought to object to it.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I beg to point out one reason why I think your Lordships ought to be careful in admitting this Amendment. I think it is very desirable to keep people to the arrangements which they make in Committee. I have here the notes of the discussion which took place upon this very clause before the House of Commons Select Committee. After the discussion had gone on for a considerable time, several Counsel interfering and suggesting this and that, I find this took place: The Counsel for the Salt Union were asked, "Are you agreed upon it?" Then Mr. Lloyd, who was Counsel for the Salt Union, said, "Yes;" and the Chairman said, "Then I think you may let that clause go in." One can hardly believe that the Salt Union and their Counsel had not fully in their minds at that time the difference between brine and salt just as completely as they have it now. Then, there is another thing which I would point out. If this had been a private Bill, conducted in the usual way, no such Motion could have been made without somebody formally calling the attention of the saltmakers to it, and they would have had a right to appear. Here is a proposal now to add this unknown quantity without notice to any human being except us, who have received the Amendment to-day. I can see no reason why there should be this very material addition made to what was arranged in the House of Commons. I do not think that is at all a safe way of doing business. Therefore, if even the promoters of the Bill, who do not represent all the saltmakers, if they represent any, assent to it, I think your Lordships will say you are not satisfied with alterations proposed in this way. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships further upon that. I have no interest in the matter myself, one way or the other, except to preserve the regularity of proceeding. But I must add this: the next Amendment in my noble Friend's Paper expresses the utmost contempt for contracts, for if you look down the clauses, your eye will catch these words," Any covenant, or agreement, or contract

  1185
  to the contrary notwithstanding;" so that he is not much impeded, your Lordships see, by contracts when he finds them in his way and wants to rescind them.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot help feeling some misgiving as to whether this Amendment should be accepted, because the clause itself is a rather strong one, inasmuch as it adds somewhat to the contract price of an article which a person has contracted to buy. This Bill has been seen and read by the brine purchasing people, no doubt, and to add to it now such an important Amendment would be a serious matter. It would be an important addition which, it seems to me would not be likely to be accepted.
  *LORD HENNIKER: I do hope the House will not consent to this Amendment. I think the question has been threshed out most carefully in the House of Commons, and it would be a great mistake to put an Amendment of this kind into the Bill
  Amendment negatived.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 37.
  LORD THURLOW: I move in line 5 to insert words to enable a deduction to be made from any rents or royalties of one-half the amount of rate levied upon the brine raised on the property. I am sorry the noble Lord opposite takes exception to these words. I do not know that they are necessary; perhaps it is an undue measure of caution to have inserted them, but they were inserted by a draftsman of considerable skill in these matters, and, for my own part, I am not willing to run the risk of their omission. What I would point out to your Lordships is this: it seems to me it is a very unfair proceeding to tax the saltmakers in respect of their salt to the full amount, and to allow the people who derive benefit from fixed rents and royalties from the brine pumping, and who are just as much to blame as the pumpers themselves for subsidencies, to be let off scot free. Your Lordships must recollect this is a very strong case, because these rents and royalties have been fixed in advance in most cases in Cheshire for 30 years. Now, 30 years is a considerable length of time, and for one class of people
  1186
  who are conducting an industry of this kind to have to bear the burden of the whole of a new tax imposed is, I think, extremely unfair. I should like, if I could, to remove to some extent the impression which evidently has gained some ground as to the prosperity of the salt trade. There is not very much prosperity at the present moment, and if your Lordships pass this Bill without any of these Amendments, I can only say you will be dealing a most grievous blow at an industry which cannot really bear it. What I would say is this: that there is no such thing as a monopoly in salt. We know that a great many industries in this country have been hard pressed by foreign competition, and that is especially the case in the salt trade. There are new deposits being opened up in different parts of the world. There is any amount in Europe. Germany is full of it; Austria, Hungary, and Transylvania are full of it. The German salt, which is sent viâ Hamburg, is now replacing British salt, that is, salt from Cheshire, in the Calcutta market, where it is a great feature in the trade, and in the South African markets. In the same way the Americans in many places in their great continent are opening up the markets to their salt in an unprecedentedly rapid way, in Kansas and in other parts of America. The British industry in salt is consequently much cm the decline. If your Lordships will consult the statistics of the Board of Trade you will find that they bear out these facts: that the export trade in salt from England is dwindling and disappearing, and that it is all going into the hands of foreign salt producers and foreign salt shippers. I think this is a very strong point indeed, and it is not too much to say that, instead of doing all that Parliament can to place additional burdens upon this already heavily weighted industry, a contrary course ought to be pursued. I should say it was rather the duty of Parliament to endeavour to relieve it from some of the burdens which it now has to bear. At any rate, I think it is unreasonable in the highest degree that the people who do the mechanical work of salt pumping and salt making should be taxed to the whole amount, and that the people who have rents and royalties fixed in advance

  1187
  for 30 years should not be mulcted to the extent of a single farthing. I therefore venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I would venture to make an earnest appeal to the noble Duke not to be too hard-hearted in this matter. There is no doubt about the absolute truth of what I have stated, and that that is the feeling of the salt trade in this country. They feel that their trade is already being hard pressed, and that it will follow other branches of trade which have almost wholly left this country, if you turn the screw too tight. I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long, but I desired to correct this erroneous impression about the largo profits, founded upon these chemical prices. There are two kinds of salt used, only one being for agricultural purposes, and I am happy to say that it is cheaper to-day than it was before the formation of the Salt Union.
  Moved—
  In Clause 37, page 12, line 5, after ("Act,") to insert ("and shall be entitled to deduct from any rents or royalties payable by him one-half of the amount of the rate or rates levied under this Act upon the brine raised on the property, in respect of which such rents or royalties are paid, any covenant, agreement, or stipulation to the contrary notwithstanding.")—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: I am quite prepared to confirm what has been said by the noble Lord opposite that the price of salt has been increased, and, therefore, I do not think there is any argument to be derived from the prosperity, as has been represented, of the salt trade at the present time. The clause as drawn is, I think, a perfectly fair one, and I do not think any Amendment of this kind ought to be made.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I would just add to that a little information which has been afforded by the Salt Union itself. The manager of the Salt Union was asked before the Committee whether he thought this 3d. a ton would make any difference, and he said, one could see, with a smile on his face, that he did not think it would. Not only that, but he further said that a difference from Is. to 2s. 6d. had not affected it in the slightest degree. Then he said that the price of salt was not affected by outside considerations, but by the agreements between the pumpers or
  1188
  makers. I beg to tell my noble Friend that the figures I mentioned the other night were entirely accurate, and, indeed, I took them from the statements of his own witnesses. Adding them together the amount comes to the 13 per cent. exactly, which I mentioned the other night, and they were only supplemental to the figures which the noble Duke quoted. There is another fact which I will give upon the authority of the Salt Union themselves They have no monopoly, says my noble Friend. But they said they had bought up 40 companies, and that they pay £10,000 a year as what they call retainers to landowners to prevent them from letting pumping places to anybody else. They have thought it worth their while to do that. I think other people would be inclined to give a different meaning to the word "retainers" in this case. Therefore it is not their fault that they have not obtained a monopoly, if, as the noble Lord says, they do not possess it.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I beg to remind your Lordships that all the people in the district are equally interested in the prosperity of the salt trade, and they will do nothing to limit or proscribe its prosperity, which is so important to them, as well as to the Salt Union. I would observe that the royalties are so very small, amounting to only 3d. a ton, that no deduction can fairly be made from those amounts, and that the royalty owners have no control over the prices, which of course are raised at the will of the Salt Union. If this clause is carried, it would raise many new opponents in the field, who would have to be heard. I would also remind your Lordships that this point was not raised upon the previous discussion of the Bill, and I fear that if this Amendment is put in the fate of the Bill would naturally be very much imperilled from the course which would have to be pursued in the other House with regard to it.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I ask your Lordships to disagree with this Amendment. I had at one time a considerable interest at Northwich, but I am happy to say that I got rid of it rather more than 10 years ago, and am therefore quite free to speak upon this subject. I might, perhaps, have some delicacy as far as regards Messrs.

  1189
  Brunner, Mond, and Co., as they purchased first the salt works which I had on the left bank, and later on upon the right bank of the Weaver. But there are two facts which remove that feeling. First, Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co. are consenting parties and promoters of this Bill; and, secondly, that with the enormous profits they made last year they can well afford to pay compensation. Although they do very much less damage than other alkali works, still there is some damage to vegetation done by them. The whole of these Amendments of the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Salt Union are all of one nature—that is, gradually to reduce the compensation from the figures stated by the Parliamentary agents for the Salt Union. The amount of compensation they might have to pay would be £20,000 in the year, and I think this is a very small sum for them to pay out of the profits, which were stated in the papers which have been circulated at over £360,000 in the last year.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: That is the whole amount.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: But, my Lords, there will be a considerable alteration effected by these Amendments. The first one, in Clause 22, would reduce the sum from £20,000 to £15,000; and in this clause which we are now discussing the Amendment would reduce it to £10,000; while the next Amendment, putting the figure, instead of 3d., at 2d., would leave it at only £5,000. Now, I wish to assure the House, what I am sure the noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships already knows, that I have no hostility either to him or to the Salt Union; on the contrary, I think they both deserve the thanks of the country, for they have both improved the trade of Northwich very much by their good management, concentration of forces, and the measures they have taken for preventing waste. I may say, in my own case, that I found it impossible to prevent waste. I went to considerable expense to put up brine-meters, with the result only that I was enabled to see how much I was losing. I could not prevent their washing out the salt pans with brine; it was contended that the iron suffered from the fresh water, the real fact being that it was laziness on the part of the worker
  1190
  which prevented their taking fresh water from the Weaver close by. The noble Lord has told us that the Salt Union has prevented this, so they have; they have stopped one leak. I think my noble Friend has forgotten his Roman History. He seems to have forgotten the Roman Emperor who wished that all his subjects had but one neck, and he must not be surprised now that people are able to fix upon one body from whom compensation for these subsidences can be exacted. But the noble Lord need not be so alarmed at the prospect of having to pay £20,000. I have no doubt they will find mechanical appliances for supporting these houses, either on piles, as has been done in the case of gas receptacles, or that they will employ other remedies which may be presented to them. I have been long familiar with this district, and I know that the subsidences have increased very much, and I think your Lordships will not wonder at it when you see from the amount of the profits for the last year the enormous amount of salt which has been abstracted from this district.
  LORD THURLOW: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 38.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: The next Amendment on the Paper refers to the amount of toll that is to be raised. There are later Amendments relating to certain exceptions which have to be made from the compensation; but we cannot know what we have to provide for until it has been determined whether or not to except the Railway or Canal Companies. I think it is impossible to decide upon the amount of the rate until we know whether these different concerns, companies or otherwise, are to be excepted from the operation of the Bill. I therefore suggest that this Amendment should be postponed.
  LORD THURLOW: I think so. I entirely agree' with the noble Duke.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was going to ask why this figure is limited to 3d? If a brine pumper pumps away the property of another person, why is his liability to be limited to 3d. for every 1,000 gallons? I do not see why that limitation is proposed, and I should like to ask what is the reason for it.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: The reason is, it is calculated that that sum will be sufficient to compensate certain individuals for the injury which may be done to their property.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What does the amount come to at 3d.?
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: It amounts to £20,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN (The Earl of MORLEY): Does the noble Lord mean that the clause should be postponed until the end of the Bill?
  LORD THURLOW: Yes.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I should recommend the noble Duke to let the clause pass now. If necessary, it can be altered in Standing Committee; but I must say I do not see any reason for postponing it.
  LORD THURLOW: I should like to know whether this will preclude the clause being re-considered in the Grand Committee?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: No.
  LORD THURLOW: Then I am quite satisfied.
  Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 44.
  LORD THURLOW: Here, my Lords, I have another Amendment in the same direction, and with the view to meet a point which my noble Friends one after another have argued—that is to say, with the view to endeavouring to alleviate the hardships on this industry. It is to reduce the rate from 3d. to 2d.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has another Amendment upon the words "form part of."
  LORD THURLOW: If your Lordships will allow me to move that now I will do so. I think the words "form part of" are not so important as the insertion of the other words which are suggested here. It is simply to the effect that any interest from year to year on the fund is to accumulate and form part of the principal. I think there is no objection to that, and I presume it will be agreed to.
  Moved, in line 24, to leave out ("added to ") and insert ("form part of.")—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: This is only another mode of reducing it in an apparently
  1192
  innocent manner; but the effect is just the same as that of all the other Amendments—that is, to reduce the Compensation Fund.
  LORD THURLOW: No. I think the object is simply to make it more clear, and I believe it was originally intended it should read in that way. It was, however, held by those interested that it was quite clear, and that the interest might be allowed to be added to the Reserve Fund, instead of being counted in, so that the Reserve Fund should not exceed a certain sum. The noble Duke, I think, concurs in the Amendment.
  LORD MONK-BRETTON: There seems to be some mistake here. Is it not intended that the words "added to" should be "relieved" and that the words "form part of" should be inserted?
  LORD THURLOW: The object is to make it clear.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is only one criticism would make upon this. It is simply in the interests of grammar and good drafting. What is the use of putting in the words "form part of," because if one sum is added to another it does form part of it.
  LORD THURLOW: Then I will not press it, but I press the succeeding Amendment in line 26: "until the reserve fund with interest thereon shall accumulate."
  *LORD HENNIKER: I beg to ask the noble Lord opposite to explain why he introduces the word "interest" here, because I would point out that he already has that word in?
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is necessary because the interest would be added to the Reserve Fund.
  LORD THURLOW: This, I may say, is not my own invention. It has been suggested to us by a very competent draftsman. As I have said, it is no invention of my own, and I do not attach any value to it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 50.
  *LORD STALBRIDGE: My Lords, the amendment which I propose to make in this clause is one which is not at all antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, but, on the contrary, recognises that principle. It is one which I, on behalf of the Railway Companies, wish to make, because the Railway Companies desire to

  1193
  take advantage of this compensation which is to be paid, and I can see no possible reason why Railway Companies and Canal Companies should be excepted from the operation of this Bill. In the first place, it is exceptional legislation. I believe it is almost without precedent that there should be such an exception made as this. The reasons I gather for it are two: First of all, that the Railway Companies have made great profits from the carriage of the salt; and, secondly, that they are very well off, and that any damage which might accrue to them from the brine pumping would produce such a great effect, and would be so expensive to repair, that it would swallow up all the fund which is to be devoted to these poor freeholders and landowners who suffer damage now from subsidences. But I maintain that railway shareholders deserve as much justice at the hands of this House as any other class of people in this country, and there is no reason why, in this instance, they should not get it. Let me take these two reasons one by one. First of all, as to the great profits which have accrued to the Railway Companies, and particularly to the London and North Western. We are told that the Railway Companies, when they made their lines, were fully aware of the risks they ran, and that in spite of that knowledge, they made their railways. But this portion of the London North-Western was the old Grand Junction line. I am not going to give your Lordships a history of the old railway from the time it was originally made in 1837 down to the present, but your Lordships will remember that the first line was made from Liverpool to Manchester; then a little branch was made to Warrington; then it was carried on to Birmingham. It is true it passed by the salt district and through it, but I think it will be found that the salt works have derived more benefit from the railway, than the railway have derived from the salt works. I think that is a question which is at least open to argument. The rates charged for the carriage of salt by the Railway Companies are very low. They are mostly charged on short distances; they are called short distance rates, and the only long distances over which the salt is carried would be, say from Cheshire
  1194
  to the east coast—to Newcastle. Only one-third of that money goes into the pockets of the London and North Western Company, the rest goes into the pockets of other Railway Companies, who will naturally not get any compensation under this Bill. Then, again, there is another difficulty from the nature of the article carried. Your Lordships will easily understand that the salt waggons must be specially made. Salt is a dangerous commodity to carry in any waggon. If it gets into the axle boxes corrosion ensues, and the axles of salt waggons are well-known to be more liable to give way than the axles of waggons of any other description. The result is that the salt is carried in waggons specially constructed, which are the property of the Salt Companies. Then, secondly, it must be remembered that these waggons cannot be used for anything else. Salt cannot be transported in the same waggons as coal, of course; to carry black and white in that way would not do at all. The goods, as I have said, are carried very short distances, and at the lowest rates, so that altogether from the carriage of the salt, looking at the accidents, the damage which ensues from the fracture of waggon axles, and so on, I do not think that the Railway Companies have been very large gainers thereby. Then, as to the point of Railway Companies being very rich and not needing compensation, and as to their claiming large sums for damages which would swallow up the whole of this Compensation Fund, I do not think there is much in that, because it is obvious that subsidence causing-great damage would necessarily not come under the terms of this Bill at all, and it is only gradual subsidence, the subsidence of a viaduct or anything of that sort for which the Railway Company-could claim compensation. Now, the evidence which was given by the witnesses for the promoters of this Bill was very important. Mr. Wells, their engineer, and Mr. Ward, their manager, gave evidence upon this matter, to which I must call your Lordships' attention. It is very short. Mr. Wells, as I have said, is their own engineer, and he is asked this question—
  "Q. And you think that is a proper and right provision?—A. I would compensate: everybody if I could afford it.

  1195
  Q. And you would compensate Railway Companies?—A. If I could afford it.
  Q. Is that the only reason you can give for not compensating Railway Companies, that you cannot afford it?—A. That is the first reason.
  Q. Have you any other reason?—A. The only other reason is that they came there by their own act and can compensate themselves from their traffic."
  Mr. Wells, I think, cannot be very well aware of what Railway Companies can charge, but if we can charge an extra tariff we shall be glad to do it. Still, as I have said, the salt is carried at the lowest rates at which it can possibly be done in the same way as the company charges with regard to coal, Now, look at the evidence of Mr. Ward, the manager of the company, who has been thoroughly conversant with the trade for something over thirty years, I believe. I need not read the whole of the long questions and answers, and his was with reference to whether certain accidents would happen, and that it would be very hard to saddle accidents on the Compensation Fund. He says—
  "I do not think it was intended for a moment that such a loss should be put upon the Fund; it was only intended that the Railway Company should get compensation for actual injuiry done to their line.
  Q. Now, I want you to apply your mind to the other point—de you see any reason why other Companies should not be compensated for damage done in the same way as other owners are supposed to be?—A. No, I do not, I confess."
  That is their own manager's answer to the question put to him upon the subject.
  "Q. Do you see how you can give them compensation?—A. Yes, if the compenation is confined to the actual damage done to the property itself."
  Then Mr. Bolton, our lawyer, says, "That is all we claim," and that is all the Railway and Canal Companies could in equity claim, and all they could ask. I submit, my Lord, that this being such a peculiarly exceptional case, and the objections being more sentimental than actual, these companies ought not to be excluded, and I do hope your Lordships will see your way to support the Amendment which I move,—that is, the omission of Sub-section I in Clause 50. A noble Lord, who is much better able to deal with this subject than I am, will draw your attention to
  1196
  the two or three other sub-sections in the same clause, and I only wish I had committed the Amendment with regard to the omission of this sub-section to his charge, as I am sure he would have been able to give yon far more potent reasons for the exclusion of this section; but I venture to hope the reasons I have given will suffice, because, as I have said, there is no actual valid reason why Railway and Canal Companies should be excepted from the operation of this measure. I am bound to say I have heard none as yet. The only reason I have heard is in regard to the profits made by these Companies, and the amount derived by them for the carriage of salt, which I have already dealt with. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Amendment.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: Your Lordships will, I am sure, see, not without emotion, this quarrel between two brothers! As my noble relative has told your Lordships, the whole thing is entirely exceptional and peculiar, and there is no precedent for such a condition of things. I would remind your Lordships that the principle of this Bill is to prevent these bodies and companies who have derived, and who do derive, direct pecuniary benefit from their operations connected with the salt trade from being able to claim compensation. That is one of the main principles of the Bill. My brother further said that the London and North Western Railway has not derived very great benefit from the fact of their being large carriers of salt; but the Cheshire lines were made for, and maintained, exclusively by the salt trade. They were made to carry the salt; they are maintained by the revenue they derive from the conveyance of the salt; and also they are not charging their maximum rates, which they can do at any time, and therefore, they have the remedy, if they choose to exercise it, in their own hands. I may add that the Railway Companies I have alluded to, including the London and North Western, have derived a profit of £140,000 per annum through the salt trade. No doubt the annual wear and tear of these railways have not been very considerable, the amount having been only £7,000 during the last 15 years, But there is a scheme on foot to extract brine from a place near the great viaduct, near Winsford,

  1197
  which was alluded to the other day. That viaduct is a very big thing; it cost a great deal of money, and if anything happened to it, owing to the sinking of the land, the damage done to it would more than swamp the fund; it would amount to far more than anything to be derived from this Compensation Fund. Whether the subsidences are gradual or sudden I think the Compensation Fund would have to meet them in either case. I understand the promoters are of opinion that if this Amendment is carried the Bill will be practically valueless from the amount of compensation that may have to be paid. The 3d. is calculated upon the basis on the omission of these various bodies, and if they are admitted as having claims to compensation for damage, the 3d. will be nothing like enough; but I should imagine it would be difficult to fix a larger rate than 3d. a ton. Therefore, I believe the Bill would be made practically useless, and I hope the House will not consent to the Amendment proposed.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The argument we have just listened to would be a very good argument indeed for raising the figure above 3d., but what answer is it and what satisfaction is it to the Railway Companies? They are told that if they are compensated for the destruction of their property they will destroy the Compensation Fund. That is a contingency which I should imagine the Railway Companies would contemplate with very considerable equanimity. But supposing the very thing happens which the noble Duke tells us is going to happen. He tells us that there is a project on foot for pumping brine near a great viaduct, and that if that viaduct comes down the Compensation Fund will be destroyed. But what, on the other hand, is the compensation which will be paid to the Railway Company? The Railway Company, albeit it has had the great advantage of carrying this coarse article salt at low rates for a number of years in this district, may one fine morning lose its viaduct, over which not merely the salt goes but all its passengers and other traffic, and it will be expected to put up that viaduct again in the best way it can. What is the reason for it? Surely we are entitled to have some good reason shown why a
  1198
  Railway or a Canal Company should be treated in the same way as any other owner. Up to the present I do not think a scintilla of reason has been given for it, and unless I hear a much better reason than has been given up to the present time, I can only say that if a Division takes place I must suppor the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I thought I had given the reason. The reason is that they have derived considerable profit from the salt trade. As I have stated, the railways have derived an annual profit from it of £140,000.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But is that quite certain? Is it admitted by the Railway Company? Because, in the first place, this Railway Company was not made specially for the convenience of the salt traffic. If it was made for the salt traffic in the sense that railways have been constructed for other traffic, the argument might hold good.
  *THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: The Cheshire salt lines were made expressly for the salt traffic.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: My Lords' I think I can give the answer to the arguments against this clause. This Bill was intended to meet special cases of damage done to small proprietors, poor owners and householders who may suffer special damage. There is not a single Railway Company in Cheshire which to my knowledge during the last 30 years has seriously suffered, and therefore there is no grievance. With regard to Railway Companies, the necessity has not been proved. All these bodies are parties who derive benefit from the salt trade. The Weaver Navigation has been mentioned, but it derives a large revenue upon which they pay to the county, and in the same way the County Council receive so much from the Weaver-Navigation, which is money earnt by the carrying of the salt. All these bodies, therefore, are interested parties. The main traffic of the Cheshire lines is the carriage of salt. It is impossible to say that the salt is carried at a loss; it is carried at a profit. It is quite clear, as far as that goes, that the London and North Western Company is not so important a carrier as the Cheshire lines; but because the London and North Western do not derive a very profitable

  1199
  trade from it, that is no argument against others who do. This clause has been framed to meet the necessities of the case. There is no case whatever proved by the Railway Companies at the present time that they suffer any damage, and, therefore, there is every reason why they should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. That being so, I trust the House will support the clause as it stands for the reasons I have stated.
  *LORD DE TABLEY: It will, I think, have a very disastrous effect in the district if this Amendment is carried. All these local bodies are now quiet and acquiesce in their exclusion; but there can be no doubt that once you let in the railways they will ask to be let in too. In one respect also they ought to be put on the same footing as the railways, because the railways can claim compensation, as it is, when they own houses for the occupation of their employés. The local bodies ought, therefore, to be compensated in the same way, for they are in a worse position than the railways. I hope this Amendment will not be passed.
  *LORD STALBRIDGE: This is so important a question and so few noble Lords are now present that I would suggest whether it it advisable to carry on the discussion in a nearly empty House. I beg, therefore, to move that the House do now resume.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I beg to support that Motion.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Tuesday next.

JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [H.L.]—(No. 151.)
Read 3a(according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 183.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 154.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Thursday next a quarter past Ten o'clock.