HL Deb 20 May 1895 vol 33 cc1530-51
*THE EARL OF JERSEY

—in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the proviso to Subsection (2) of Clause 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, namely, Provided that no railway company shall make, nor shall the Court of the Commissioners sanction, any difference in the tolls, rates, or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of, home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services; —said, as their Lordships were aware, the meaning of this proviso had been the subject of litigation before the Railway Commissioners, who had decided that it had not been carried out in a reasonable manner by the London and South Western Railway Company. He would not attempt to argue as to the exact meaning which Parliament intended to convey by the words, "of the same or similar services." It must be said that Acts of Parliament sometimes insufficiently expressed the meaning of Parliament, perhaps because Parliament itself did not exactly know what it meant; but everyone would see that the proviso was not at least intended to allow railway companies to give preference in favour of foreign goods, and yet the Railway Commissioners found that this preference had been given by the London and South Western Railway Company. After making certain allowances for the difference in cost of working, the Commissioners decided that the charges in regard to foreign hops, hay, and fresh meat, were not fair compared with the charges for similar English goods. The rate for foreign hops, carried 76 miles, was 10s., and for English hops, carried only 45 miles, 15s. The charges for carrying meat for about the same distance was, for foreign meat, 12s. 6d.; and for English meat, 25s. 4d. Other items were dismissed by the Railway Commissioners on account of the very small nature of the home consignments. The railway company tried to justify the differences by two considerations with a foreign leaning. He did not think he could do better than read the judgments of the two Commissioners on that matter. These were the words of Mr. Justice Collins:— On the other hand the respondents in their answer unquestionably sought to justify the difference in charges by two considerations, which were vehemently repudiated by their counsel at the hearing, namely, that the charge of 6s. was an apportioned amount of a through rate entitling them to exact a smaller proportional charge in view of the longer distance traversed; and secondly, the charge was necessarily no higher in order to enable them to compete successfully with the ocean route, and all the ingenuity of Sir Richard Webster failed to convince me that the author of the answer did not rely largely on these contentions. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Cobham, also said that:— Mr. Balfour Brown was not far wrong when he said that the respondents' line of defence was an afterthought, and that they had a difficult task before them of justifying by one set of considerations a rate that had been governed by another. The ingenuity of the counsel suggested other reasons for these charges, which, however, did not convince the Commissioners of their justice. But what he (the Earl of Jersey) had to point out was, that the railway company defended this rate on the ground that it was a portion of a through rate from ports outside the United Kingdom. Sir Charles Scotter, on the part of the railway company, allowed that the shipping traffic to Southampton was carried on in competition with direct steamers to London from various ports, so that their Lordships would see that foreign produce did receive better treatment in order to attract it. How then was it likely that an English producer could be in a position to place his goods on the London market, in fair competition with foreign goods, if those foreign goods were to be carried through England and past his door at a much lower rate than his own? The railway company in this case gave to the foreigner the advantage of quicker trains and facilities at a less cost. Much had been said about the fact that the Southampton case was virtually a contest between two rival docks. It was to be regretted that the rivalry between the London and Southampton Docks was brought into the question, yet he wished to express the warm thanks which were due from English producers to the Committee of the London Docks for having given them the opportunity of proving the injustice of the charges which the railway company had been bringing on them. The cost of those inquiries was by no means light, owing to the constant habit of railway companies of appealing on small points. He had been told that this inquiry cost something like £2,000. No single trader could undertake so heavy an expenditure. It was absolutely prohibitive, and therefore, if it had not been for the Committee of the London Docks the question would not have been brought to a conclusion so early. After the decision of the Railway Commissioners he did not think it could be said that preference had not been given to foreign goods, or that the law had been tested and found efficient. On the contrary, the law had been found deficient for the purpose for which it had been passed, which was that at least no preference should be given to foreign goods. It was a pity, as everyone would allow, that our home producers did not pay a little more attention to the manner of collecting and packing their goods, and of conveying them to market. His noble Friend the Earl of Winchilsea, was trying to direct the attention of agriculturists to the importance of combining together for the transference of their goods to the railway stations. But while allowing that agriculturists should make the best use of all the means in their power, in order to get rid of some, at least, of the excuses for preferential rates advanced by the railway company, no one could justify as fair such charges as those which he had alluded to. How, he asked, could the charge of 5s. for the cartage of home goods and only 3s. 4d. for foreign goods be justified? He would now quote some charges which had not been proved in a Court of Law. He had been informed that in the case of the London Chatham and Dover Railway the charges for carrying eggs from Calais to London was 29s. 3d. The charge for the seagoing portion of the journey was 26s., which left only 3s. 3d. for the railway journey between Dover and London. English eggs, carried the same distance, were charged 22s. 7d. That showed a preference of 19s. 3d. in favour of foreign eggs. The rate for eggs from Canterbury, 66¼ miles from London, was 20s. 10d. Evidence had been given before the Royal Commission on Agriculture as to the feeling amongst agriculturists on the point; but he would quote the report of one of the Assistant Commissioners, Mr. Pringle:— But there were many complaints made against the preferential rate allowed on foreign produce upon English railways. These rates were considered to be unfair to the home grower, and the whole question was submitted as one requiring prompt and decisive treatment. It was stated that there was collusion between shipping and railway companies, and the suggestion was made that the shipping freights and the railway charges on goods consigned to English markets should be quoted separately and not as one. Were this done, the general belief was that our railway companies would be seen to carry foreign produce at lower rates per mile than those charged against the English farmer. Agriculturists felt very strongly they had not had, and were not having, fairplay meted out to them. No one, of course, wished to injure the railways—that would be a policy not only unjust but most suicidal; but, at the same time, it did seem very hard that great public companies should give preference to foreign goods as opposed to home produce. It might be argued that this was a fresh case and it was only just to wait a bit. The answer to that was that only fortuitous circumstances in the last case enabled the charges to be considered at all by the Railway Commissioners, and that to delay was to prolong the injustice. It was now clearly shown that one railway company at least had misunderstood the meaning of the proviso, and even now, though the Railway Commissioners had decided, in one sense, that these preferences ought not to be allowed, there was not a settlement of the question. It was only the old rates that had been condemned. No new rates had been placed in their stead, and when the time came for those new rates to be considered, further law costs might have to be incurred. It was time, he thought, to put an end to any misunderstanding in regard to the meaning of the proviso. If a Committee were appointed an opportunity would be afforded traders and agriculturists to come forward and state the treatment they received from various companies. It might be found that the impression of injustice was wrongly founded, and in that case the inquiry would serve a good purpose. But if, on the other hand, it was found that preferential rates were given in a great many cases and by several railway companies, surely it was only right that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering how to place home produce on the same footing as foreign, and to free home produce from the disadvantages which were now placed upon it. A Committee like that which he suggested would be able to hear all complaints and find out if they were well-founded; and, if they were well-founded, to propose that there should be such an alteration of the law as would enable the mind of Parliament, which he felt sure was also the mind of the country, to be carried out, and that was that as regarded the carrying of goods, whether they were English or foreign, there should be no difference, and certainly no difference in favour of the foreigner. He begged to propose his Motion.

LORD BELPER

said, he had had an opportunity of paying some attention to this question, both from the fact that he sat on the Railway Rates Committee in the Session for 1892, and that he had other means of studying the question of railway rates. He was sure their Lordships would sympathise with the object Lord Jersey had in view, namely, the finding of some relief for the unfortunate agriculturist in the severe competition which he had to meet on all hands, a competition which it appeared was equally difficult to meet, whatever branch of farming a man took up. But however great their sympathy with the English agriculturist might be, there were considerations perhaps of even greater importance which must be borne in mind before they came to a decision. He concluded their Lordships would hardly be prepared to accept a Motion, even for an inquiry by a Committee, except it were proved, by one or two instances, that when Parliament passed this proviso they were under some misapprehension, that they did not intend that the result of the proviso should be what it had turned out to be, as far as could be judged by the one case which had been tried. In the second place, if that were not so, they would require some information that during the last seven years there had been a change in public opinion, and that it was desirable there should be some change in the law. He was not surprised the noble Lord in bringing forward this Motion did not go into any very elaborate detail as to what the intentions of Parliament were when this proviso was passed seven years ago, but he thought if their Lordships studied Hansard they would find that Parliament did know what it was about, and that their intentions had been fairly carried out in the decision given. On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Marquess, who was then Prime Minister, in answer to Lord Jersey said— I do not mean to say that we forbid all preferential rates, because there is a certain kind of preferential rate that must be admitted, such a rate for example as is given in favour of a man who imports a great deal as against the man who imports very little, a preference generally admitted in all trades. Lord Stanley of Preston, who was in charge of the Bill, stated in Committee:— He thought it was now tacitly admitted by all bodies of traders, that persons dealing in large quantities and at regular intervals with the railway companies ought to be allowed certain advantages over those who did not deal in such large quantities or so regularly. Where a railway company had traffic to carry in large quantities, and at regular periods, and under convenient conditions for its reception and carriage, there was an element which ought fairly to be brought before the Commission, and which in the majority of cases might form good ground why a preferential rate should be allowed. It would have been difficult before any decision had been given for anyone to have expressed more clearly what was the general result of the law as they knew at present it had been. Lord Jersey, in quoting the decision which had just been given by the Railway Commissioners, said the Railway Commissioners had condemned the practice of the Railway Company in giving these low rates from Southampton; but he (Lord Belper) thought their Lordships who had read the case would know that on the main point the Railway Company was practically successful, and that those who brough the action, that was to say the Mansion House Committee, behind whom were London Dock Companies, were really unsuccessful on the particular point on which they laid most stress. But it was not only those in charge of the Bill who expressed an opinion as to what they thought was fair with regard to preferential rates. Lord Camperdown said:— That the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that the Railway Companies ought to be allowed to have a difference of rates where the quantities carried differed materially. Nobody disputed this point. It was plain that many of their Lordships, whatever might have been their view with regard to trying to do something to prevent competition from foreign traffic, were not prepared to go so far as to say that foreigners if they imported goods and carried them in large quantities, should not be allowed the same advantages as Englishmen, who carried goods from one station to another. It was true this special proviso was not in the Bill that was discussed in Committee; it was inserted in Grand Committee in the other House, and he believed at the instance of Mr. Chamberberlain. But whether that was so on not it was accepted by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who said:— The object was to secure equal treatment under equal circumstances. The Bill came back to the House of Lords with those words inserted, and Lord Jersey expressed himself satisfied wit the words in another part of the Bill, and withdrew the Amendment he had down to strike out the words inserted in Grand Committee. He did not think the other part of the Bill covered the ground in the way the noble Lord evidently thought it did. At all events, Lord Jersey asked for information, and Lord Onslow, in reply, said:— He thought it obvious that, whether the consignors were foreigners or home traders, that it would be manifestly unfair to impose the same rates upon both parties, whether they sent a large or small quantity of goods, or whether the goods were sent at regular or irregular intervals.'' It was evident there was no misconception as to what the object of the clause was. He put it to them whether it was desirable, after the very short experience they had had of the working of the clause, they should make an important alteration of the law. The whole railway system of charging had been built up on a principle which had allowed a lower rate being given in the case where traders were sending large quantities, and were sending them at regular intervals. That principle had been admitted not in this Bill only, but in every Act of Parliament which had fixed the maximum charges of railway companies. In the Committee which he had the honour of sitting at, it was specially laid down, and was advocated as strongly by traders as it was by the railway companies, that lower maximum charges should be given to train loads and truck loads than were given for similar goods when carried in smaller quantities, and he understood there were Acts of Parliament which actually laid it down that the maximum charges for goods carried from the docks should be materially lower than the same goods carried from the same place if they belonged to the ordinary trader. If that were the case, he doubted whether Parliament would be inclined, by means of a Committee, to inquire into a section of an Act of Parliament, to go into the whole system which had been deliberately authorised by Parliament for so many years. If that course were taken, it would entail far larger changes than the mere wording of one section of an Act. The noble Earl did not, however, contend for this. His object was to handicap the foreign importers as against the English producer.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY

Will the noble Earl quote any words of mine in which I have said or hinted such a thing?

LORD BELPER

said that he had no wish to attribute to the noble Earl opinions which he did not hold. His impression of the noble Earl's object was simply drawn from his speeches delivered when the Act of 1888 was before Parliament. At any rate, it was the contention of many of the noble Earl's supporters that, if possible, imported goods must not be allowed to enjoy all the advantages enjoyed by goods produced in this country. If that view was held by anybody, he would point out that it would not be satisfied by any alteration of this clause. The only effect of such alteration would be to compel the goods to be brought into the country some other way. No more instructive case could be cited than that just decided by the Railway Commissioners. Though nominally brought by the Mansion House Committee, the action was really brought by the London Docks Company; and the object was to divert traffic from Southampton to the London Docks. If the action had been entirely favourable to the applicants, the sole result would have been to ensure that the same goods would have come into the country, but by way of London direct, instead of by way of Southampton. The inevitable result of these proposals was to drive cargoes to the ports which were nearest to the large centres of population. Instead of being a protection to the English farmer against foreign agricultural products, they were really protection for certain dock companies against other dock companies and the railways. If there were any means of dealing with the unfortunate competition which the British agriculturist had to contend with, he was sure that the House would do anything in its power to help. But he hoped that the House would do nothing which might lead the agriculturalist to expect appreciable advantages fram an Inquiry which was riot likely to afford any. He hoped that the Government would not grant the Committee for which the noble Earl had asked.

*LORD PLAYFAIR

said he had listened to the noble earl who moved for this committee with great attention, because he was anxious to find what he expected the Committee to inquire into. It could scarcely be expected that the Committee should inquire into the legal operation of a proviso to a subsection of an Act of Parliament when a deliberate judgment had lately been given as to the interpretation of that proviso. He supposed that the noble Earl thought the proviso was practically for the purpose of giving equal rates to foreign and British goods going along the railways. That was the impression left by the noble Earl's speeches in 1888, and it was the obvious inference from the fact that when the Amendments to the Bill came from the other House the noble Earl moved to omit the words "in respect of the same or similar services." In 1888 the House discussed this matter in the fullest manner possible. No one contested the principle underlying the Act of 1854, as well as that of 1888, that, all conditions being similar, foreign goods should not have preferential rates as against British goods. But it was quite a different thing, as the Marquis of Salisbury (then at the head of the Government) said on March 13th 1888— that under no circumstances shall one set of merchandise have preferential treatment over another because one set is foreign merchandise and another British. There were excuses advanced by the railway companies to the Commissioners in the case to which the noble Earl had referred. They were—that the foreign goods came over in bulk and were regular in delivery, and that they were so well packed that they could be handled with ease, and that they could therefore be carried with more profit at a low rate than the goods offered at stations along the line, in small and separate quantities by producers who were not in combination. In the recent trial, "The Mansion-house Traffic Association v. the London and South-Western Railway," the contention actually was made that the proviso excluded all such excuses, and meant that foreign and British rates must always be equal. In giving judgment upon this case Mr. Justice Collins said:— If this were the real interpretation of the proviso it would involve the most momentous consequences. But I need not enlarge upon the consequences, which are certainly startling. The question is, did the Legislature in the year 1888, by a proviso to a subsection of a Railway and Canal Traffic Act, introduce such a revolution? Nothing short of the clearest language could persuade me that the Legislature ever had any such intention, and I am of opinion that full effect can be given to the proviso without adopting the contention of the applicants. The learned Judge went on to say:— I think the object of the section was to level differences, not to create arbitrary inequalities between the treatment of the home and foreign merchandise. To his lay mind the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins was a very able one, and went into all the conditions of the case. It was followed by clear and decisive opinions from the other Commissioners. Viscount Cobham pointed out very clearly what effect would surely follow if the contrary interpretation were true. He said:— The policy of the Legislature, as interpreted by the Railway Commission since its first institution, had been to multiply routes for the access of merchandise to our great centres rather than to restrict them, but if the respondents elected, under pressure, to give up their Southampton Dock traffic one important route for the supply of food stuffs, absolutely indispensable to the people of this country, would be closed. Consequences such as these must be regarded as of farreaching importance so far as they involve protection to any class or interest; they constitute a reversal of a long-established national policy. I cannot persuade myself that so momentous a decision would be embodied in a proviso of apparently limited application and in language that admits of doubt. After these judgments, which laid down authoritatively the meaning of the proviso, unless it was reversed on appeal, there was no uncertainty as to the operation of the law. What then, did the noble Earl propose that his Select Committee should inquire into? Was it to be a fishing or inquisitorial Inquiry, in different districts, as to whether railway companies were disobeying the law by the rates which they were charging? And was that method to be substituted for the practice of taking cases to the Court of Railway Commissioners, which Parliament had appointed as adequate to deal with these questions? He agreed with the noble Earl that there might be many cases where unfair preferential rates had been charged, and where those rates had not been brought before the Commission because the farmers were too poor. That was the only work that he saw the Committee could do, but would that accord with the dignity of their Lordships' House? Lord Stanley of Preston, in 1888, pointed out this danger. He said:— ''He hoped that cases of inequalities of rates would not be discussed upon the Floor of this House. Such cases depended upon questions of facts which could not be investigated in that House, but which would rightly come before the Railway Commissioners, the machinery of whose court it was proposed by this Bill to improve. The Government could not favour the formation of a Select Committee which could only have this outcome. There was no uncertainty as to the meaning of the proviso now, and there was no doubt of the efficacy of the undue preference clause when it was put into operation. In the very case which he had quoted, the Commissioners ordered that lower rates should be put on hay, hops, and meat, the produce of the British farmer. Frequent cases of relief had been given in undue differential rates, independently of the merchandise being British or foreign. No doubt there were instances, and probably many instances, of unwise or unfair differential rates, and the Act might be put into operation to correct them. Though the Government did not see the need of a Select Committee, they recognised that this was not a Party question, and they thought it should be determined by the general opinion in their Lordships' House. They all sympathised with the feelings of British farmers who saw heavily-laden trains of foreign produce flying past their farms, carried at rates perhaps less than one-half of those charged for their own produce when they send it to the market. A Select Committee might be useful if it could show the British farmers how by combination, regularity of delivery of large quantities at a time, and good packing, it would pay the railway companies to carry British goods at equal rates to those charged for foreign produce coming in bulk. The farmers in the United States had to a considerable extent solved this difficult question of differential rates. By admirable combination in common dairies, in common slaughterhouses, in grain elevators for the collection, sorting, and handling of grain, much economy in the cost of traffic had been attained. In time, our farmers might benefit by such combinations. A Committee making inquiries into the nature and application of such economies might doubtless be useful. But that was not the sort of Committee indicated by his noble Friend opposite. It would be a pity, however, where all their sympathies were on the same side, that the acceptance or rejection of a Committee should be the subject of a Party vote. He had risen early in the Debate in the hope that the general sense of the House might be expressed in the discussion.

*LORD BALFOUR

wished to say a few words with reference to some of the points which had been raised. No one could deny the immense importance and width of some of the issues which had been raised by the noble Lords who preceded him; but he did not think it was quite a convenient course to Debate the very large question of preferential rates between the home and foreign grower on a notice of this kind. It seemed to him that the issue presented by the notice was a much narrower one. He cordially reciprocated the expressions of sympathy as to the feelings which many of our agriculturists must entertain on this subject. He could assure the noble Lord that when he said that in some way or other the agriculturists had not received fair play, he spoke to an especially sympathetic audience. It was very difficult for anyone to get rid of the prejudice which was raised by an appeal of that kind. Instances had been given which showed that the agriculturists of this country had not had fair play in regard to their competition with foreign produce. But that was not the question before the House. It was a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of a particular proviso of a Sub-section in the Act of 1888. The point which he wished to emphasise in regard to this matter was, that there had only been one case under that proviso. This case had only recently been decided by the Court of First Instance. Whether or not there was to be an appeal from the decision of the legal member of that tribunal, the time at least for giving notice of appeal had not expired; and, therefore, it seemed to him that it would be extremely unwise if the House should grant the request for a Committee. The noble Lord said that the cost of going to the Railway Commission was very great. Unfortunately it was; but he thought that there was another procedure under the Act which was too little known, and which, at any rate in some of those cases, might be brought more into operation. He referred to the procedure under Clause 31 of the Act known as the "Conciliation Clause." It had been a procedure which had commended itself to those who had used it, and it was certainly worthy of attention. Apart from those considerations, however, he would go further and say that so far as he had been able to gather what was the intention of the Legislature, what was the fair spirit of the Act, he ventured to put before the House the view that the Railway Commissioners in their decision had given effect to the intentions of the proviso. The real effect of the proviso was that there was to be no preference for any class of goods on account of their origin; any preference which could be justified was to be justified according to the circumstances of the traffic. No notice was to be taken of the source from which the particular goods in question came. The noble Lord gave an instance of difference of rate in the case of some eggs which came from the continent to this country. According to the facts and figures quoted by the noble Lord, he thought that there was strong presumptive evidence in that case to show that there was undue preference, provided that the figures on examination proved to be correct. He was bound to say, however, that from his own experience with regard to tables of figures which were brought before him and his colleagues at a certain inquiry, there was throughout the length of that inquiry scarcely a single table put in on behalf of the Railway Companies or the traders, which was not largely discounted after it had been examined by the representatives of the opposite interest. He doubted, therefore, where the average Member of their Lordships' House, with little experience in this matter, would be able to understand what difference might legitimately be made as between one package of goods and another of the same kind in respect of the quantity and volume of the traffic, the system on which it was packed, and the consequent difficulty or ease of handling it. He hoped that the request for the Select Committee would not be pressed. Whether the larger and more important inquiry should be taken or not was a question which their Lordships could not discuss until they saw the terms of reference. He doubted, however, whether a Committee of the House would be the best tribunal even for that question. He should have thought that the facilities at the command of a Government Department like the Board of Trade, could have been employed to put together information got from foreign countries by our agents rather than by bringing witnesses from those countries here to give evidence.

LORD PLAYFAIR

I did not propose a Select Committee, but I could have understood a Select Committee being appointed for such a purpose.

*LORD BALFOUR

said, he gathered more than that from the suggestion of the noble Lord; but he accepted the explanation. Even, however, if they were going to collect that information, it could be better done through the agency of a Department than by a Select Committee. He should prefer, however, not to discuss a hypothetical question. He would rather wait to see whether the suggestion was adopted, and whether the terms of reference were put on the paper. On the wide and large question of how we were to treat goods which come into this country, it seemed to him that the Railway Commissioners had correctly apprehended what was the intention of Parliament. The noble Lord quoted some sentences from the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins; but there was a passage in a judgment of one of the lay Commissioners on the merits of the question which seemed to him to set forth the correct principles which ought to be laid down. The words would be found in the judgment of Sir Frederick Peel:— The proviso seems to me to require, in reference to home and foreign articles that compete with each other in the market, that, in respect of the same or similar services there shall not only he no difference of rates involving an undue or unreasonable preference, but no difference of any kind. It means, I think, that given the same or similar services, considerations which in other cases might justify an inequality of rate are here not to be regarded. That he understood to be the wish of Parliament; and the only safe ground their Lordships could take up was that on which the Court avowedly proceeded, and which was declared by the judgment of the Commissioners. In other words, that they were not to mind either the interests of the consumer or producer as interests of the consumer or producer, and they were not to take notice of the origin of the goods, whether they were home or foreign, but were to treat all alike, given the similarity of services in both cases. If the noble Lord could suggest that there was any ground for saying that the Court had misinterpreted the intention of Parliament, then, in his opinion, he would not have much difficulty in getting his Committee. The noble Lord had, however, failed to make out his case on that point, and consequently he could not support his Motion.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM

still thought the Motion of his noble Friend timely and opportune. The speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Belper) showed that he had not appreciated the speech addressed to the House by his noble Friend, because the object of the Motion was not to induce their Lordships' House to take any steps which would place the foreigner in a position of inferiority to the home producer. What his noble Friend contended for was, that the proviso which was placed in the Act, and which was originally introduced by his noble Friend himself, had failed, even when legally interpreted and explained. The Committee proposed was not to try to reverse the decision lately pronounced by the Railway Commissioners; but would have for its object to ascertain whether agriculturists were right in supposing that all over the country there were thousands of rates in which the express intention of Parliament was being systematically evaded, even when viewed by the light of the decision lately arrived at by the Commissioners. He had addressed about 200 meetings during the past two years, and he could safely assert that at no meeting had any subject been received with so much enthusiasm as the reform of railway rates. There was an urgent demand by the agriculturists and traders of this country for a review of the matter, in order to see whether the declared intention of Parliament to place foreign and English goods on precisely the same footing was being honestly and fairly carried out. The Motion was strictly limited in its application. It did not propose to take the House over the subject of the increased rates imposed in 1893, or to go into other matters connected with rates generally; but simply to inquire into the proviso, and to see whether that proviso had been deprived of its efficacy by the words which it had been necessary to accept in the Lower House. That brought them to the question of what was meant by "similar" services. Unquestionably, by the Act of 1888, Parliament intended to do away with preferential rates in favour of foreigners; and the whole question now was whether it had done so, or not. The contention of himself and his Friends was that it had not. The Railway Companies, on the other hand, contended that it had. Such an inquiry as his noble Friend proposed would at least set the matter at rest. If he and his Friends were wrong, it would be well that they should be informed of it; if they were right, then, undoubtedly, further legislation ought to follow. His noble Friend was loyally prepared to accept the law as laid down by the Railway Commissioners, and only desired to inquire into the thousands of rates which he had indicated, and which, in individual cases, could not be brought before the Commissioners on account of the expense involved. But it had been contended that, in view of the decision so lately pronounced in the Southampton case, to which reference had been made, the Motion of the noble Earl was not well timed. Such, in fact, was the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Playfair), and of his noble Friend below him (Lord Balfour of Burleigh). He could have understood the objection if his noble Friend had proposed to review that decision, but, as a matter of fact, he accepted it, and even made it the basis for the proposed inquiry. The railway companies might with more reason, he thought, put in a plea for delay on other grounds, and then he would be prepared to make large admissions. They might contend, for example, that one case only had been tried; and that in that one case, admittedly the worst case which the traders could select, the decision of the Commissioners had not, except as it affected three articles, been unfavourable to the company. They might also argue that, although the rates in question were such as to show overwhelming prima facie evidence of preference to foreign goods, the Company had been able to justify many of them, on the ground that foreign produce was delivered so well packed, so regularly, and in such large quantities, as to make it more profitable to carry than English produce, even at three times the rate. He was willing to make the Companies a present of these admissions, which justice demanded should be made, but still he was convinced that, even in the case under review, enough remained behind amply to justify the Motion of his noble Friend. Not only was the defendant Company actually convicted of preferential treatment in the case of three of the articles complained of, namely, hops, hay, and meat, but a whole flood of light was thrown upon a question which contained the kernel of the whole controversy, and that was, what are the grounds on which railway companies really act when they charge three times as much for conveying English produce as they do for foreign? Now it was proved that the London and South Western Railway in their preliminary answer to the charges preferred by the Mansion House Association had relied on two arguments—the one illegal, the other irrelevant. One was that the rates charged were part of a through rate; the other was that they were necessary in order to enable the Railway Company to compete with the sea-borne carriage to London. Both those arguments were dropped like red hot coals by Sir Richard Webster as soon as he opened the case for the Railway Company. Still, Mr. Justice Collins stated that all the ingenuity of Sir Richard Webster had failed to convince him that the Railway Company were not really relying on that argument when they framed their reply. That was the point. Could any one doubt that the real argument present to the minds of the Railway Company not only when they framed their reply, but when they imposed the rates originally, was the very argument that Parliament had said that they must not bring forward—that they granted those rates in fact entirely because they were part of a through rate, and were necessary in order to enable the Company to compete with sea-borne carriage? This brought the House to a consideration of the proper use of the word "similar." He quite agreed that foreigners, if they sent their goods better packed and in better bulk, ought not to be placed in a worse position than Englishmen, and he would say at once that he and his Friends would be satisfied if, for similar services, they could get similar rates. There could be no question that a great part of the discrepancy in the rates that they smarted under was really brought about by the fact that they had not learnt the great lesson of combination by sending their goods to centres where they could be properly packed and properly consigned to the Railway Companies. He challenged any representative of the Railway Companies in that House who might follow him in that debate, to say whether, if an association or society could deliver agricultural produce in regular quantities, properly packed, and at regular times, whether they would grant the same rates as they now granted to foreigners for the same commodities. If the Railway Companies would not do that, then, behind their refusal to do so, lay the very thing they wanted to get at. If, on the other hand, they would do so, the sooner that was known the better for the Companies, and for the home producers and traders. It did not, however, do for the Railway Companies to lay too great a stress on the word "similar." He would give only one illustration of his meaning. Till lately, the foreign rate for the conveyance of meat from Liverpool was 25s., the English rate being 50s. This discrepancy was so glaring that the Railway Companies said— We will take your meat at 25s. if you will send it in similar quantities—namely, 20 tons at a time. These figures were very significant. Twenty tons were not a trainload, but were more than a truckload. Why was that figure selected? Because it was just above the highest figure to which the Company knew that the English producer could attain. The home producer could thus be relegated to the higher rate of 50s., because he failed to comply with this absurd and impossible condition, while the Company could still plead that by making the offer, it had technically complied with the letter of the proviso. He contended that that was not fair and honest treatment on the part of the railway company, and that it was not carrying out the spirit of that legislation which was intended to place English producers on the same terms as foreigners. Provided that a full truck were consigned, it could make no difference to a railway company whether one truck or five trucks were consigned at one time; certainly none which would justify it in charging double the rate per ton in the one case which it charged in the other. As a matter of fact it was proved in the Southampton case that even the conditions as to "full truck loads" were frequently relaxed in favour of foreign produce. The condition of agriculture at the present moment did not admit of delay. There was a great tide of indignation rising in the country in consequence of the belief that the foreign producer was treated on a different basis from the English producer by the railway companies; and although there might be many deductions to be made on behalf of the company, yet when all deductions were made there was a large margin of complaint which justified the Motion of his noble Friend. If the railway companies were ordinary traders the House would not venture to interfere from a Parliamentary point of view with their right to charge what rates they pleased; but the railway companies were a monopoly—a monopoly which was granted in the faith that, being allowed to take the land compulsorily, they were to be the cheap carriers of agricultural produce to the market. On that account alone he thought they were entitled to protest, against that form of protection which, after all, was the most monstrous form of all, the protection of the foreign producer against the home producer. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accede to the Motion of his noble Friend.

*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I sympathise most entirely with the feelings that have actuated both my noble Friends behind me. There is no grievance which the British farmer feels so keenly as that under which he believes he suffers—namely, that there are preference rates between foreign and native produce; and I entirely agree with my noble Friends that it is the duty of Parliament to watch carefully the operation of the law, and if the operation of the law is not satisfactory that it is the duty of Parliament to propose measures for its amendment. But I confess that I am a little perplexed as to the subject matter of the Committee for which my noble Friend proposes to move. He proposes to ask us to enquire into the operation of a particular proviso. Now, the operation of a proviso means its legal operation. Have or have not the provisions which Parliament has passed in order to impose certain duties upon railway companies been carried out or not as Parliament desired? That can only be ascertained by knowing the results of the appeals to the Courts of Law. You may say that Courts of Law are expensive. It is a painful truth, but you cannot get out of the use of them. You may have Select Committees, and you may have Acts of Parliament founded on the reports of Select Committees, and you may repeat the process again and again, but the only thing that can be done is to lay down something that the Courts of Law shall enforce. To that point you must always come in the end. What has happened in the Courts of Law? Have they failed to enforce the intentions of Parliament? Have they discovered that the intentions of Parliament were expressed in language which does not represent the views which we really entertain? It seems to me that on this point we are in ignorance. It has been said that only one case has been heard, but that very much exaggerates the matter. Only half a case has been heard; it is still open to appeal, and I am told that there will be an appeal. It is quite possible, therefore, that the result of the appeal may be something totally different to that which appears in the judgment that is now before the House. The law has not yet definitely spoken. We do not yet know precisely what interpretation the Courts of Law will put upon the language which we have placed in the Act. I am very anxious for the success of the cause my noble Friends have in hand, and am desirous that it shall have every support from Parliament and public opinion; but I think they would rather hinder than promote success if they insist on beginning an inquiry before there is anything to inquire about. My noble Friend behind me referred a good deal to the wishes and the intentions of the Railway Companies. No doubt the Railway Companies will try to get all the advantages they can, and probably the advantages they desire will not be consistent with those interests of agriculture which Parliament is bound to protect. But we cannot operate on the intentions of the companies; we can only operate on the law. We have to decide what the law is to be, and it seems to be premature to inquire whether the law we have laid down is sufficient or not until we have heard what the Judges determine to be the operation and the effect of that legislation. I would suggest to my noble Friend that the best course to pursue under these circumstances will be to adjourn the Debate until the appeal to which reference has been made has been decided.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)

I wish to express my general concurrence in what the noble Marquess has just said. I entirely agree with him as to the immense importance of the question itself, and the absolute duty of Parliament to take every possible step to see that our agriculturists have fair play in this matter. The noble Marquess will doubtless remember the discussions in Parliament on this subject, and he will recognise that the question is one of extreme difficulty. Notwithstanding the intentions of Parliament, it is always found to be an exceedingly difficult thing to draw up an Act which will exactly carry out the wishes which Parliament may have. I need not repeat what the noble Marquess has said, because his arguments are unanswerable, as to the fact that the moment has not arrived for making an examination into the matter. As the noble Marquess has shown, it is extremely undesirable that we should at this moment enter upon such an inquiry. It would rather prejudice the question than promote it. I merely wish to say, on the part of the Government, that we are impressed with the importance of the question and with the fact that it is the duty of Parliament to take every means to see there is fair play between the home and the foreign producer, because it cannot be, on any ground, fair or just that preferential rates should be given to any class of producers, and much less that we should select our own producer at home as the victim of that preference against themselves. Surely no one can dispute that proposition. The only question now is, as to the best way of carrying our wishes into effect; and I join with the noble Marquess in asking the noble Earl not to persevere with his Motion at the present moment.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY

said, that he would agree to the suggestion to adjourn the question for the present.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he hoped it would be understood that, while he sympathised with the object of the noble Earl, he reserved to himself the right to discuss what was the particular thing to be done when the Debate was again brought forward.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY

said, he must thank the Earl of Winchilsea for his admirable speech, and thought it would be regarded as extremely satisfactory by agriculturists throughout the country.

Debate adjourned.